No, but it sounds like it might be hilarious. What is it?
Haha, I like that.
So, does weak atheism = agnostic atheism and strong atheism = gnostic atheism? You say they have similarities, but as you explained, I'm unclear as to the differences (if any). :0 And since I'm not participating in that debate, I'm really lazy to read the whole thing... :p although the site itself seems so damn awesome. hahah
But if WA does equal Ag. A, then I guess I'd be classified as a "weak atheist," with my reasoning and everything being as it was on the last thread on Atheism, of course
Reading it now, and it's actually at least mildly entertaining. This made me lol a little bit:
"[Cool Carl Sagan quote] Cool, a Carl Sagan quote."
The ‘miracle sandwich’ thing is amusing but flawed. There is an obvious way to prove the sandwich – pay the $50,000.
Here's an interesting thought, which compels me to go look it up –
The problem with relying on empirical evidence is that even God has said *he wouldn't give any to prove his own existence (he requires faith). But God has also said that *he would confirm one’s faith if they showed it. *(both common theological themes from the dawn of human history)
You're boring.
Hehehe - it's like you waited five months just to get the last word on him =)
Damn it, had no idea this was necromanced. Thought I'd just missed an excellent thread.
Actually, the definition of Amoral is not giving a shit - more or less.
Poor bambie!
Nice job on creating a second account cysid.
First off all... Damn my walls of text. haha
Yah, the sandwich thing also fails to account for the fact that people are primed to believe in religion, and not on some random dude with an expensive sandwich. The guy in the anecdote wants to say that people believe religion because it's a potential means for protection or help, that people go to religion, not because they truly believe, but because they think there's a minor chance that they will gain something. This is certainly true for some, but can't be applied to all.
Mithex, Bo made a good point. haha If I say I know a guy who can jump ten feet high, you ask for proof, and all I do is say "I he's my friend, and I've seen him do it," well then it's not proof, is it? Same applies to the saints - and if you're talking about the Medieval philosophers like St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, Descartes, and all those other guys, then I'm afraid to say that they've all failed in proving the existence of God. You can give me any and each of their arguments, and I'd have no trouble telling you why each respective proof fails... so, it's not about "believing" the saints. Rather, it's about properly questioning them, just as you'd question the dude with sandwich or any evolutionist, to reach a reasoned conclusion. Doesn't matter who says it, what matters is what's being said.
As for evolution, I gotta say I believe it. haha I'm interested in what types of claims that documentary makes, because I find that there's strong evidence for evolution in the history of mankind and due to the fact that we have an opportunity to witness it every day. The DNA technology used to find criminals and for paternity is the same technology used in genealogical studies of man's perceived ancestors. Furthermore, bacteria and insects are constant evolving - that's why exterminator companies frequently need to change the composition of their chemicals, because the insects that are immune will survive and multiply, and after a month or so (don't remember the exact timeframe) they're not killing anything. Same reason it's bad to take a bunch of antibiotics, eventually they all stop working, because that badass .01% of bacteria that's immune to the chem survives, multiplies, and boom! Fresh population of evolved bacteria. These examples demonstrate the principles of evolution, whereas studies in physical anthropology will more clearly exhibit all (or most) of the factors involved in man's derivation from the first proto-mammal to the Homo sapien sapien species we are today.
And finally, to address BZ on faith, the meaningfulness of time, and all that. You'd run into the same problem with God not proving his existence as anyone else, because "God" didn't say it, some guy said that God said it, which is totally different. It's kinda funny 'cause you'd first have to have faith in the guy telling you that you must have faith in a god. I mentioned before something about faith being the only thing we blindly accept for the simple sake of blindly accepting something else - this is kind of what I was talking about. It'd be difficult, if not impossible, to test the idea of faith, because in order to have it, you must already believe. And if you already believe, then any time something good happens, you'll attibute it to God's will (strengthening your faith), and when something bad happens, faith is telling yourself to keep believing. If you don't have faith, well, obviously you can't test it. So if you have it, you have it, and if you don't, you don't.
As for the rest, which is all opinion, life is only meaningful if you give it meaning. If this is the only life you'll ever live, and once you die all there will be left is a memory, until that too dies... then I find it more of a reason to live this life the best I can. It's a much better reason to find happiness, I think, because I'm not expecting anything beyond what I know I have. The very fact that my life is limited, is what makes it so valuable. My time, my effort, my happiness - I don't have forever. Some people would say that it will all be meaningless in the end, but I think that's a kinda selfish thought, for one, and a simple misunderstanding. I recognize that the things I do in my life can and will affect others', so I live conscious of that fact, and as my time to die draw near, I can say it wasn't wasted, because I was happy and I had my part in making others happy. Once I'm gone, the very concept of "meaningfulness" will be irrelevant. Mother Teresa, Hitler, and I will be in the same state of nothingness (from our own perspectives, or lack thereof), so all the meaning our lives have are the ones we choose to give them while we're alive, and our legacy will continue to affect others after we die. Keeping that in mind, I wouldn't say that a godless life is meaningless in any way. haha
With that said, part of letting people be happy is letting them believe what makes them happy. haha So, if religion or atheism makes someone happy, so long as they're not being dicks about it, haha, I'm content with people living however they want. haha
Why? Isn't seperation of church and state one of the basic things in the Constitution?
If you mean on a societal level, then I'd have to disagree with you there as well. Let people believe what they want to believe, it doesn't affect anyone else either way.
Have you ever heard of John D. Rockefeller?
I submit that is actually easier to get religious types to do evil than atheists. Just look at the holocaust. Adolph Hitler claimed that his movement was not only for the benefit of Christians, but a Christian cause:
Have you got any evidence for suggesting atheists are more likely to be greedy? Bill Gates has given over $28 billion to charity. Warren Buffett (not a corporate executive but big in the business world nonetheless) donated over $30 billion dollars to charity (around 85% of his wealth if I remember correctly).
This doesn't make all atheist businessmen philanthrophists, I'm only giving examples as evidence against your belief that atheist businessmen are greedy.
Regardless of whether you have evidence or not, I'm still genuinely interested to hear why you believe atheists would be more greedy than religious people. Purely out of curiousity, I'm not trying to be hostile.
Well, look at me. I believe in God (Kind of) and I've been accurately described on multiple occasions as a "cynical asshole incapable of showing empathy."
I could just as easily say religious people are less moral because they believe gods/a god will punish them for doing evil and reward them for good whereas atheists are moral for no other reason than their own natural sense of morality.
Personally I know morally good religious people and morally good atheists. I don't think religious people are any more responsible than atheists are as a whole.
Just throwing this out there: If all the atheists in the USA were to suddenly disappear you would only lose 1% of the country's prison population. Meanwhile, 97% of the 3200 members of the National Academy of Science would be gone.
I don’t believe this is an accurate statistic.
Source or speculation?
Prison shows; and the fact that over 50% of released prisoners re-offend. I just don’t believe that prisoner religion accurately shows one’s true religion as well as a freeman’s freedom to follow it (or not) does.
Point taken, but wasn't the whole point of this that religious people don't have to be moral to be religious?
Not trying to be daft, but what do you mean?
What I meant was that the whole discussion started from the fact that Cool thought Atheists are a problem in America because they lack morals and we were trying to disprove that.
I wonder that but you also have to take into accout the fact that many people might be afraid to admit being Atheist in fear of overbearing parents.
I'm pretty confident that it's the whole 'God will forgive you of your crimes if you accept Christ' thing that would make a criminal's “Christian” life in prison easier to swallow. I could be wrong, but that'd be my guess...
I don't have any particular concerns or thoughts on that statistic at the moment ;)
Cain and Abel.
Exodus 22:18 do not suffer a witch to live. "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." Zechariah 11:9: "And the LORD will send a plague on all the nations that fought against Jerusalem. Their people will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away. Their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths." Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves".
The link I got this from seemed pretty funny. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110921085340AA3lgos
To Mithex, here is some more examples via the link.
Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. (God commanded mass murder) Numbers 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. (God commanded the murder of a man who needed some sticks.) Numbers 25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. (God rewarded Israel for murdering a foreigner. The context is clear.) Deutl. 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; (God commands that innocent civilians, including the children, be killed.) Judges 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died. 4:22 And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples. 4:23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel. (God apparently approves of murdering a man while he's asleep.) There are many more, but this is long enough for now.
*off topic* Geez, first time i read what you said, ThisisBo, I read "condomed".
Condoned*
No problem, just more evidence in my opinion.
In the Torah there are some parts you just can't understand. There's a part where the Israelites need three red cows for a ceremoney. Even weirder is a part where they talk about houses getting leprosy. Also when the people get leprosy their heads turn red and green. It's really strange.
Mithex: Descartes sure tried, but then he went along and proved himself wrong. haha He made the argument (condensed):
1) I exist (axiom) 2) I clearly and distinctly have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (axiom, partly based on 1) 3) An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (axiom) 4) Therefore, the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (2, 3) 5) A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (axiom) 6, Conclusion) Therefore, a perfect being must exist (4, 5)
So, even though he halfway realized he was being dumb, haha, he did try to prove the existence of a god. Nevertheless, feel free give any of the saints' arguments, and I'll gladly show you what's wrong with them.
As for the documentary, haha, okay, so I take it it's just a bunch of guy who don't know what they're talking about then?
"Once the long neck evolves, what happens when it tries to take a drink? It leans its head down, and the blood pressure that suddenly rushes to its brain is enough to kill it, because it hasn't evolved a defense for that yet. Not to mention what happens when it simply stands there. How does its heart pump enough blood to its head for it to live?It hasn't evolved that strong heart yet, because it had no need for it."
So, obviously giraffes exist today, so we know that the idea that they have weak hearts and all this is just ridiculous. hahah It must be, then, that you and the documentary believe that evolution is the sudden appearance of random traits in a population, like long necks. Well, that's simply not the case. You mention "natural selection," which you'll be surprised to discover essentially means the same thing as evolution. It's not that long necks just randomly appeared, but that in the past, only the giraffes with the taller necks (just a couple inches, let's say) could reach the leaves higher up in the trees to eat, and those who couldn't get enough food died. Then, via natural selection, the ones best fit to survive from them (the ones with the tallest necks) passed on their genes, and those who couldn't reach the food would die. Over several thousands of years and countless generations of the best fit to survive passing on their genes, we have the kickass giraffes you see today. haha This is what we mean when we say that populations of organisms evolve (explained in its utmost basic sense).
As for paragraph four, have you thought about it? haha
And lastly: "If God doesn't exist, and you act like He does, then you lose nothing, and gain a good remembrance like you are talking about. If you act as if He doesn't, then you don't lose anything. If He does exist, and you act like He doesn't, you are damned to Hell for eternity. If you act like He does, you gain eternal, complete happiness. Therefore, your chances are better if you behave as if there is a God."
You know, this suggestion seems to come from pretty twisted view, haha, and I really dislike it, because it tries to pass itself off as "reason." But it isn't, and I'll explain why. First, it assumes that "acting like a god exists" has no bearing on your life whatsoever. It says you should accept it, because only good can come of it, when in fact religion and strict adherence to arbitrary principles can effectively strip you of meaningful life. Because now, instead of living for yourself, for your own happiness, by your own sense justice, you're giving it up, living for some promise you also have no reason to believe in. You lose nothing? You lose the only thing you know you have - autonomy. Can't do this, can't think those, better stay away from these things, I should stick to things of that nature... you're depriving yourself in the worst way imaginable. Conversely, if you act as if you are in full control of your life, then you can be confident. The only faith you need is faith in yourself. You're not relying on some god to make life better for you or praying he doesn't take away what you've already got going or failing to credit yourself for the good things you do; you're making your life what you want it to be.
Furthermore, the bible doesn't promise salvation to good people. It promises salvation for people who give their lives to god. You could be like Jesus himself, but it wouldn't mean a damn thing if you weren't baptized before you died. Behavior only matters if you're baptized and you unconditionally accept that even though there is no reason to believe that you will be rewarded for all the sacrifices you will make in the name of your faith, you should believe anyway. Also, the bible clearly states that cowards (people who claim to believe out of fear of hell) would be allowed in heaven. If you're going to act as if god exists, go right on ahead, but if you're not willing to go the distance, I'd advise you not to bother.
So, in an attempt to simplify this idea of how one should best live life, the most important implications of the whole process are totally left out, and this portrait you're left with of a life with/without god is pure garbage.
Just to add to what Zero said about Pascal's Wager ("If God doesn't exist, and you act like He does, then you lose nothing..."), it doesn't take into consideration that there are hundreds of other gods to believe in. If it turns out that some other god is real and you believed in the Christian god instead of him, you're going to that religion's version of hell despite living a restricted life. This is the major problem I have with Pascal's Wager.
Nice logic catch!
You can't prove or disprove the existence of god to anyone, not matter what you say or do.
I can't prove beyond any doubt that God exists, that much is true. However, I can look through some of the major religions (I'm not going to pretend I've read every holy text ever written. I haven't even touched Mormonism, but I know it isn't true :P) and prove that it is most likely not to be true. This is mostly through contradictions in the text and logical paradoxes, combined with the lack of evidence (and by evidence I mean a reason God exists). To paraphrase October (I think it was him) "I'm not sure if there's a God, but if there is I know it isn't the Christian God".
I can take the fact that it is extremely unlikely and then come to the conclusion that it's not true. It's like the kinetic theory, Chemists pretty much know it's true, and nothing's likely to change that with our modern understanding of Science, but it can't be absolutely proven (that's why it's called the Kinetic Theory). One case for the belief that the lack of evidence leads to the belief that God doesn't exist is the Celestial Teapot Theory (For those of you who watch Glee, I've heard the theory was proposed on there with a few... choice alterations). This is the theory that I cannot prove that there isn't a teapot hiding behind one of the rings of Saturn, and yet I'm still perfectly justified in declaring that there isn't one.
The problem with every religion is that it is man trying to convince you that it is true; and as man isn’t a perfect being, there are always flaws.
On a mildly related note: I know that people win giant lottery jackpots every day, but I'm not likely to ever be one of them; and actually have a much greater chance of being hit by a piece of aircraft falling out of the sky. As I have yet to be hit by a piece of falling aircraft, I don't even bother buying tickets, as I am statistically likely to be hit first and win later. That doesn't lead me to believe the entire lottery system is a hoax (though it could be)…
The difference is that there is undeniable proof that A.) the lottery exists and B.) The lottery has winners, so you can assume it's a hoax. However, the fact that there is a god has next to no proof (and that proof is questionable at best), let alone undeniable proof. To paraphrase Zero: "The only evidence for God's existence is a book, and the only reason we know the book doesn't lie is because the book tells us it doesn't lie."
can't assume it's a hoax*
As that entire two paragraph statement stated: You can't be entirely sure of anything, but just like you can be damn sure there isn't a teapot behind one of Saturn's rings, you can be sure there is no God.
Your argument actually strikes me as similar to Descartes's argument (but that's just my opinion) because it has to do with perfect and imperfect beings, however the assumption that because a man tries to convince you that it isn't true means you can't assume it isn't true is incredibly flawed.
I disagree with the premise that you can't be entirely sure about anything. You absolutely can be sure of the existence of god if he reveals himself to you. That is unquestionably true. Whether there is a god to reveal himself to you is a separate matter.
Actually, you can't even be entirely sure that our lives are real. How do we know that we aren't just locked up in some box in Purgatory and our imaginations have involed to a degree where we can stimulate another's person's existence? Of course the idea is extremely absurd and I would dismiss the person who actually thought it was true as a nutjob, the whole point is that we can't be sure of anything. Let's say God does prove himself to you. Couldn't that just be part of the imagination?
evolved to a degree*
but the whole point*
Sure, it could be - but because everyone's reality is their own, it doesn't really matter what is the root cause of the reality to the person in it, does it?
Think about this though. How do you know that your imagination is controlling everyone else's as well? Again, extremely absurd but the point is that nothing can be known for certain.
I agree in that sense - for all you know, we're all just figments of your imagination, programed to make you think that we're real. There's no way you can disprove this ;)
1.) Actually, I agree that you can be entirely sure about anything, but I also believe that you cannot prove anything 100%. Even DNA tracking is 99.9% accurate. That being said, if a God did actually reveal himself (him being just a worthless term as a God would likely be asexual) to me and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed, then I would quickly become a theist. However, as it's incredibly unlikely that this would happen, or that it would happen to anyone else (although it's extremely likely that some will misinterperet signs as being sent from God), it's logical to assume that God does not exist.
2.) "The problem with every religion is that it is man trying to convince you that it is true; and as man isn’t a perfect being, there are always flaws." is what I was referring to. My stance is not that you can't be convinced of anything, simply that nothing can be proven to 100% accuracy. It's entirely logical to take something that's incredibly likely to be true (like that we are warmed by the Sun) and assume it to be true, but it can't be proven 100%. Just like it's incredibly likely that the celestial teapot doesn't exist, but I assume it doesn't even though it can't be disproven to 100% accuracy, or just like the Miracle Sandwich.
Sorry this took so long, I've been typing it during the less than a minute long commercial breaks on this show I'm watching online :P
The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.
The issue with that argument, first and foremost is that God couldn't:
A) Not think of something or B) Be bound by logic
A being of infinite power could simply rewrite the rules of logic for as long as needed and only with respect to him because he can do anything.
Also, you're arguing irreducible complexity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
The babel fish could develop naturally.
The babel fish is also fictional, and I'm pretty sure his entire post was a quote from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy lol.
Oh God.
(haha)
Wait, you seriously didn't know about the Babel Fish?
Psyche, I knew all along. . .
It’s a deception, just learn to bend...
I think it's pointless to even debate religion. It is impossible to prove or disprove, as mentioned many times in this thread. The way I see it is: Attempt to be as happy as possible, and forget about things that will not directly impact your life. If there is a God, he obviously hasn't shown any interest in what we do and deserves no second thoughts; abide by moral laws and you will end up in Heaven (supposing he DOES exist and is a paradise as described). If God doesn't exist, then at least you've lived a full life with no regrets. By debating religion, all you're doing is giving yourselves a headache over something largely irrelevant.
A flaw in your argument is with the religions that send you to hell if you didn't believe in them. While some religions will not make our souls burn in eternal punishment, many will. Thus, the need is somewhat prevalent.
But, I do believe that arguing religion is useless. There is no right and wrong, just which proof/disproof you consider best.
I find the whole "believe in our God or you suffer eternally" pretty foolish. I mean, if God is omnipotent and so merciful, why would you go to hell because of simply not believing in him? It doesn't seem like what an all-powerful, all-loving being would do if he exists.
while I agree with you, still, many religions believe that. And there is only one true religion, if you are talking about the monotheistic ones, so the chances that I'm going to hell are likely based on statistics.
But, yeah, saying that if you don't believe you will burn is a pretty ridiculous claim, though two big religions use it. (Christianity, and Islam)
Also, where the fuck was I for this awesome thread?!
hey wait, there WAS suspicious lack of 3J in that thread.
I like cupcakes and does atheism represent wood or stone?
wood is part of a tree and can grow.
stone is solid but immobile.
Atheism represents cupcakes.
I think Religion represents Rock, Atheism represents Paper and Scientology represents Scissors!
Atheism defeats theism, but is undercutted by scientology? That's weird, seeing as Scientology would by far be the second easiest religion to disprove :P
I'm actually really interested in hearing what's easier to disprove then Scientology.
More scientology?
Westboro Baptist Church! *Shudder*
Where do you find these videos?
Youtube :p
I can't disprove Aliens coming before Humans could conceive history as easily as I can disprove the Mormon version of history (seriously, look it up).
Wanna know a really easy religion to disprove? Nuwaubianism! It's so cool! They believe the weirdest stuff ever! Here's a list:
1. It is important to bury the afterbirth so that Satan does not use it to make a duplicate of the baby.
2. Some aborted fetuses survive their abortion to live in the sewers, where they are being gathered and organized to take over the world.
3. Each of us has seven clones living in different parts of the world.
4. Women existed for many generations before they invented men through genetic manipulation.
5. Homo sapiens are the result of cloning experiments that were done on Mars.
6. Nikola Tesla came from Venus.
7. People were once perfectly symmetrical but then a meteorite hit the earth which caused people's heart's to shift off-center in the chest.
8. The Illuminati have been secretly nurturing the son of Satan who was born to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and raised by the former U.S. president Richard Nixon. He now lives in Belgium, where he is hooked up to a computer called "The Beast 3M." The Pope was present at his birth where he performed some weird necromantic ceremonies... Which of cause goes without saying, 'cos that's just what popes do
Hey, I'm a devout follower of Nuwaubianism!
Oh yeah? Pronounce it
I just did.
... Touche :p
Wow, this thread is still happening. haha I know it's 5 months later, but Mithex is a total idiot. Not because I don't like the things he says, but because the things he says are idiotic and false. haha He hasn't appeared in a long time, it looks like, but I don't think his argument merits any further response... so, I'll leave it alone, unless someone else finds it convincing somehow. haha
I haven't read too much of what came after, but the point remains: There's no successful, deductive argument for or against the existence of god. Plenty of attempts, good ones too haha But they've all failed, as far as I'm aware. There's a pretty strong inductive argument against the existence of god, usually called the Evidential Argument from Evil, but 1) even if it's successful, it "proves" nothing and 2) there exists an equally strong argument, using a different logical form, against the existence of unjustified evil (which breaks apart Evidential Argument). Your life experience and world view will usually tell you that one argument is "more likely to be true," and you *may* be right whichever you choose, but simply by accepting a different premise than you originally accepted (Unjustified Evil exists -OR- God exists) you'll see how the argument works both ways. This is called the G.E. Moore Shift, and it's not without some dirty implications in regard to the Theist's position, but it's a legit move if you're willing to make it. You won't end up proving anything in the end anyway. haha
...But as an aside, I'm not using these terms to be an ultra dick. haha I'm just notorious for making ridiculously long posts, haha, and this way, I figure anyone who's genuinely interested can just google anything they want further explanation on or simply ask, of course.
