World record holder in his age group? - Well, that's not hard when you are the only one in your age group!

Hmmm marring someone half your age, BRILLIANT! I guess I am off to marry a 15 year ol...FBI is here, wonder what they want?

I can only imagine the "when I was your age" stories this will generate.

Old man on Saturn: "When I was your age, we had to walk through storms 8 times the size of Earth to school, uphill both ways!"

So... even further away from the original tactical game then?

You quicktime events, get the hell off my lawn. When I was your age, quicktime was just a crappy codec we all made fun of.

Thank you everyone for the upumpkin votes!

I agree with mintbbb, it was fun and I was surprised to place as well! ALL the carvings were so creative! (Marine, you made me do a spit-take when you called your aging pumpkin a 'sagging asshole', ha!)

I also forgot how difficult it is to carve. All I had was this kitchen knife that kept seeming to get larger, it was like doing brain surgery on a squirrel with a chainsaw.
*counts fingers*

When I was your age, we rocket jumped all the way to school uphill, both ways....

IN BOILING LAVA!

Son: Mom where's Dad?
Mom: He's in the garage working on your new bed, honey.
Son: Ahhh, Mommm! I just want him to play catch with me!
Mom: I know honey, just act like you like the bed. Please honey, for me.
Son: Okayyy. Mom?
Mom: Yes, dear?
Son: Is this because I asked for a baby brother?
Mom: No, dear. You father just really, really liked Star Wars when he was ---------------your age and wants to share that with you.
Son: I'd rather have a race car bed.
Mom: I know, dear. Your Father loves you very much. Now go out and see if ---------------he'll let you help yet.
Son: He never lets me help, Mom!
Mom: I know, just act like you like it.

And, scene.
I'm just joking--this little guy is a very lucky boy.

I'll say it again. People need to wake up and notice that they should have voted for Kucinich and should vote for him the next time around. Screw Ron Paul - Kucinich is a left golf wangin' social democrat and that is where it's at. Plus, he get's hotter babes than you who are probably around your age hahaha!

'Do you see my helmet? I wear this helmet because when I was your age I recklessly danced anywhere I felt like it,... and now, even after 14 surgeries, I still need it to keep my brains in. We have these laws for a reason.'

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

I'm saying it doesn't apply..

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

I didn't add anything. In my example, the peasant is referred to as the Kings servant, if you want to reread it. If it wasn't clear, I am sorry..while the CEO might have been inconvenienced by you leaving, you aren't his property. So no it doesn't apply.

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

I'm saying that I don't believe anyone has ever been argued into believing in Jesus..however, I am also saying that you can prove it to yourself by asking the Lord to come into your life, who will prove it to you. However, you don't seem to think you need Him, so until you feel that way..

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.

The don't know, don't care comment about who is even in your government..that's fairly uninformed. And yes, I don't know how old you are..if I had to hazard a guess I would say you're in your mid to late twenties. And I know you have not searched too hard for God because you haven't found Him yet.

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Don't paraphrase..the question I asked, which wasn't even in this thread.. Was the Universe created by a supreme being?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question. I accept people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.

Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.


A few days ago, you proposed the following:

These are the only answers to the question [of] does God exist
Yes (Theist)
No (Atheist)
Don't know (Agnostic)

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.
lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..
The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.
I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.
I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

As a 25 year old, I'm playing poker in an AC casino. A 60ish man sitting to my left plays a big hand well and takes down a good sized pot, getting an all in call from the 2 seat.

He remarks to me, "God, that's better than sex."
I shoot him a quizzical look.
He expounds, "Well, maybe not at your age, but at mine."

I doubted that then, and Dan Savage helps affirm the hope that my libido will endure even when I'm getting half priced movie tickets.

lol, Showing your age Marinara (and everyone else who votes this one up)

@gorillaman

Anyone who thinks white privilege isn't real obviously isn't brown.

You're saying that every brown person that isn't treated statistically as equal as the average whitie is purely a result of chance?

Which is obviously bullshit because individuals are responsible for all their actions.

[Even if our Ego & conscience trying to steer our dumb animalistic brains is akin to a flea controlling a bear.]

So while chance may have bestowed great riches onto all white folk and Aids, sickle cell, and markedly lower generational wealth onto all brown folk..

They really doesn't make up the whole ..lynchin'-motherfuckers-and-displaying-them-in-trees-because-they-tried-to-attend-school-where-there-were-white-girls.. gap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, HATE the "human race is all one race. See, racism never existed" argument.

I mean.. you've seen dogs by your age, right?
Labradors - dalmatians - great danes - jack russells.

Those are all within the Canis Lupus species yet they all look completely different.

They have different outward and inward appearance and are prone to different genetic disorders and diseases and so on..

So if dogs can have different breeds. Humans can't have different breeds..?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And finally.. WTF?! The study of history can't be applied to anything meaningful?!?!

Now I'm absolutely convinced you're either trollin' or just stupid as all fuck.

What kind of person thinks that learning the collective knowledge of ALL OF THE HUMANS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN ALIVE BEFORE YOU [about 100 billion] is meaningless?

You don't think knowing what all the other dumb humans did to get themselves and their societies wiped off the planet is useful?

Yeah i'm probably done with this. Unless you make some other awful intellectually compartmentalized rebuttal.