NewHaiku

:lol: Good point. Then again, maybe standing in the lunch line helps me identify with those people. It is a pretty long line.

I don't, but I really should. I'll often come up with an idea and say: "Whoa, this could possibly solve world hunger and eliminate 99% of the suffering in the world." But then some girl will come up next to me in the lunch line, forcing me to use my higher reasoning abilities to control my nether regions. Then I forget. But. Yeah. I should do that.

Hey! That's not a riddle. More like a contradiction. If there's no third error, then there is a third error.

I'm a guy. No, I'm not * for making a joke about Andy Milonakis' nads. No, I don't really care if you think I am. Alright then, back on topic. Alright. I'll start it back up. Did you know the Andy Milonakis show has 5 writers? Seriously, take a look at the credits.

I'm a guy. No, I'm not gay for making a joke about Andy Milonakis' nads. No, I don't really care if you think I am.

And there's no reason why that can't be the case. Objective morality doesn't exist, whether or not you believe in a god. This is an argument I've used a few times before. Tell me if you see any holes in it. Assume for the moment a god exists, and that this god gives humans moral rules to act on. Where do these moral rules come from, and why would a god give them to us? If you believe that God created everything, then morality cannot exist seperatly of God- God has to have created morality. And unless God decided to make set of completely ambiguous rules, morality exists for a practical purpose. This means that morality is not some objective principle of the universe, but rather a set of practical rules. I believe that morality is a set of practical rules, only that they were devised by humans and not a god. According to the theory of evolution, the original ape-men were not a combination of apes and men, but rather a precursor to both. Modern apes and modern men are both superior to them. And I don't understand what you mean by "missing links." What do you believe the skeletons of Australopithecines and Homo Erectus are if not mammals between "ape-men" and modern humans? As is completely observable from written history, advancements in technology increase exponentially rather than multiplicivly. It took thousands of years to go from firemaking to basic farming societies. It took only 50 years to go from the first airplane to the first space expedition. My computer is threatening to freeze, so I'll stop here and make sure I don't lose this. Because that would really suck. 8) EDIT: I'm not sure how the phrase "alternative living Erectus" came in there. I didn't type it. Maybe it's the work of God...

I would assume that it was created by humans, because humans are known, "proven" creators of houses. When I see a human, I don't assume that human is created by a god, because gods aren't known or proven creators of humans. For example, you are the only human on the Earth at a particular time, and have no knowledge of other humans. You see a house. How would you assume it got there? Chances are you wouldn't assume that it was either naturally constructed or constructed by another human/supernatural force. In a complete void, we shouldn't assume that humans were naturally created or created by a supernatural being. However, we aren't in a complete void. We have enough evidence to create scientific theories that explain a way in which humans could have been created naturally. Yet the evidence for the existance of a god remains the same as it was 4000 years ago - simple speculation. Well, the theory of evolution, which I'm sure you're familiar with, details how humans went from part of the ecosystem to above it. Anthropolic evidence makes it fairly clear that humans were once part of the ecosystem, and then created tools that upset the balance of nature. /threadjack The forum is really, really slow right now. /threadjack

1. I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "personality" is. Could you explain? 2. Your possible answers basically agree with my views. However, I don't see any logical reason why personality can't be meaningless. 3. I disagree with your wording: "if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning." It seems to imply that you want personality to have meaning. What we want the world to be has no bearing on what the world actually is. So, basically, my question is: What specifically leads you to believe that personality (and life in general) has meaning?

To the extent that f2p powergamers exist, I don't think they'd mind much. P2p powergamers would sue.

But at least he has a GINORMOUS PACKAGE. That's right. Andy Milonakis doesn't need no puberty. Andy Milonakis gots the goods.

The link that was posted earlier in the thread explained that he has some kind of growth hormone disorder. So that would explain it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 71_pf.html Unless you can prove to me he's married, I'm sticking to this. *apologizes for misleading forum* Just something I heard somewhere, I'm not surprised it isn't true. I'd prefer not to think about it, in any case.

*barges into thread* I think that many atheists/agnostics (including me) would argue that there's nothing about a human that's fundamentally different from a plant or atom. I know you didn't really get to finish your argument, so I'll ask you: what makes you believe that a human isn't simply a collection of atoms?

Apparently, he is also married and has two kids. I wonder what it would be like to be Andy Milonakis' kid? Actually. No, I don't. Nevermind.

does anyone else wonder what exactly about the question "what's your favorite skill?" provokes a laugh? And I like woodcutting, because I'm lazy and don't like to click a lot.