Another Indoctrinated Child Fails Miserably (read description)

[sweetsweatyfeet]

Typical Christian hypocrite exempts his personal god theory from his own argument. Also thinks he can simply define god into existence by pure assertion and grant it with magical attributes he defines as impossible for anything else. This is special pleading taken to the extreme.

Also cause and effect are properties of matter/energy. The very existence of matter/energy are preconditions for cause and effect.

[SomeBlueNowhere]

I would buy the giraffe-dildo care. I would SO buy that.

[SomeBlueNowhere]

*car

Lol.

[hurrrrdurr]

"secular humanist" lol. That's a fruity pseudo-legitimacy used by atheists of the same type as creationists who call themselves creation scientists.

Don't believe in a god? Great, get over it.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

haha you received his creepy videos too? that kid is nuts.

he sent the exact same PMs to me. with the same videos.

[Chadfish]

Maybe gravity is God?

[MrJastin]

That makes no sense, because gravity is simply large mass's pulling objects towards it, since theres more than one mass that has gravity, that would mean there would be more gods wich disprooves the bible. Also, gravity isn't anything, it's the planets pulling things towards it, not somethign else pulling thigns towards something else.

[fortunaevents]

I was being sarcastic...

[MrJastin]

Oh...You suck at being sarcastic!

[Chadfish]

Thinking about it again... Gravity is a force. Its the force that makes everything move. It's the force that causes a black hole to suck everything into it, and also pushes everything out on the other side - be it the birth of a star or another big bang beginning of a new universe (there's more than one you know). So I would indeed say that gravity is the force moving EVERYTHING, and that would give it the title of God. We'll know after death if there is consciousness flowing through this force!

[MrJastin]

That makes no sense, because if that were true, gravity wouldn't draw stuff to big stuff like planets, and it would be just floating around space, but before you say it, no not like a black hole.

[aogilmor]

Wow, proof of the existence of God, how wonderful :-)

[TheOtherVenkman]

Be careful in determing a difference between "live" and matter/energy; being "alive" might indeed be entirely subjective and anthropomorphic.

[TheOtherVenkman]

What's the intro song?

[ShwaNerd]

The song is Tortuga Bay from the album Death or Glory by the band Running Wild.

[boobmcnutt]

I don't usually go for metal, but that's pretty sweet. I must have it.

[iamabannana1]

Everything in the universe is made out of mass + energy

these were put into the unverse from the big bang

[TheSkepticalDesigner]

You mean that wont work? damn.. what am i going to do with all the giraffes and dildos i just ordered?

[Krensharpaw]

Build a house.

You knwo you can do it :).

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Wow, those kababayanC2 arguments are like 5th grade level fail.

[Gosu117]

sweet song at the start XD

those vids were nasty!

your pwnage was great I'm really glad I subd to you XD

[boonw]

you totally pwned that bitch.

[cosmosofinfinity]

Why do idiots like him try to prove a RELIGION with SCIENCE? It defeats the purpose doesn't it? Science says God most likely doesn't exist... So religious nut-jobs try to prove God exists WITH science? It's so contradictory. It's either one or the other, my mentally challenged friend.

[cosmosofinfinity]

Also, I love your taste in music, ShwaNerd! :)

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity Lols science says NOTHING of God. SCIENTISTS say stuff about God... and the guy who unravled the human genome would disagree with you. Just so you know its not just us bottom feeder inbred redneck religious peoples. Its not just "one or the other." ESECIALLY IF your wrong and God does exist. Science would discribe the way Gods creation works... the same way science discribes the way our universe works. Just saying ;)

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball Science says nothing of God because there's nothing that suggests that there is a god of any kind, of course. And the human genome has NOTHING to do with the existence of a god, so I don't give a shit about his views on the topic. And when I say "one or the other" I mean "it doesn't make sense to attempt to prove religion correct and scientific fact incorrect with... Science." Just in case you missed that.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity I was responding to the main points of your OP. And you asserted that science "Science says God most likely doesn't exist." You are most incorrect in that assertion. As I stated in my OP. I used an example of one of the most distinguished scientific minds, who happens to be religious, to show you that the some of the greats, not just "us bottom feeder inbred redneck religious peoples" who feel science does everything BUT say "God most likely doesn't exist."

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Many of the scientists who believe in God believe in a very different God than do evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. It is more a God of the Deists than a God who suspends natural law on a daily basis to work special miracles in answer to prayer or even a God who suspended natural law some times in the past.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 OHHHHhh and you make that baseless assertion based on what? You presume to speak for many of the scientists? Have you spoken to them? Ad as for "evangelical, fundamentalist Christians" of which I happen to be one, you are incorrect in your description of our understanding of God. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to pm you and we can discuss it more :)

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Most evangelicals believe in the biblical miracles. The physical ressurection is at the heart of evangelical belief, right? These are things that don't just happen normally, naturally.

I got my idea about the beliefs of scientists from reading the works of a few prominant ones. I don't know that a scientific poll of all scientists has been taken but I'll look for it.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Correct, after all, our faith in Christ means nothing if He didnt rise from the dead. The Apostle Paul said as much. Now I fail to see how any of your objections really carry any weight here my friend. Of course miracles dont happen normally or naturally. That is the exact defenition of miracle XD I figured you didnt speak for them all ;) I am sure that there are many diests in scientific circles. But I would wager that a great deal more are theists of some sort ;)

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball So you do believe that God can and does suspend natural law, ie the physical resurrection of Jesus. While individual scientists may compartmentalize things and believe whatever they please about religious things, science itself does not deal with miracles. It deals with things that can be observed and verified.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Okay? I dont get your point here. All you really did was explain what I already knew about science, which is exactly why it bugs m when people ask of science what is not within its relm of applicability. And ask me again if I believed if God performs miracles.. to which I will answer again "yes."

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball "Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, in the United States, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in a survey conducted in 1998."

Larson and Witham, 1998 "Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 My issue with your comment here was your assertion that Christian belief in God= belief that God "suspends natural law on a daily basis." Which is terribly mistaken. Please avoid those strawmen. Knocking them over isnt impressive lols ;)

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball So you don't believe that God answers petitionary prayer? For many Christians particularly the Charismatic/Pentacostal/Name it claim it variety, answered prayer is a major part of daily life. Whether we are talking about God healing someone of cancer or helping someone get a job or giving someone their 'daily bread' the person is asking and expecting God to step in and change what is or would ordinarily happen. ie break natural law.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 If you noticed my contention was with your assertion that we believe in the daily "suspension of natural law." Which is false. God giving you a job, or healing someone of cancer is not a suspension natural law, but an influencing of already possible events. And just so you know, Christians also recognize that God doesnt always give the answer we would like. Divine providence. Google it and you should be able find some good resources to help aquaint yourself with the doctrine :)

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball I don't owe you any respect. I'm going to make this quick:

1. You can't disprove the existence of deities the same way you can't disprove the existence of a hamster existing somewhere besides Earth. Or FSM.

2. Let me rephrase/repeat it: there is nothing that suggests a god's existence.

3. Obviously, not EVERY scientist is an Atheist. There are exceptions.That should go without saying. The fact that one particular scientist had religious beliefs is not relevant to anything.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity Well no you dont "owe" me any respect. Its called common courtesy. Which you apperently seem to lack.

1. Argument from ignorance is no argument.

2. Kalam Cosmological argument???

3. Its the caliber of scientist, and particularly WHAT that scientist did that is important. Being one of the key poeple responsible for the mapping of the Human genome, gives you quite a bit of credibility. And for him to see God in nature, in his work, seems to me to lend God some signposts.

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball I don't care about internet manners; sorry. Go ahead and continue to whine about how you're offended that I don't treat you as if you're special to me. It's not ignorance to not believe in a robot unicorn 9/11 conspiracy, is it? No information suggests that would be true. Same with the idea that the universe was made by some conscious being. In the end, nobody fucking knows what there was before the universe. Creationists pretend to know the answer, but they don't because they can't.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity Umm you are very incorrect in your assertion that "No information suggests that would be true. Same with the idea that the universe was made by some conscious being." You are making a false equivocation here. And you are doing so unsupported. The idea that the universe, so delicately balanced, was balanced by a balancer, is properly basic. Out of nothing nothing comes, everything that begins has a cause, the universe began so... you know ;)

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball And again, there is no connection between the human genome and how the universe began. So what religion this human genome guy believes in is not relevant to anything I have been saying. If Stephen Hawking was a creationist, that would be a bit more relevant, but even still, there would need to be a scientific theory of a being somehow existing before ANYTHING and then somehow creating the universe for me to consider creationism a legit explanation.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity I was speaking on the scientific validity to the notion that there is intellect behind nature. Ya S.Hawking isnt a creationist and for the record He admits himself that the univers unavoidably had a beginning. And from where I am sitting that fact leads us to a place where the idea of a prime causer makes VERY much sense. And follows logically from the singularity. Ok heres a scientific theory for you. All things that begin have a source. The universe had a beginning so...

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball Of course. But there is nothing that suggests it happened simply because some guy did it. If there was a beginning, and we don't even definitively know THAT, we have absolutely no theories whatsoever on what could have existed, if anything did, before the universe.

And what makes you think the universe is " delicately balanced"? It is what it is. It's just that simple. We don't have other universes to compare to, so calling we have a balanced universe doesn't mean anything.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity It is what it is?? O.o Are you serious? Using your logic I should look at a computer and say "it is what it is, no need to assume it must be assembled in the way it is." The strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, rate of expansion. ALL of them have to be JUST so, or else stars, planets, even matter couldnt exist!!! Let alone life. THATS why I think the universe is precisely balanced. Scientifically speaking you cant say anything BUT the universe had a beginning.

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity To say anything else would be wishful thinking and unsupported hypothetics.

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball Exactly!

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity Yay now that we agree that the scientific question of the beginning is satisfactorily met and that there was a beginning. What conclusion can we gather from this fact? If all things that begin have cause, and the universe began, it must have a cause. This cause, in order to avoid the infinite regress, MUST by definition be uncaused. Now the question is.. Creator or multiverse. Which one is more logical?

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity Or rather, which one, when you observe our existence as a whole makes more sense?

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball exists, we just know that it does. All we know is that it exists. How it came to be, nobody can say. And saying that it is "too complicated to have happened by accident" doesn't have any scientific backbone. Why couldn't it have happened by itself? Because YOU think it's too "precise"? Come on. This is the same kind of reasoning the people who believe in the "miracle" of Jesus's face being on some toast. It's too precise! God did it! It was deliberately created!

:|

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity You simply demonstrate your ignorance in these three posts. I refuse to continue this if you insist on being an absolute jerk. And fyi, again an argument from ignorance is no argument at all.

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball I think I did pretty well, as I can't seem to find any flaws in what I just posted, but if you're going to bitch about my presentation and walk away thinking you're the bigger man, then go ahead.

Friendly tip: Pointing out how I was being ignorant would have helped your case. Not that your case isn't totally stupid anyway. "Just saying ;)"

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity I have tried to get you to see the flaws in your arguments, all you do is curse and say things like "We dont know how it happend," and " we cant know these things," is known as the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance... which as I said again is no argument at all. If you would like to demonstrate why we cant know... that is a different story. And I dont think I am a "bigger man," I simply try to avoid waisting my time with foul mouthed jerks.

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball You're upset about my profanity? What are you, 3? And I never said we CAN'T know, I have been saying we DON'T know. I don't think that's argument from ignorance, as much as it is simply admitting that we don't know everything about how everything came to exist as we know it. I'm not going to pretend to know the answers to the great mystery of the universe. And I'm already on YouTube, so I personally don't mind wasting some extra time on comment wars myself. But I guess you're "BUSY".

[cosmosofinfinity]

@arktheball Basically, trying to squeeze religion into science, vainly trying to disprove whatever proven facts that oppose your religious ideas, and calling that "science" is bullshit. It's not scientific to defend religion as truth against so much information that suggests otherwise.

"science says NOTHING of God. SCIENTISTS say stuff about God.."

Oh gee, big fucking difference there, I guess. Because, you know, science can't talk? "Just saying ;)" what, exactly?

[arktheball]

@cosmosofinfinity On a side note, I didnt appreciate your rudeness in your responses to me. Unnecessary. On the primary, I WHOLE HEARTEDLY agree with you. And if you can find me anything that science has said that fits in this catagory, "so much information that suggests otherwise," I will eat my hat. And by the way, I am not asking for proof that the earth isnt 10000 years old, as I am not a young earth creationist. Show me how science has disproven God please, since you asserted it does.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball It is very difficult to impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove that i don't own an invisible pet unicorn? But it's not your job to. It would be my job to prove that I do have one. Science can not prove God does not exist. However, since there is no testable evidence that God does exist, science does not jump to the conclusion that God does exist. There are other simpler, testable explanations.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Proving God isnt proving a negative. I ask you, are there proofs that provide a good reason to believe God DOES exist. I am not asking you to prove a negative. I feel that their are MANY things, science being one of them, that are perfet reasons to think that there is intelligence and power behind the manifestation of the universe and its contents, culminating in this unique planet and we its unique species.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Agreed. Asking a Christian to prove God does exist is not asking to prove a negative. However, asking a non-christian to prove God does not exist is. There are other testable explanations as to how our species came to be rather than just saying 'God did it." While I find the universe and life upon the earth awe inspiring, nothing in it leads me to conclude that a transcendent deity is behind it all.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 How is asking a non Christian to prove a positive a negative? And even tho I say "God did it," doesnt mean AT ALL that I will not strive to discover HOW God did it. Science gives me reason to believe God exists. I KNOW God exists from other methods... more applicable methods.Study of the cerebral, study of the self, testing of the scriptures, trusting it its words etc.. And if you cant see intellect in the order of nature I question how hard you look.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Expecting a non-Christian to prove that there is no God IS expecting someone to prove a negative.

I think seeing intellect in nature is a matter of the observer projecting his/her own expectations onto what is observed, personification. There are rock formations in the Arizona desert that resemble faces, animals, people... if you look at them right and use a bit of imagination. No one jumps to the conclusion that they were sculpted by an intellence. It was just wind and sand.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Hardly. Asking one who is ignorant of mathmatics to seek out the answer to 2+2 is not asking them to prove a negative. I am asking them to positively seek out something they arnt aware of. Simply because one denies the existence of something, doesnt make it a negative to ask them to find the thing they deny. If I see programming, more complex than anything humanity can even begin to create, in nature... I am sorry, that says that intelligence is involved to me.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Ya I guess your right, I guess we couldnt expect a rational human being to look at mount rushmoore and say look at what humans did. That would be jumping to conclusions. It would be WAY more rational to say "look what the wind and rain did" huh? ;) See where your equivocation fails? Its not the mere apperance of looking kind of like intelligence. It is the EXACT IMAGE of intellect that is stunning in the natural world. And it is that image that SCREAMS to me, Intelligence.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Mt. Rushmoore is one thing. Bird Rock in Sedona is quite another. They both look pretty realistic but one was created by humans and the other by nature. But the fact that Bird Rock does in fact look like a bird does not scream that it was intellegently designed. I do not see any evidence in nature of intellegent design, divine or otherwise.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 But you do realize that asking me to look at the brilliance of nature, the structure of DNA, and expecting me to say oh look it just happend. But you yourself look at mount rushmoor and say "of course that was made by someone." When the stucture of DNA is so complex even biologists like R. Dawkns can use no other phrase to discribe it other than "it appears designed"... Hmmmm if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball I have a toy duck that quacks like a duck but it isn't a real one.

Yes, I expect you to believe that DNA is the product of natural selection. Not pure blind chance but natural selection. It is complex but it was not always so and did not require divine intervention to bring it into being.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Its a metaphor......

I dont disagree with you.. to a degree. And I am sorry but even natural selection is nothing more, ultimately, than pur blind chance. The assembly of the first living organism (which is a miracle in and of itself) and its procreation were complete and total freak accidents if there is no Being who ordered it so. I am not arguing Evolution here mind you. I am arguing the need for a Creator, and wether or not we are justified in believing in Its existence.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball In natural selection the random events that happen to be benificial are preserved and replicated and those that do not perish. While abiogenisis is not the same thing as evolution of existing creatures the idea that that which happens to work best makes more of itself is in both processes. As far as why life is on Earth... Earth was not specially created to host life rather life as we know it exists on Earth because the conditions here were conducive to it.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 I understand the premises of Natural Selection. As I said they are not what I am debating. The basic premises of NS dont eleminate a Creator. And I m curious however, you said "that which happens to work best ." Who determined what best is? By what scientific principle did you utilize to come up with your reason that " life is on Earth?" You arnt actually engaging what I have presented to you, that God exists and there is good reason to think so. You have simply rehashed NS ;)

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Natural Selection doesn't preclude the existance of a God. It just doesn't require one to make it work. Not who determined but what determined. The ability to reproduce more offsprings determined what was best suited to the environment. The principle is called Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Your God may or may not exist. I see no evidence that he exists that could not more easily be explained without assuming his existance.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 What precedes natural selection friend? What determind then? What determind the exact variables that produced this universe we live in, even allowing for MATTER to exist? Do you know how precarious the balance is, allowing for the stars to form is? The strong and weak forces must be JUST so to even let stars form let alone life! Occams razor states that one shouldnt multiply causes beyond what is necassary. I know. And it works for me too. Millions of random happenings or God.

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Preceding Natural Selection is Abiogenesis. And I suppose you then want to go all the way back to the origin of the universe. There are several plausable theories on the origin which will be revised as we learn more. I suspect that the moment of origin is unknowable, data not surviving a singularity. We exist in a universe such as it is not because it was specially created for us but because we could not exist if it were otherwise. Multiverse theory...

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 Ahh abiogenesis. Stanley miller in the 50's. A great example of intellect being necessarily present to create life. And why not back to the origin of the universe. Please dont bring up multiverse theory as it leaves you with the same question of what preceded that. Your ONLY option in either case is a preceding infinite God uncaused, or an infinite universe uncaused.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 cont... You do of course realize that you literally repeated your self here right? "We exist in a universe such as it is not because it was specially created for us but because we could not exist if it were otherwise!" You really just said the same thing!! The universe isnt special for us.. we exist because its special.... As for multiverse theory. S. Hawking admitted that it was simply an attempt to avoid the singularity. Which they still havn't done yet.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 I just realized how long we have been having this discussion... I for one have been enjoying it :) Thanks for your cordiality :)

[deatheyelesswatcher]

awsome intro

[BornInAsphodelMeadow]

Christ man, you just mindfucked me.

How do cacti reproduce?

[TheVigilantMan]

Sound like "We don't know/understand how shit happened, so god did it."

The usual god of the gaps thingy going on. Nothing new here.

[DancingRabbit52]

Just because a cactus is growing in the middle of the dessert doesn't mean God put it there. A bird dropped the seed, the wind blew the seed there... Just because the Universe is here doesn't mean the a God much less the Christian God put it there. Just because we don't currently know how the universe got here doesn't mean that the Christian God put it here.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 From your position we cant say ANYTHING about reality yet then, as future endevors could render our current understanding false or obsolete,

[DancingRabbit52]

@arktheball Sure. We can say with that what we observe is real especially if a lot of other people agree with the observation and the observation can be repeated. We could agree on that proverbial cactus because we could see it, touch it (ouch), smell it, even taste it. The future is less certain. We make new observations, find out new things we may need to revise our idea about what is. Once upon a time great scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe.

[arktheball]

@DancingRabbit52 And alot of people agreed with his observations... ;) just saying consensus means nothing in the veracity of an assertion. If all of science began to agree in consensus, that my left foot was actually a whale it would do NOTHING for them to tell me "But look ALL of science agrees, that your foot is proven, tested, and verified a whale." I would still, to the disbelief of many perhaps, believe their claims to be false.

[RyuDarragh]

Things only appear to have cause preceeding effect in linear time. We live in linear time with times "arrow" pointing into the future.

There may not be any "beginning" of the universe as we understand it. Merely an osccilation at what we mistakely perceive as "Cosmic Inflation" whereby matter, antimatter and dark matter osccilate between modes.

Silly humans. Always imagining the universe makes sense to us :P

[arktheball]

@RyuDarragh And yet that is unprovable to modern seekers of ALL venues. Even Steven Hawking admitted as much. It was, to abbreviate his words, an attempt to avoid the obvious beginning, and the implications made therein.

[arktheball]

@RyuDarragh That and your reason for me to disbelieve in what I KNOW, is solely based on the words "may" and "merely." For which you have no other substantiaton than its possible that we may be wrong, or find out some other stuff in the future, that makes you wrong. Which is a logical fallacy known as Argument from Ignorance.

[enjinn404]

That kid is one sick little shit.

[musicgeniusno1]

The kid obviously has serious issues. He has an obsession with killing and torture. 'hippies' also seem to be a problem for him. I mean he's only about 12 or something,so where did he get that from....sounds like a parental influence-as usual,indoctrination begins at home!

good response ShwaNerd :)

[Dragoontheguy]

fuck yeah running wild

[tjamison96]

The way this kid is fucked up is because of his family. If you watch some of his videos it sounds like they might be abusive. He talks about "your parents could yell at you, they could kick you out of the house, they could beat you... if they figure out you are dating somebody." It also says he's from the Philippines and I know someone from the Philippines and the culture there it seems to be more acceptable for parents to use force and abuse to control their kids and it kinda shows here

[tjamison96]

This kid is putting on the same tough guy (through this war and killing of animals video craze the anti love stuff) that his dad exudes. This kid is too young to know what he's really talking about and probably too young to understand complex and abstract ideas. He's a product of his upbringing and at his age and in his situation I doubt it will do any good to try to debate him. Him talking about having such a hard life in his videos of the disney stuff is probably because he does have a

[tjamison96]

tough life because his parents fuck him up and all that. I'm sure if he turned into an atheist and all this shit and his parents found out they'd probably beat him near to death. Until he moves out I doubt anything will change for him.

[spikesmth]

Awesome, now it's YOUR Chance to deal with this bitch nigga!! Thanks for the props.. they are reflected and amplified in return! Fuck that KBaby BITCH! Hail Science!

[FallenAngel0fDoom]

"If there was a cactus in the middle of the desert, would you believe it was always there? I hope not. Matter and energy can't always have existed without someone putting it there"

Hmm, I wonder if this asshole is arrogant, to say the least. It's amazing how he can posit this and somehow know it was a god. These types of cunts say atheists worship science, but it s only them who attach a name, personifying science, and in its name they condemn you to hell. Assholes.

[Patman128]

Fucking scary. He seems to enjoy the abuse of animals.

And he finds Disney and Teletubbies "inappropriate" LMAO.

[proatheism]

NIce.

[Nightmare91o]

I seriously LOL'd at the giraffe.

[draagon66]

Yup.