x
Click to expand

phoenixactual

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/27/2013
Last Login:6/30/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#7815
Comment Ranking:#4365
Highest Content Rank:#5621
Highest Comment Rank:#4336
Content Thumbs: 379 total,  1420 ,  1041
Comment Thumbs: 1789 total,  2906 ,  1117
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 36 Content: Peasant → Level 37 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:6
Content Views:153889
Times Content Favorited:26 times
Total Comments Made:2065
FJ Points:1879
Favorite Tags: doctor (3) | HORMONES (2) | im (2) | Not (2) | tran (2) | trans (2) | Transgender (2)

latest user's comments

#51 - Unless it was all already here, collapsed into a single, massi… 05/10/2015 on Penn Jillette is not a... 0
#47 - Agnosticism really is the only logical way, at least there's r…  [+] (40 new replies) 05/10/2015 on Penn Jillette is not a... 0
#231 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, ie: that we don't know.
Atheism is a claim about belief in gods, ie: that we don;t believe.

They are not claims about the same thing.
#305 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
They're both answers to the exact same question, therefore they both fit the same category. The question being is there a god. The question doesn't change between the two, it's the same.
#307 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
NO. one is about knowledge, the other belief.
#322 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
How the fuck do you figure? If you ask an atheist if god exists, they say no. If you ask an agnostic, they say I don't know. The question hasn't changed between the two, it's exactly the same. All this is quite idiotic, anyways, you're not saying anything to address the fact that atheism and faith both remain totally unproven, leaving agnosticism as the only answer that is really honest in this question. You know, the original purpose of my comment?
#332 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Some people who call themselves atheists don't fully understand the definitions. Agnostic means without knowledge.
Athiesm means No belief.

Two.

Different.

Things.


But again, you don't understand the burden of proof. If you say that there is a god, you have to show it! Atheism is really just rejecting these god claims because there is no evidence to support them. That's it!

Atheism is not something to be proven. It is a state of not believing the god claims that other people make. Simple, isn't it?
#336 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
If there's no evidence to support the existence of a god, and we can't definitively prove either way, then why is it atheism is more valid than any other religion? It's not like you have any more proof than anybody else that you're right. True, most of the bible can be refuted, but at the end of the day, that's not enough proof that a supernatural deity that has no physical presence whatsoever doesn't exist. The burden of proof goes both ways. Religious people claim god exists, without any proof whatsoever. Atheists claim he doesn't, again, with no proof whatsoever. Agnosticism is dead center in the argument, with the simple answer of "I don't fucking know". The existence of god is impossible to prove or disprove. Therefore, arguments from either side are totally meaningless in the search for answers, and the only truly valid scientific answer is "I don't know"
#345 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
You still don't get it, but you're getting there!

You can't disprove that that Hercules or Cinderella exist either.

You don't get the definitions that I posted twice now. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Period. It is not a religion. If there is evidence for something, like black holes, then we'd say that they probably exist. There's no evidence for Voldemort, so we;d say he probably doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge, not belief, for the third time now!

It's not dead center, it's is a misunderstanding of terms. There is no evidence for a god so most atheists are agnostic atheists. They are not two different points on a sliding scale.

Even if your concept of a god turns out to be true, what fucking difference would it make anyways? There is no knowledge of him or what he wants, so it doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
#358 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
By the way, what the fuck does my concept of a god have to do with any of this? I've made it pretty clear by now I have no strong feelings either way, why are you still trying to make me out to be just another uneducated religious idiot
#361 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
You're the one thinking that there is god out there.
#356 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
Atheism isn't a hard fact, no more than any other faith. It may be a lack of belief in something, but at it's core, it's still the unproven belief that there is no god whatsoever. Atheism is a belief in an unprovable concept. It is still a religion.
#360 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Still not cottoning on.

Atheism is not a fact in and of itself. As I've said numerous times not, it is a position of not believing in any gods! How can you not understand this? Have you been a Christian for so long that your indoctrination simply will not allow you to understand this very simple definition?

Atheism is not a 'faith'. Got it?

If you claim there is a god, you prove it. Atheism simply rejects those claims as there is no fucking evidence for them. It is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

#368 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
You have no more proof to your answer than christians, or jews, or muslims have. Your answer is no more valid than theirs, because, at the end of the day, we have literally no evidence to prove or disprove god whatsoever.
#370 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
My answer does not require proof as I have said many times now. You claim something, you prove it. These are called 'positive truth claims' when you say something exists. If there is no evidence for these things then they are dismissed. You already know that all the holy books are bullshit so why would you believe them? It's like a retard can invent a chemistry book and claim it is true. He'd have to prove it, wouldn't he?
#376 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
I never claimed anything. Where the fuck do you keep getting the idea I'm backing the existence of God? Especially considering I've had to tell you in basically every single fucking comment I've posted that I'm not fucking religious. But god isn't purely an invention of christianity. This isn't an argument of if christiantiy or atheism is right. Get that through your thick skull
#367 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
What the fuck keeps giving you the idea that I have any religious beliefs whatsoever? Have I not spent literally this entire argument stating up and down that I'm agnostic? Seriously, it's as if you're just ignoring everything I say at this point
#369 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Your definition of agnostic is wrong and you said that you believe in a god. You then continue on with the lie that atheism is a religion even though I've explained why it isn't.

I did say you weren't cottoning on and your still demonstrating that you haven't.
#374 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
I never once said I believe in any kind of god. Those words have literally never been typed by me in this thread. And actually, my idea of agnosticism is exactly what it means, agnosticism means saying "I don't know if god exists or not."

Atheism is still an attempt to answer an unanswerable question. It's no more valid than any of the other faiths out there. This isn't an argument of "Who's right, christianity or atheism?". It's an argument over the existence of a deity in the universe that cannot be proven either way. And when something cannot be proven or disproven, actual science doesn't settle with "Well, we can't prove it exists, but we can't prove it doesn't, so we're just gonna say it doesn't". If you really think that's how science works on this kind of issue, you're just as much of an idiot as the guy who tries to say the world is 10000 years old
#387 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Still calling atheism a faith.
Can't understand simple definitions

Christianity has been shown false by how many claims it makes in the bible that have been refuted by science.

Atheism, once more sheesh, go back to school dude! is just the lack of belief in a god. That's all. Like how you presumably don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
For someone who doesn't believe in a god you quote parts of the bible as though they are real.

And your understanding of science is poor also. Science doesn't say 'what id there is this thing' and then sets out to see if it is real or not. Science firstly observes the universe and tries to figure out how it works. It doesn't start with a conclusion, or lack thereof and then work backwards. That's called pseudo-science and it is a poison.

Once again for posterity...or something...

You make the claim, you not you personally but anyone making any claim about the universe bring the proof.
#393 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
When the fuck have I quoted anything in the bible throughout this entire fucking debate? Are you really that stupid? My only claim here is that scientifically, we have no fucking clue about the existence, or non-existence, of a supernatural deity. The default position on this one is "I don't know", because there is literally no fucking way to know. This isn't about christianity, stop trying to make the argument about one particular faith. You haven't been paying attention whatsoever to my comments if you actually think I'm taking the side of christians
#398 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Sorry, I was wrong abaout you making biblical claims, I had you confused with someone else. My bad.

'Scientifically' If you don't have evidence your claim is dismissed, so that we don't need to disprove anything until there is evidence that a thing exists. You're agnostic about Thor, Wolverine, Horus and Zeus as well, but we can't disprove their existence. Should be give them consideration just because someone says 'you can't disprove them'?

Of course not!
#410 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
An individual system of faith can be disproven. We know there's no giant mountain on earth with the Greek pantheon of gods sitting at it's peak. We can prove this. We know the sun isn't pulled through the sky by a guy in a chariot. This can be disproven. However, at the very core of this argument, the question of whether or not a god of some kind exists, whether there is an afterlife or not, questions like that cannot be answered by human minds one way or the other. And this is why I hold an agnostic stance on this. Because with all the wonders science has provided for us over the years, it still cannot answer the question of why we exist in the first place, and there's room to figure that out if you simply admit you don't actually know the answers to existence
#417 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
You're saying that maybe there is something that your mind has created like an all powerful god exists. Because science can't prove it to be untrue there is a possibility. Just like Wolverine existing somewhere.

This is not how science works.
Science starts with an observation, not a speculation about what could be there.

We can speculate all day about the nature of the universe and achieve nothing. Just because science does not have an answer today does not mean that we won't tomorrow.

Ad for the record: all science is predicated on being agnostic, that we don't know, so we're going to try to find out.

The first thing though is that there must be observation. Speculation is fine, but without evidence there is no reason to think that there is some overlord for the cosmos. You'll also find that atheists are open to evidence, like scientists are, and if there is evidence for any god, it will be accepted.
#406 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
What the fuck does wolverine have to do with this, first off? And second, I'm not talking about individual faiths. I'm talking about the existence of god, or gods, in general. That's what this whole damn argument has been about from the very start. Try to keep up
#408 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Wolverine was an example of a fictitious character that may in some way be real somewhere in the universe.

Thor is a 'god' to some people. Can you disprove the existence of Thor?
#426 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
phoenixactual : replying here due to thread limit.

Individual faiths all make claims about the nature of the universe. Your vague concept os this 'maybe god' is just you own individual faith. Your saying 'just because you can't disprove my version of a god means that maybe mine is real'. You're saying that maybe there is this god but it doesn't matter in science. You can make up anything you like and say that science can't disprove it so maybe it is real. Like all of those other fictitious characters I have mentioned.

Science doesn't care if you don't have evidence.
#415 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
quit fucking trying to make this about individual faiths. Thor was an effort to explain lightning, we figured that one out.
The whole point of the debate over the existence of god isn't to say whether one particular faith is correct or not, it's to answer the question of whether there is some kind of all powerful force that created the vast and unknowable universe, or if everything was just a random accident. Individual faiths are little more than mythology meant to explain the universe around us. But the truth is, we have no fucking clue what actually created everything, and until that answer can be found definitively Which is impossible , we'll never know for sure. This isn't a debate over whether or not individual gods exist, its a debate over what spawned all that we see around us.
#261 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
I have not met very many atheists, but I have met hundreds of anti-theists.
#263 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Anti-theist are atheists who will say that a god doesn't exist as opposed to just say that they don't believe in a god, as atheists do. So you technically have met 100's of atheists as well.
#276 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
Not so, atheists have no specific bias, they are neutral and only lack belief because they have as yet not consciously recognized any evidence which according to their personal rationale justifies belief. I have only met one true atheist in my life. Most so called "atheists" are not atheists at all, they are vicious fanatical haters of the Christian doctrine who also, as an afterthought, throw in a mild (real or pretend) general disliking toward all the other "god(s)" believing doctrines just to try to convince themselves that they are consistent.

#279 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
What do you mean 'no specific bias'?

If you claim that there is a god, you have to provide evidence for that god. It's like if I said a fairy lives in my house I am the one who has to prove it. It is not true until you disprove it.

Where's your evidence for most atheists being just haters of your religion?
#289 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
I don't know where you are getting your 'rules' about people's obligations to confirm their assertions, but they are not accurate. Even if people make an assertion, that doesn't mean they owe others any explanation at all unless they either have a secondary obligation or an expectation for those told to believe it.

As for me, I state facts, I do so to provide a counterpoint to the social pressure toward the common trends, most of which are in direct opposition to logic. I Have no expectation that most people will believe them nor do I feel like explaining them except under very unusual circumstances as I feel that the elementary and obvious nature of said statements are such that those who claim not to understand them are either mentally handicapped to near incompetency or are being disingenuous or both, neither of which warrants an exhaustive presentation from myself. However I will answer your question.

As for my evidence that most so called "atheists" (defacto anti theists) are "just" haters of my specific religion, first of all, I didn't say "just" but I did allege that my religion was their primary target for scorn. The evidence for that is abundant with even casual observation of said people and their communications concerning religious/anti-religious matters.

As for your comment, I do not know what you mean by "it is not true until you disprove it" and I am not going to guess.
#292 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
OK.

You speak of logic in your second paragraph but in your first you say that you don't 'know where I get my rules'. They are accurate and you've not understood a certain logical fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Your second paragraph is a bit of a waffle. You say you state facts. What facts? Like the fact that the book of Genesis in the Bible has been completely refuted?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

Most atheists dislike Christianity because it impedes their own lives and is simply not shown to be true.

When i said 'it is not true until you disprove it' was about me claiming that a fairy lives in my house. No one believes that if I tell them, so I have to prove it, not the other way around.

#321 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
Your wikipedia article discusses a philosophy which I do not share and in no way substantiates any presumption of obligation for anyone who does not share that philosophy to abide by it.

Second, you must not be paying attention, the facts I stated were concerning the positions of true atheism as opposed to anti theism, they did not specifically reference the Book of Genesis, but since you bring it up; even though there are many people who have recorded challenges to the authenticity and veracity of every Book of the Bible, and even though we can cite such challenges in our discussions or debates, there has never been recorded one verifiable refutation for the accuracy or authority of the Book of Genesis. Assertions to that effect have thus far been based upon either misunderstanding or emotional presumption and or blatant dishonesty.

Thirdly, I partially agree, the primary motivation of the anti theistic hostility toward Christianity, and in fact the number one cause for the existence of modern popular anti theism itself, is the fact that Christian beliefs do encourage impedance of many of the lifestyles and choices which have recently become very prevalent in the world, especially in developed nations. But when you state that Christian beliefs are "not shown to be true", actually they have been and are being, however in modern times most people not only do not have this information but have been taught to actively resist it, and since the human will is stronger than human reason, it is possible and even probable that people will maintain ignorance of facts which are upsetting to their accustomed paradigm.

And as for that statement "It is not true until you disprove it.", even in light of what you meant, that was not an accurate way to say it. But in consideration of what you meant, as I said above, you only "have to" explain if you feel that you have a secondary obligation compelling you to try to convince someone. Otherwise it is a matter of choice hinging upon A. Your desire to make someone believe and B. Your belief that it is possible for them to believe at all.
#328 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Logic applies to you whether you 'subscribe' to it or not. You're living in a dream world if you think that things are true just because you think them to be. Ever thought that gravity wasn't real and jumped off a tall building?

Did you no read the historicity of the bible article i posted? It shows how there is no evidence to support the biblical claims. We know through genetics, geology and archaeology that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. Humans emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago and not in a magic garden with talking animals ~6000 years ago in the Middle East.

There was no flood covering the world either. Not only is the story a copy of a much older one from Mesopotamia some 1000 years before the first Israelites, but again, genetics, archaeology and geology prove it completely false. Aboriginals have been in continuous existence in Australia for over 40,000 years!

This is not based on assumption or prejudice, it's plain old fucking science friend!

You the say that Christian beliefs are being shown to be true but give not one example.

You don't have to explain anything of course, but if you're making claims about the universe and want to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate your claim.
#372 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
That philosophy to which you referred did not define or encapsulate logic. I am still being logical even though I defy your presumption that I owe an explanation, which however, I did give you.

No, I have never doubted the fact of gravity's existence or effects or taken any action based upon such a doubt.

You say that the article you referred to "showed" that "there is no evidence to support the Biblical claims", I will step out on a limb and infer that you are referring to the ones concerning the origins of mankind, yet the Bible says clearly that mankind was created in a garden (which was never referred to as "magic") on the African continent, yet you say that "we know" that humans emerged in Africa. You can't have it both ways, either there is "no evidence" to support the biblical claims or "we know" that humans emerged in Africa, which is among the Biblical claims.

In order to arrive at your conclusion that "we know" that humanity began 200,000 years ago, you are exhibiting a great deal of trust and faith in proven unreliable dating techniques and the methods, accuracy, intellect, agendas and honor of a great number of people, people who are promoted and given media prominence in spite of a great deal of disagreement from highly qualified peers for whom there is a demonstrable conspiracy of marginalization and suppression.

You claim that there was no flood covering the earth, the geological records clearly say otherwise.

You are making claims based upon ideas which have been given to you by others, not observation or scientific deduction.

You claim that the Bible is a copy of older stories, I personally know this is not true but regardless of what I know, you have absolutely no proof for your claims and in fact the sources where you got such ideas have been completely debunked a number of times by scholars in the appropriate fields as farcically inaccurate.

You claim that genetics, archeology and geology "prove it completely false" again I will infer that by "it" you mean the Bible and again I will affirm that none of those fields of study have never done any such thing, nor would most qualified scholars make any such claims but those few who do make such dishonest or unqualified claims tend to get the loudest forum, but there are clear and admitted reasons for that .

Concerning the aboriginal Australians, again the unfounded faith in the dating methods.

You say that I did not give one example of Christian beliefs being shown to be true, see above, Christian doctrine clearly states that humans originated in Africa, which is apparently something we can agree upon.

You are correct that I don't have to explain, and I would also add that explanation is often futile anyway and does not always result in being taken seriously, however I am willing to sometimes take the chance and explain to a certain degree under the right conditions.
#378 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
You're not being logical. Do you not understand that if I said a fairy lives in my house I have to prove it? It's not true until you disprove it. Understand?

The article does indeed show that the bible is not a historical od scientific document. It is a book of mythology with many similar to it from antiquity. There's nothing particularly special about it in that regard.

The bible does not ever say anywhere that the Garden of Eden is in Africa. It sauys it is where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers meet, which is in the Middle East! LOL

Middle East =/= Africa

It's like you haven't even read the book!

No, *sigh* the dating techniques are quite precise and have been studied extensively across several different scientific fields and they all correlate. Millions, literally, of people think that the bible is true yet not a single one of them can prove that these Genesis stories are true whatsoever. Not a single shred of evidence supports your biblical claims. You can make all sorts of claims about how science is fallible but your arguments need *drum roll* evidence to support them! LOL!

Science has thrashed the bible and has shown that there never was an Adam and Eve. Might want to learn about evolution. Think you can handle it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Flood is false pal. Show your evidence or GTFO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Drink the proof down slowly.

Many claims. No proof.

A scientist doesn't need the right 'conditions' to display knowledge, they just do it. We live in the modern world because science is the tool we have employed to build it, not ancient myths.

You don't understand how science works if you think people can just make stuff up with solid evidence.
#476 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
I am being very logical.

The way you word that "It's not true until you disprove it" thing still throws me off, but I get that if you claim a faery lives in your house you cannot feel that I owe you belief unless I am given some evidence of it.

Yet, if you do in fact show conclusive evidence and they have the mental capacity to comprehend it, then you can reasonably expect them to render belief to that particular claim.

You say that the article shows (by which you imply "proves") that "the bible is not a historical or scientific document." which is just absurd considering that the Bible is in fact the most influential part of human history in existence and that it gives an accurate record as well. These claims that you/the article are making have not one shred of evidence, they are purely hyperbole and opinion. No one has ever disproven one line of the Bible, not one, not ever, and every time someone has claimed such it has always turned out that they simply did not know what they were talking about.

Yeah, you are splitting hairs, the tigress and Euphrates are on the physical African land mass.

*sigh* all you want but that don't change the fact that every dating technique has not only NOT been proven accurate beyond a few thousand years, they have ALL been proven unreliable after a few thousand years. Pop science is protecting it's own interests (social engineering) by lying and suppressing real science. If the earth were as old as these goofs claim, the moon, long after it was supposedly created, would have been touching the earth, based upon the deterioration of it's orbit. You have been lied to by sold out propagandists who have disgraced the word "scientist", you memorized it and made it a faith and now you talk all arrogant and haughty, just like they taught you to do.

Scholars have proven a great deal of the content of the Bible in such a way that most people can understand it, if they will but look, but most people are taught not to look, they would rather just stand back with their white coated masters and sling hollow claims and accusations.

You say that "science" has shown that there never was an Adam and Eve, that is false, you were told that, but based upon what evidence? I would be very curious to know of a qualified "researcher" who has made such a claim and what he bases such a claim upon.

You bring up "evolution" which is such an obvious lie any competent should be able to see it. Interspeciation and genetic information added by mutation are absolutely impossible and utterly proven so.

You say the flood is false and that I need to show my evidence or "get the fuck out" no child, I don't have to do either, but I will tell you that the geological proof of the great deluge is everywhere, some try to explain it away, but it remains everywhere. The honest eye should have little trouble discerning it. Fyi, there are clam fossils at the summit of Mt. Everest.

I am aware of your assumption that the story of Gilgamesh predates the Biblical narrative, but that is false as well. Most ancient cultures had a flood story simply because there WAS a flood, however, most cultures were also pagans and mixed their demonic influence and nonsense in with their stories. You assume, as you were taught to do, that because Sumerian writings were found which predate the old testament writings that the Hebrew faith also came after the Sumerian culture, but that is incorrect. The Enochian prophesies have been around a lot longer than the writings of Sumer. The Bible itself even addresses the pagan worship of Sumerian gods as a separate and disdainful practice initiated by demons.

This "modern world" is built on the backs of hard working men with ancient moral foundations and provable practical physical science and engineering, not the pseudoscience of evolution and materialism. You are full of rhetoric, the sharing of knowledge is very often ineffectual unless the correct conditions are set.
#486 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
"You say that the article shows (by which you imply "proves") that "the bible is not a historical or scientific document." which is just absurd considering that the Bible is in fact the most influential part of human history in existence and that it gives an accurate record as well."

Just because something is influential does not mean it is true. 3000 years ago everyone thought the world was flat, but that isn't true.

That article is not 'hyperbole'. Science has clearly shows that humans have emerged in Africa 200,00 years ago. We evolved from earlier primates and this is evidenced in the fossil record as well as through genetics and geology.

No one has refuted these claims but you are of course welcome to make an attempt. After all science is built on challenging ideas, not blindly accepting them.

You say there is no evidence so all I can say at this point is that you haven't looked into anything! Did you know that biology is based on evolution? This is how we can cure disease and learn about the nature of ll life.

If you think it's wrong, you have to prove it. Not just say it on the internet. You have to prove it. You haven't done that otherwise you would have already shown me the evidence.

Why are you saying that the Euphrates river is in Africa? Heard of Google? Wikipedia? Elementary education?

< Pic related...

You continue to make assertions without any evidence so there really is reason to listen to you. As I have said before: "You make the claims, you bring the evidence. No evidence = claim dismissed."
#599 - popeflatus (05/11/2015) [-]
daddyownsyou: A bit cowardly blocking me? A fearful Christian! My word!

https://youtube.com/devicesupport If you think evolution is wrong, don't just tell me here; prove it! Write a scientific paper and demonstrate your genius to the world. There are millions of science denier Christians just like you, all claiming the same things without any proof and certainly no scientific papers showing that you're right. None.

The Euphrates is not in Africa! That image clearly shows that you're dead wrong. You have to cross the Nile out of Africa to get to the Euphrates. Wrong wrong wrong. LOL.

If you had real curiosity you'd study evolution at college level and see that it is in fact real and true and that creationism is a complete myth. Ever noticed how there are no horse fossils in the sedimentary layer where the dinosaur bones are found? No human bones there either. Radiometric dating also demonstrates the ages of these fossils and of course concurs with the rest of biology on how these organisms came to be.

Radiometric dating is a solid science and no creationist has ever been able to prove it wrong.

Your god is a Canaanite minor deity that the Israelites took when they split off. He is a relatively recent god when compared to those of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Again, you need to read up on the epic of Gilgamesh and see where your creation myths have come from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

And some more on evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy

Try fighting the top scientist. Go on. I dare you! Let's see if this god of yours is capable of imbuing you with his magic wisdom to you can single-handedly overcome the evils of the scientific community. All 95 percent of them!

May reason be with you.
#523 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
The Bible's influence, even upon it's enemies, is greater than any other religion ever known, if not proof alone, it is definitely an indication that it is far different.

Not everyone thought it was flat, the Bible describes it as round.

Your numbers are unverifiable at best and evolution, well mutation CANNOT add information, even dawkins has to admit that, not to mention that "missing links" would not only be FAR from "missing" but would make up a far greater number in the fossil records than that of the current species, ditto every animal species and we would also be seeing failed attempts of every stripe everywhere among the living, but no, there is NONE of that. The volume of fossils alone from all those failed attempts and direct descendants of the living species today would be so great that there would be exponentially more fossil matter. It's all a pack of lies. The fossil record has been lied about, the bones date the strata, and the strata dates the bones and on and on and on goes the agenda driven lying and mindless regurgitation.

Genetics my foot, the dna of all life on the is planet is very closely related, you could postulate a link between a human and a tomato, but to say we had a common ancestor is just baseless speculation taken on faith.

I have looked into all the stuff you sent and much much much more, I understand it, it's simply not true. The science of biology existed long before the notion of evolution and I would like to hear of one disease "cured" by the study of evolution.

The Euphrates is on the land mass of the African continent, all the names are transient and don't matter, the fact is that you can walk from Uganda to the Euphrates.

I have provided a little evidence, not much but not 'none', and I have asserted nothing which cannot be verified with a little honest concern for the truth and effort. You have made verifiably false claims and you have had an attitude that if I don't spoon feed you every detail then I 'must be wrong' and you would turn and walk away. That is the mark of a person who is not even slightly interested in facts, that lack of natural curiosity. If I told you I saw a faery in your house, you would probably make fun of me, but you would probably secretly at least take a peek to see if I had really seen something which I might have mistaken for a faery, but when it comes to this, you and all others like you are the same, 0% curiosity. It is not because there is "so much evidence' against it, it is because there is so much hostility towards it, after all, if you face it and see that it is true then you have to not only change your behavior, but also your personality, your goals and lose your favorite toys as well. And it is that emotional response which steers you clear of the most important thing you could ever learn.

I have done what I could, GOD made your will so that no other human or any amount of reasoning or logic could ever break it. I can do nothing more except waste my time and get angry when you talk to me arrogantly as if by vomiting what you were told into my ears you were somehow wiser than me, so I will conclude the conversation here.

I sincerely hope you will take a serious and honest look at this, suspending your presumptions and emotions, while you still have time.
#46 - It wouldn't be nothing at all, the most popular theory regardi…  [+] (10 new replies) 05/10/2015 on Penn Jillette is not a... 0
#260 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
Where did that come from?
#301 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
Nobody knows. That's what science tries to figure out. Religion just says "god did it", and leaves absolutely no room for curiosity
#331 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
No one knows where 'it' came from, no one knows if it ever truly existed at all. I have yet to see any evidence that shows that such a thing ever was. Thus far it is just a hypothesis which is very loosely based upon impossible corroborations.

Whereas the concept of a CREATOR, in an everpresent state outside time and matter, WHO with knowledge and intent initiated the material universe is mathematically necessary.

Yet we are treated like we are "stupid" for believing in HIM, but then, that's only because HE had rules that forbade the shallowest and most self destructive of pleasures, so then He "couldn't possibly be real".

Lol, It is all so obvious, but there are none so blind as those who will not see. Anything -ANYTHING, any theory, any faith, any stretch of the imagination, as long as it rationalizes what we want immediately.

There is nothing like intellect coupled with desire to create a tangle so much worse than base stupidity could ever make. This is why the Bible says; "For the "wisdom" of this world is foolishness with GOD. For it is written, HE snares the "wise" with their own cunning."
#349 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
The belief in a creator, while admirable, is still totally unproven. As is the non-existence. God has no physical presence in this universe, he is purely a spiritual being. You're taking the default position of "Because I said so" on this, as do every single other religious person, including atheists. There is no way whatsoever to prove that your particular god, among the thousands that have been described over human history, is the only true god. You have no proof of this whatsoever.
#392 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
Your wording is a bit 'off' but I will answer it as it is written.

"The belief in a creator, while admirable, is still totally unproven." The "belief" is easily verifiable, however I am pretty sure that you meant to say 'the existence', however that too is inaccurate as it is mathematically impossible for a CREATOR not to exist.

"God has no physical presence in this universe, he is purely a spiritual being." While it may be true that HE has no physical bodily presence in the universe at this time, not only are the mark's of HIS intent and craftsmanship upon everything but HIS will continues to direct and alter the physical universe in an observable way. However the second part, about HIM being a purely spiritual being, that is not entirely true, HE has in the past had a physical body and in the future HE will again and possibly HE has one even now though in another place outside of our universe. But some of these matters are such that in the current time period you are only allowed to discover them personally, first hand. The way that is done is by following the instructions which we were given in the New Testament, doing so will result in meeting GOD and HIS personal confirmation of the truth.

I am not claiming "because I said so" these things are verifiable, and most are not even difficult and are readily available to anyone who is willing to observe and reason honestly, but there are some parts for which verification requires the willingness to seek deeply, with true curiosity to discover.
#400 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
Do you not understand the fact that I'm coming at this from the aspect of "we have no real way of knowing one way or the other"?

There are plenty of theories out there of how that singularity came to be, my personal favorite being that, if outside the boundaries of our universe there is no time whatsoever, then it is possible for the singularity to have always existed. We're getting into concepts here that are beyond the understanding of simple minds such as our own. Just because you believe biblical scripture is the only true answer doesn't mean I need to live my life by it. I'd much rather be able to search for answers myself, rather than have a book that that can, for the most part, be thoroughly disproven, give me everything. I'm not going to take your word that the bible is the only absolute truth, there's no evidence on this earth to support it whatsoever. Especially considering there have been millions of different faiths across human history that have all claimed to have the one absolute truth. It's unscientific.
#484 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
Not one line of the Bible has ever been "disproven" and a great deal of it has been proven even in an elementary physical way, and as a bonus if you followed it's instructions you would meet GOD for yourself, those who don't do it, don't do it because they don't want to meet GOD, they want to pursue a sinful life and that is really the heart of the matter.

You say there is "no evidence whatsoever" you just pulled that from thin air because you want to rationalize your choice, there is lots of evidence. You say there are millions of other faiths, I don't know about millions but there are plenty, however not even one as verifiable and powerful as Christianity, your conscience knows that and that it is different than the rest, you are not alone in your decision, you are being pushed, tempted, emotionally manipulated to avoid Christianity. Your body is a car and though you may be in the driver's seat, you are not the only one in the vehicle. You have passengers and they don't want you to turn right.

If you look around for material reasons to avoid the truth you will be given as many as you can handle, but you need to search yourself inwardly, to a place most atheists don't believe in, to your soul, and ask yourself honestly why you won't even look at Christianity seriously, why the thought of faith in it scares you so much. I don't need that answer, you do.

I don't think that any further discussion between us will do any good, if you have sincere questions about faith, I am willing to answer but I am tired and I am not interested in being argued with.
#497 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
And of course that's ignoring the cosmic arrogance of it. We are at a distant arm of the milky way, tens of thousands of lightyears from the galactic center. We don't have the largest planet, we don't even have the largest star or galaxy. On terms of vast cosmic scale, we are nothing, smaller to the entire universe than a single atom is to ourselves. To even imply that you alone, out of the infinite number of possibilities that could exist in a universe who's size we can't even begin to comprehend, hold the one absolute truth to all existence, is just staggeringly arrogant
#491 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
Keep telling yourself that. Biggest examples I can think of being the instance of the great flood No evidence whatsoever to suggest a total global inundation as described, in fact, there's nor remotely enough water on the planet for that to ever have been possible , the estimated age of the universe It is physically impossible for existence to be any younger than 13.7 billion years old , the fact that it is nearly impossible for 2 singular members of a species to populate an entire planet Animal species tend to have a minimum population number at which extinction is guaranteed, and it's a lot higher than 2 , the fact that there's no way in hell the first man was made from the dirt If that were the case, then we'd likely be silicone based, or some other mineral, dirt isn't generally a majority carbon substance , or the fact that we basically have an entire fossil record that proves there were billions of years of history pre-dating the most ancient forms of humans. Not only that, there's no proof whatsoever that the bible is actually true.
#500 - daddyownsyou (05/10/2015) [-]
That is all wrong.

Even you evolutionists claim man is from dirt i.e chemical components of earthly matter, there are clam fossils at the peak of mt. Everest, there is way more than enough water within earth's atmosphere to flood the earth, try taking two mice and feeding them real well -see what you have in a few months, all dating methods have been proven highly unreliable after a few thousand years, the Bible says that Rome occupied Jerusalem about two thousand years ago -is there "no proof whatsoever" that that is actually true?

You are running from truth and I am done talking to you. May you learn to be honest with yourself while you still can.
#42 - Nor is any kind of god necessary for it's existence. Buddhism… 05/10/2015 on Penn Jillette is not a... +6
#40 - If that's true, then why did Buddhism develop with comparably …  [+] (7 new replies) 05/10/2015 on Penn Jillette is not a... +3
#113 - amalone (05/10/2015) [-]
>Comparatively better morals
>Morals are subjective
>Asserts that one subjective moral code is "comparatively better" than another.
#313 - phoenixactual (05/10/2015) [-]
Lets compare Buddhism and abrahamic faith for a second. One teaches you not to kill whatsoever, under any circumstances, and that literally all life in the universe is equally sacred. The otherTeaches that it's perfectly ok to kill as long as the person you kill believes differently than you, cheated on his wife, committed gay acts, etc. Not to mention, one doesn't guarantee an eternity of punishment for even the slightest fuck up.

Ignoring the fact that that has nothing to do with what I was originally responding to, namely the claim that humanity needs the guidance of a deity to tell it what's right and wrong. Buddhism, having developed with no imagined divine intervention, is the proof that we can exist without the concept of a god and still be decent human beings
#222 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Don't you love how the Bible god instructs murder, rape and slavery?

Perfect morals from a perfect god...
#294 - aranthusick (05/10/2015) [-]
wait what? I thought christianity was all about jebus guy and do onto others as as you would like them do to you, love thy neigbour and dont judge or you will be judged and love others like you love your selves and shit. Where does the rape murder and slavery come in? Where is it mentioned in the new testament?
Fuck, even self defense is forbidden right? So really any kind of violence.

If you quote the old testament ill be real mad(Levictus has some fucked ups hit in it) ... You realize its not a part of the doctorine that christians follow, right?(atleast i dont think it is)
Then again I havent read the new testament, so if you have please enlighten me.

Or do you mean that they were the same god, the new and old testament gods, was that your point?

#299 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Yes, they are the same god.

Jesus said that he has come not to abolish the law but to uphold it.

Matthew 5:17

Christians cherrypick the hell out of the Bible all the time and can never agree on a 'true' interpretation and hence we have over 41,000 different versions of that religion.
#316 - aranthusick (05/10/2015) [-]
yes, but don't you agree that Jesus' general message (the stuff i said in my earlier comment) is in direct conflict with the old testament?
#318 - popeflatus (05/10/2015) [-]
Then if that is true then Jesus was deluded. On one hand he's saying to uphold the Old Testament and on the other he's saying things contradictory to that.

Jesus also said things about loving him more than your own family, in fact he says that you should hate them.

Luke 14:26

He says that his dad is going to burn you forever if you don't do what he says.

He's a cunt.
#146 - Who gives a **** ? Does one person's total lack of sexu… 05/10/2015 on tumblr post 0
#145 - Asexuality is not being sexually attracted to anybody. Not to… 05/10/2015 on tumblr post +1
#2 - Nah, testosterone works wonders on trans men 05/09/2015 on Trans 0
#7 - I know I'm basically nothing, and you know what? I'm cool with it 05/09/2015 on Looks like FJ needs a... 0
#26 - I get treatment. My treatment has allowed me to transition ov…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/08/2015 on A message for SJWs +1
#27 - John Cena (05/08/2015) [-]
Ok, cool. Often in medicine, especially for idiopathic diseases, treatment focuses on symptoms rather than cause. I wish you luck.
#22 - Basically every surgeon on the planet that performs the surger… 05/08/2015 on A message for SJWs 0
#21 - So you think trans people deserve the abuse we get at times?  [+] (3 new replies) 05/08/2015 on A message for SJWs 0
#25 - John Cena (05/08/2015) [-]
This is the logic applied all the time.
No, nobody with a mental disability deserves any abuse. Period. I don't care what disorder it is. You deserve treatment, not abuse.
#26 - phoenixactual (05/08/2015) [-]
I get treatment. My treatment has allowed me to transition over the past 2 years.
#27 - John Cena (05/08/2015) [-]
Ok, cool. Often in medicine, especially for idiopathic diseases, treatment focuses on symptoms rather than cause. I wish you luck.
#28 - I just say **** it and use the ladies room. I'm just i… 05/08/2015 on Non-Binary +1
#31 - Not in almost a year, 8 months suicidal thoughts free!! …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/08/2015 on yes +1
#48 - John Cena (05/09/2015) [-]
YAAAAY!

no idea who you are, but as someone who can relate, I'm super proud of you. That's an incredible accomplishment in my opinion.
#70 - And that's what this is really about. The baker had no proble…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/08/2015 on Gay People 0
User avatar #74 - snood (05/08/2015) [-]
if a stand up comic is jewish, does he have the right to not serve at a pro-neo-nazis or kkk meeting?
I think he absolutely has that right.
the christian baker should too.
User avatar #94 - sephirothpwnz (05/08/2015) [-]
that is a completely different type of service, a stand up comic has the ability to move to the venue and has a very different type of service than what is in a bakery. In the bakery they chose to make cakes, that is simply what they do. In many of these cases they had absolutely nothing wrong witht he product they were commissioned to make. until they asked during candid conversation what it was for.

meaning that if they had no idea it was for a gay wedding they would have created the cake. and considering that their job unless making a very specific tailor made cake doesn't require for them to know what it is for. You can always describe the cake you want, they have no real control over what they can do with it unless you the customer allows it.

A comic on the other hand is in complete control of the venue, they can request certain things to be there, the location, the time etc. and they can always refuse as it is the nature of their profession.

don't compare apples to oranges.
User avatar #108 - snood (05/09/2015) [-]
the law in question doesn't take into account what kind of service it is (as far as i am aware), the customers are willing to pay, so it's discriminatory for a jew to refuse to serve at a nazi meeting.
let's say the jewish person just has to make a cake with a swastika, i say he has the right to say no.
User avatar #115 - sephirothpwnz (05/09/2015) [-]
well this is where we enter the gray area, of law. I wouldn't say he has the right to say no, unless the bakery already has an established policy with signs that state that you cannot customize the cakes, you cannot refuse that kind of customization, and it would also be up to the Owner of the bakery at any rate a simple employee does not have the right to dictate service unless they wish to get fired of course. That jewish person isn't effected at all by putting the swastika on the cake, if they feel that strongly about it, then have another employee do it.

They cannot let their personal feelings affect a public business, they chose to make a public bakery so they are at the whim of the consumers, of course within reason there are things you can refuse, anything that is straight up inappropriate can be refused.

#114 - sephirothpwnz has deleted their comment.
#69 - People tend to not go to someone they already know is going to… 05/08/2015 on Gay People -1
#66 - It wasn't just bible verses, the guy was going out of his way …  [+] (8 new replies) 05/08/2015 on Gay People 0
User avatar #68 - snood (05/08/2015) [-]
well regardless, I think it's just as much of a jerk move to pick the Christian baker out of all the bakers you can pick from and then suing them for not serving your gay wedding knowing that it's against their beliefs.

to me that's like hosting a fur fashion show, and then finding the baker that's part of peta and making them cater it, like why go out of your way to find the person that's going to feel uncomfortable about it when there's plenty of other bakers that exist.
#70 - phoenixactual (05/08/2015) [-]
And that's what this is really about. The baker had no problem making the cake until they found out it was for a gay wedding, then refused a service they had already agreed to provide. This is an equal protection issue, you can't refuse a law abiding citizen a service you provide to the rest of the general public
User avatar #74 - snood (05/08/2015) [-]
if a stand up comic is jewish, does he have the right to not serve at a pro-neo-nazis or kkk meeting?
I think he absolutely has that right.
the christian baker should too.
User avatar #94 - sephirothpwnz (05/08/2015) [-]
that is a completely different type of service, a stand up comic has the ability to move to the venue and has a very different type of service than what is in a bakery. In the bakery they chose to make cakes, that is simply what they do. In many of these cases they had absolutely nothing wrong witht he product they were commissioned to make. until they asked during candid conversation what it was for.

meaning that if they had no idea it was for a gay wedding they would have created the cake. and considering that their job unless making a very specific tailor made cake doesn't require for them to know what it is for. You can always describe the cake you want, they have no real control over what they can do with it unless you the customer allows it.

A comic on the other hand is in complete control of the venue, they can request certain things to be there, the location, the time etc. and they can always refuse as it is the nature of their profession.

don't compare apples to oranges.
User avatar #108 - snood (05/09/2015) [-]
the law in question doesn't take into account what kind of service it is (as far as i am aware), the customers are willing to pay, so it's discriminatory for a jew to refuse to serve at a nazi meeting.
let's say the jewish person just has to make a cake with a swastika, i say he has the right to say no.
User avatar #115 - sephirothpwnz (05/09/2015) [-]
well this is where we enter the gray area, of law. I wouldn't say he has the right to say no, unless the bakery already has an established policy with signs that state that you cannot customize the cakes, you cannot refuse that kind of customization, and it would also be up to the Owner of the bakery at any rate a simple employee does not have the right to dictate service unless they wish to get fired of course. That jewish person isn't effected at all by putting the swastika on the cake, if they feel that strongly about it, then have another employee do it.

They cannot let their personal feelings affect a public business, they chose to make a public bakery so they are at the whim of the consumers, of course within reason there are things you can refuse, anything that is straight up inappropriate can be refused.

#114 - sephirothpwnz has deleted their comment.
#69 - phoenixactual (05/08/2015) [-]
People tend to not go to someone they already know is going to be an asshole towards them. In the case of the bakers, the customer pretty much makes it to the point when the cake is scheduled, ready to go, then the baker finds out whats up and refuses to serve. You shouldn't have to wait til the last minute to find out someone is going to refuse you the same service they provide the rest of the public
#29 - Yeah, but the whole San Diego thing should have opened their e…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/08/2015 on Joke in title 0
User avatar #38 - therealtjthemedic (05/08/2015) [-]
Yeah, their reasoning is getting as bad as Weyland-Yutani's
#15 - Nah, messiah complex is thinking you alone are the savior of mankind 05/08/2015 on Super special snowflakes +1
#2 - InGen's business model: Hey, remember that park we made li…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/08/2015 on Joke in title +14
User avatar #20 - therealtjthemedic (05/08/2015) [-]
I mean, the original park would have been fine if they had better safety measures against sabotage. As it was, they didn't understand IT tech and their only technician was very much in debt to bad people. Better background checks and shit would have stopped it.
#29 - phoenixactual (05/08/2015) [-]
Yeah, but the whole San Diego thing should have opened their eyes. Seriously, Between letting guests roam free in the park, and the whole "genetically engineered super-beast from the bowels of your worst nightmare" thing, I can't help but think InGen might just be a front company for a supervillain trying to take over the world with an army of dinosaurs
User avatar #38 - therealtjthemedic (05/08/2015) [-]
Yeah, their reasoning is getting as bad as Weyland-Yutani's
#33 - Already have batarangs, got a pair for like 4 bucks. Actually… 05/08/2015 on neat stuff you'll never have +1
#38 - It was thrown out within 48 hours  [+] (1 new reply) 05/07/2015 on Dammit, 'merica... +2
#100 - John Cena (05/08/2015) [-]
Why was it not thrown out when it was first seen?
#37 - Flaming cactus-blade chainsaw? 05/07/2015 on Dammit, 'merica... +2
#54 - Unless you put it on PC, and mod the **** out of it. T… 05/07/2015 on GTA SA +1
#74 - So you've never heard of private sales, then? Cause unless yo…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/07/2015 on Change 0
User avatar #75 - SteyrAUG (05/07/2015) [-]
Let's go over two private sales scenarios:

BEFORE ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS:
A criminal who isn't allowed to buy a gun goes down the street and buys one from Jaykwon. He now possesses this gun illegally.

Grandpa wants to gift the family shotgun to his 12 year old grandson. He does so. There is nothing illegal about this.

AFTER ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS:
A criminal who isn't allowed to buy a gun goes down the street and buys one from Jaykwon. He obtained this gun illegally and now possesses this gun illegally

Grandpa wants to gift the family shotgun to his 12 year old grandson. So he goes down to the local gun store, pays the $25-30 fee and fills out the paperwork so he can run a background check on his 12 year old grandson. Everything passes and he gives the gun to his grandson.

The point that these people that oppose this type of legislation are making is that it won't make a bit of difference. They already obtain these firearms illegally when they aren't allowed to have them and a second piece of paper telling them they have to go through an easily circumvent-able system to get one won't change that. So unless you want to implement some kind of police state to guarantee the law will be followed, there's really no way to enforce it.

items

Total unique items point value: 610 / Total items point value: 860
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#16 to #15 - Valid (05/10/2015) [-]
Enjoying the intelligebt debate. Please proceed
#14 - greedtheavaricious (07/28/2014) [-]
You are not really considering suicide, are you?
User avatar #13 - redwrench (07/28/2014) [-]
Queen-Don't Try Suicide
User avatar #12 - psychadelicace (06/25/2014) [-]
soooooooo...what did you post that got you banned?
User avatar #11 - bruinslover (06/24/2014) [-]
never knew you like to post shemales....subscribing.
User avatar #7 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Don't do it tho. Don't kill yourself. Don't even think about it.
#8 to #7 - phoenixactual (02/19/2014) [-]
No plans to
User avatar #9 to #8 - youmotherfather (02/19/2014) [-]
Ok, good to hear.
User avatar #6 - funnymidget (02/08/2014) [-]
:Hey, I seen you havin a Bad day. Don't be feeling down fr losin your job man. It's all gon' be good. Currently, I'm going through something that I have no Idea how to handle. I'm not able to see me son, and I've bee going thru so much stress with the drama. But lets not make this about me. You have a probably beautiful girlfriend, who loves you more than anything, and though you may have autsim, you strike me as a good guy. Trust me, suicide isn't worth it. It's just a Permant Solution to a temporary problem. I had a friend about 3 years ago kill himself because people bullied him for the way her looked. He was one of my only friends, and I was just devastated. Trust me, you taking your own life will hurt more people than it will help. For the sake of those who love you, and for your own sake, please, Just keep your mindset on the positive things in life. Though there may not be many, just focus on the few that are. It'll all be worth it in theend when you have a gril at your right, a child on yourleft, and you can call yourself a family.
User avatar #5 - mayormilkman (11/28/2013) [-]
butts
#1 - John Cena (07/15/2013) [-]
Hows the transition going?
#2 to #1 - phoenixactual (07/16/2013) [-]
it's going fairly well, 6 months in, somewhat surprising changes for this short of time
 Friends (0)