I'm working on a translation by ear, don't want to cheat and Google the lyric.
so far I can tell the refrain repeated 3x:

No te preocupes si no te aprueban - don't worry if they don't approve of you
Cuando te critiquen tú solo di Soy Yo - when they criticize you just say I am Me

My short conversation with Cleverbot was somewhat frustrating:

me: What's your goal?
cleverbot: To make money.
me: Oh, how much would you like?
cleverbot: A dozen.
me: A dozen what?
cleverbot: A dozen equals 12.

I tried to clear up the confusion, to no avail:

me: What was the first question I asked?
Cleverbot: That how I am.
me: That's wrong. do you know the right answer?
Cleverbot: The answer to what?
me: The answer to the question 'what was the first thing I asked you?'.
Cleverbot: But you already answered that question.
me: What question?
Cleverbot: My first question.

I don't believe a word he said.

I don't believe he is who he says he is.

I don't believe I am me.

I don't believe I wrote this.

I do believe I am going away now.



He said clap.

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Being in love.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Dying (not death, because by then I'll be dead).
3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Jealousy.
4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Dishonesty or abuse.
5. Which living person do you most admire?
Daniel Dennett
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I don't think I really have any great extravagance. Maybe my computer?
7. What is your current state of mind?
Relaxed and thoughtful.
8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Altruism and faith.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
Rarely, but if my lie can save a lot of grief, by avoiding an unnecessary confrontation about something stupid, I might.
10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My gut.
11. Which living person do you most despise?
Hmm, so hard to choose: Kent Hovind, Kenn Hamm (all those creationist dumbfucks), and televangelists. And Rasch187.
12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
Honesty, humor, friendship, intellect.
13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Awesome beewbage. Heh. Nah, humor, honesty, straight-forwardness, intellect, friendship.. I look for the same qualities in both guys and girls, to be honest.
14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
"Fantastic", "super", "In a minute"
15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
For now, music.
16. When and where were you happiest?
I don't know. Maybe when I was in Ireland in 2002 and was entangled with a girl from my high school, or one summer in 2003 I think, where we were a bunch of people in a summer house where I played guitar and we all sang and stuff. I liked that.
17. Which talent would you most like to have?
Better song-writing skills.
18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Physically, I'd trim up. (Already on it)
More cosmically, I'd like to be able to have a better overview of a situation during, instead of after it happens.
19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
My education, my music skills and the website I ran in 2004-2007, which I was very prolific on. (www.edb-tidende.dk it's dead in the water now though)
20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
I would come back as a young version of myself and try to change things up, see what would happen if I made different choices.
21. Where would you most like to live?
With a loved one. Don't really care where.
22. What is your most treasured possession?
My mind. Of things outside myself, then I think the things I can't replace. The data on my computer, pictures, documents etc. I think. All other "possessions" can be replaced. They're just things. I would say friendships, but that's hardly a possession.
23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Depression, then everything sucks. Been there, no fun.
24. What is your favorite occupation?
Playing music, engaging in reasonable discussions, masturbation. (at the same time)
25. What is your most marked characteristic?
I say my mind. I'm a pretty straight-forward, no-nonsense kinda guy. Other than that, I don't know. Other people are better judges of that than me.
26. What do you most value in your friends?
Honesty and humor.
27. Who are your favorite writers?
Frank Herbert, Neal Stephenson, William King, Scott McGough.
28. Who is your hero of fiction?
Randy Marsh. Heh, or Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan. Randy epitomizes the human condition, weak, narrow sighted and everything. Rosharch represents a view of the world in black and white, which I like the concept of; and Dr. Manhattan represents the way the world is and he is basically intellect personified, which I also like.
29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
This requires me to know a lot of history. I don't, because I don't care much about it. I identify with me, because I am me, no one else.
30. Who are your heroes in real life?
The four horsemen, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.
31. What are your favorite names?
Lisa, Cecilia, Michael, Jason, off the top of my head.
32. What is it that you most dislike?
People lying to me or in general who are dicks to me. I have no interest in these people.
33. What is your greatest regret?
Two things, I think. Not doing anything about the girl I had a serious crush on for most of my elementary school until high school; and not realizing that Computer Science was not for me earlier, instead of fucking around there for two years.
34. How would you like to die?
I'd rather not.
35. What is your motto?
"Don't be a dick" is something I can stand by.

This is a pretty big answer, so I've split it in chunks with their own headline.

We may have some common ground, but it is smaller than you've indicated. I said I was inclined to think that the universe always existed somehow, but this does not spread to other ideas - I don't think that we existed always or that something other than the universe existed always. My assumption here is actually not reasonable, but I make it because it has no descernable effect on my daily life.

Re: Believers are just as logical as non-believers
For purely principle reasons it is obvious that the scientific method cannot directly prove nor disprove God, but there is a difference in the two. We can gather evidence that indicate, if not directly proves/disproves something. Take the Loch Ness Monster. While we cannot directly disprove it unless we do an exhaustive search of the lake, we can take the many observations and searches as "evidence" or at least conjecture that the monster probably does not exist. If someone thinks that the monster does exist for whatever reason, it is their responsibility to prove that it does, not everyone else's to prove that it does not. So, while there may not be directly contradicting evidence to God's existence there is plenty of evidence that makes more sense if he does not, in addition the religion around this God has plenty of "plot holes" about God, which also leads us to think that it does not make sense. For instance, if God is the God of Young Earth Creationists, then there absolutely IS evidence that he does not exists. You'll agree to this, right? Whenever Science gets closer, it seems that God conveniently retreats into the unknown areas, which again is the God in the Gaps. I think that people who believe in God ARE less logical or reasonable than those who do not.

Which is the reasonable assumption to make, when there is absolutely no evidence for or against something?

I have not seen any evidence that contradicts the existence of fairies, but I have neither seen evidence that support it; which should I assume? There are three possible assumptions:

1) I'm fairy-agnostic - they may or may not exist, but I make no assumptions one way or the other.
2) Fairies probably do not exist, because if they did, evidence that supported their existence would have come about, and as such I can assume that they do not exist.
3) Fairies probably exist, because there has been found no evidence against them.

I would in general choose the second option, because if things exist they tend to show themselves - somehow. I think that people who take the third option of believing that fairies exists are making an unreasonable assumption, because there is neither evidence that supports it, nor traces of evidence such as fairy-droppings, fairy houses or something similar. Do you follow my logic that people who believe in this way are less reasonable/logical?

Your definition of your God and my arguments against him
* God is perfect (a perfect being).
* God is not bound by time and space in the same way we are.
* God does not break "natural laws".
* God has always existed, in one form or another.
* God created all created things, but not all things.

This is the definition you provided, and I will base my arguments on that.

There are some words that need further specification.

"Perfect" is a very big, vague and subjective word. Do you mean that God is infallible or all knowing? It must include that he cannot be perfected in any way: become any better.

"Natural laws" is also a bit vague. Your example, the principle that nothing comes from nothing, is a logical argument, but natural laws are something else. Newtons law, Einsteins theory of relativety, how temperature spreads, gravity: those are natural laws, but if God is not bound by time/space then he obviously is not bound by gravity. I think the point here is that you mean God does not engage in logical paradoxes: "Can God make a toast so hot that he himself couldn't eat it?" But if he is perfect, then he must and by being perfect he proves that he cannot exist.

God created all created things? Well, that can be true, but if nothing is created that is explained away. I doubt you'll be satisfied by that answer though, so I'll argue that this again breaks your definitions. What did he create all created things from? Nothing? Was God created? You'll obviously argue no, because then he needs a creator of his own and we'll have en infinite regress. But if God was not created, did he come from nothing?

"God has always existed in one form or another, as have we. We were "something" before we were "created.""
The first part can only be answered, perhaps, if he exists. Concerning humans, you are of course technically correct, but not in the way that you think. "We" are who we are, I am me and you are you. "We" have never existed in any other form in any reality. Our bodies, however, is merely a collection of atoms, which of course always were something before they were coagulated and rearranged into the meta-structure that is our bodies. it is this way with all things, the atoms and molecules have always existed somehow, but have been shaped into the arrangments they have now by our environement.

I was obviously not created by God, I naturally grew in my mother womb as a direct result of massive cell-generation which started with the combination of sperm and egg. This was a rearrangement of atoms from food and energy into matter, namely my body ("me"). Nothing created me, I naturally grew.

Curveballs and God-theory
By curveballs I just meant that it was tough questions.

The two first explanations are exactly more logical than the God-theory because the God-theory falls back on either 1 or 2 at some point. The God-theory is a non-explanation for the existance of the universe, because it just moves the question one step - instead of asking "how did the universe come into existence", it is "how did God come into existence, so he could created the universe". And if we use the same explanation for god, that he was created by a super-god, then it becomes "How did super-god come into existence, so that he could create God who could create the universe" this is an infinite regress and is a non-explanation for anything. It must be grounded somehow, which both the other explanations do.

I submit again that the three explanations may not be exhaustive, because the Universe is far more mysterious than we can scientifically explain at this point, so there may be some fourth explanation that covers it. In any case, the God-theory does not explain it.

Faith and logic
There are parts of the bible which are directly opposed to one another? How do you interpret your way out of those? Genesis directly contradicts reality, how do you interpret your way out of that?
In my mind interpreting an answer from the Bible is just picking and choosing which parts fit your point of view and ignoring the parts that don't fit. This is a Bad Thing.

"You said that the fact that we have never had empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God "does seem to show a tendency.""
That's not true. I said that the distinct lack of evidence for the existence of God show a tendency. As I explained above, if the evidence for and against something both is zero, then the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
[snip]
In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
[snip]

i don't follow your line of thinking there dag, i would say "both downvoting wrongly and ignoring wrongly are annoying, and neither need to be done quickly or often, so they should both have warnings".

sifty could have saved me, but he annoyed me instead, just because of some reason about "nobody else is affected". Well to be honest, I don't really care if they are or not, because I am me, not them.

talk like choggie? sometimes i can't even manage to talk like me. and i am me.

I am me. That's who I am to decide whether something is absolute sheit. Just because I downvote a video does not mean it goes into a tab or channel called "AbsoluteSheit".
It means I think it's shit, and it's MY vote, so I will cast it as I see fit.

But for the most part, if something is absolute sheit, it will wither and die from down-votes.

I was born with a genetic deformity that renders me generally "Ugly" to most of the population. It's impossible to miss and it's so glaring and "ugly" to some people that I've been compared to a bug, told I was "gross" and had (quite a few) people tell me they could not imagine me ever getting laid. I still get asked "where's your friend, you know THE GOOD-LOOKING one?" when I go out alone. Because most of my friends happen to be strikingly good-looking whereas I am strikingly ugly. Nice to be reminded every time I'm out. *eye roll*

Yet every single thing you listed as a problem of being pretty was a problem I had (or the flipside of it)

The biggest difference between us in this arena would be that you knew you were pretty and don't tell me there weren't benefits to being pretty - if there are benefits to being consider hideous I am unsure as to what they are. Do you think I didn't occasionally wonder if my friends were really my friends or if they merely hung around me to look good by comparison? (friendship based on looks) Do you think I didn't have a hard time getting men to treat me like a female but not a (desperate) whore? Do you think I never intimidated a man by being so impossible to ignore? Do you think I didn't run into extremely embittered men who made it clear that I was oh-so-lucky to be female because EVEN THOUGH i was ugly as could be I could still get laid but they couldn't?

I understand every point you make - yeah it sucks to be FEMALE in our culture. Any female. And it especially sucks to be physically difficult to ignore - whether that's because of beauty, ugliness or deformity or whatever. However, being all those things because you are beautiful has upsides that the rest of us noticeable people didn't get. Be happy. I'm happy for my very beautiful friends and they are happy I am me. Id' suppose the only real benefit I guess I had was that I always knew how important it was to be beautiful on the inside; I suppose gorgeous people might not grok that so easily.

i am me.