My bad on misreading that. And that's why there is no way to disprove him, even if we could travel to the edge of the universe (assuming there is one) and set cameras up to monitor every area with nothing escaping us, there will always be some excuse as to why we can't see him or any trace of him.

So then to correctly answer that question of yours, why the scientists are trying to disprove god is because religion, not just christianity, has held us back. It has corrupt many people into thinking harmless things, such as pre-marital sex, and homosexuality and even advancing our scientific knowledge are evil and should be punished.... In many peoples's opinions, punished by death. Of course that is a small minority now, but there was a time when most people thought that way.

The points you make in that second paragraph are so valid I could fap to them, but saying that something cannot exist because we can't prove it doesn't makes no sense. We can't prove that Earth doesn't exist, and by that logic it doesn't. I know there are major differences between the two, but following the same logic gives you the same result. It's true we can't disprove God with modern technology, but that could drastically change with some new breakthrough a few thousand years down the line.

Got it out of Google haha

We both did, but I've had debates like this with my old A-Level Philosophy teacher a few times, and in the end she agreed that the logic was sound. I tend not to go into debates wherein I'm certain most of the support will be against me if I'm not well-prepared.

Which would probably be all well and good if she didn't consider me the most intelligent student in her class.

Not trying to be a dick, but teacher's tell all their students that. Every single teacher I've ever had has said that to me, even in my nap class.

Yeah I understand that, but she said it infront of everyone all the time in her rants about my laziness and that if not for the fact that I was the best, I'd have long since been off the course.

Same here, i dont know too much about these kind of debates

Atheism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as the disbelief in the existence of a deity. Disbelief does not mean belief against. There are "Atheists" who do believe there is not god, and when it comes to these people I will agree that they have a religion or belief system. But Atheist is broken down into A-theist which means not a theist. That doesn't mean an atheist must believe in something else or even the lack of something. It means an atheist doesn't believe at all, one way or another.

I'd have to agree with you on that differentiation, but as you yourself said there are those who adamantly believe that God doesn't exist, and those that believe that are, technically, a religion.

Agnostics are people that aren't sure one way or the other. Atheists are people that either lack belief in God, or believe God isn't real.

No, you're right. They're not mutally exclusive, but in some cases they can be. People can be certain in their belief that there is no divine being, and those people are what I refer to as Atheists. Some might refer to them as 'religious atheists' or 'die-hard atheists', or whatever. But the result is the same.

Just because there are cases of Atheism and Agnosticism not being mutually exclusive, doesn't mean all of them are.

So you accept, then, that some Atheists believe, in the sense that they have no concrete proof against, and therefore have a religious faith in, the non-existence of God?

I never at any point said Atheism was the same form of religion as Christianity.

Yes those are but the majority of atheists (at least the ones who don't have a personal beef with religion) just don't believe that there is a god. To state atheism is a religion is false. Just because they call themselves atheists doesn't mean they are ones. I believe a persona who goes to church but doesn't believe isn't really a christian would be a good analogy. Those people aren't really atheists.

Well in that case you're saying the ones that lack belief aren't true Atheists, whereas those who believe that God isn't real are.

Much like how you're viewing a non-religion as a religion eh?

Also I apologize for your red thumbs, trying to change that since you're not being a total bigot here.

Also nice touch with the view argument. I try to keep as objective as possible, and one form of Atheism, as the Anon above refers to as 'Gnostic Atheism' does fit the description of one of many forms/definitions of Atheism.

I do, however, accept that I incorrectly defined Atheists. Most are not religious in that sense, but some are.

I still don't think, even the gnostic atheists should be classified as a "religion" but they do tend to have a.... over-zealous almost religion like approach to their atheism.

still, it is getting late so I'm gonna head to bed, good luck with your conversations with the anon's and don't get sucked in by them, good night.

I think it's too late for that, my friend. And good night to you too, sir. Sleep well.

I'm not too worried about the red thumbs, I'm enjoying this argument. I don't get much chance to debate this stuff with people I know in real life, but cheers all the same

RIght, so why have we never seen god with our telescopes? Bringing up that last point of more intelligent people trying to prove god real was kinda silly, considering the vast majority of well respected scientists are atheists. But for the few that are theists that are trying to prove it, is because they WANT him to be real, they hope he's real.

I said the ones trying to disprove God's existence, not prove it. And about the telescope, considering the Hubble Telescope can't see in detail the other side of the galaxy, how are you going to be able to argue that we'd have been able to have found Him in the entire universe?

My bad on misreading that. And that's why there is no way to disprove him, even if we could travel to the edge of the universe (assuming there is one) and set cameras up to monitor every area with nothing escaping us, there will always be some excuse as to why we can't see him or any trace of him.

So then to correctly answer that question of yours, why the scientists are trying to disprove god is because religion, not just christianity, has held us back. It has corrupt many people into thinking harmless things, such as pre-marital sex, and homosexuality and even advancing our scientific knowledge are evil and should be punished.... In many peoples's opinions, punished by death. Of course that is a small minority now, but there was a time when most people thought that way.

The points you make in that second paragraph are so valid I could fap to them, but saying that something cannot exist because we can't prove it doesn't makes no sense. We can't prove that Earth doesn't exist, and by that logic it doesn't. I know there are major differences between the two, but following the same logic gives you the same result. It's true we can't disprove God with modern technology, but that could drastically change with some new breakthrough a few thousand years down the line.

And also, you basically said that because you don't perceive a religion as one, it isn't, which makes debating this with you practically impossible because you're using looking at this from a subjective viewpoint.

Much like how you're viewing a non-religion as a religion eh?

Also I apologize for your red thumbs, trying to change that since you're not being a total bigot here.

Also nice touch with the view argument. I try to keep as objective as possible, and one form of Atheism, as the Anon above refers to as 'Gnostic Atheism' does fit the description of one of many forms/definitions of Atheism.

I do, however, accept that I incorrectly defined Atheists. Most are not religious in that sense, but some are.

I still don't think, even the gnostic atheists should be classified as a "religion" but they do tend to have a.... over-zealous almost religion like approach to their atheism.

still, it is getting late so I'm gonna head to bed, good luck with your conversations with the anon's and don't get sucked in by them, good night.

I think it's too late for that, my friend. And good night to you too, sir. Sleep well.

I'm not too worried about the red thumbs, I'm enjoying this argument. I don't get much chance to debate this stuff with people I know in real life, but cheers all the same

He can't be disproven the same you want can't disprove that I have a dragon in my room. If you come by I can say he left, or is invisible or some shit.

I don't have FAITH that god doesn't exist, and for all I know he might, but I have seen not a single legitimate reason to beleive so.

Jedi-ism might legally be a religion, doesn't mean I classify it as one, that's stupid. Buddhism might not have a god but it still follows a beleif set and doctrine, atheists have no such thing.

Sure they do. "There is no divine power, you create your own destiny."

And seeing as nothing with a physical presence is invisible, as the atoms can be seen with a powerful enough telescope, I could most certainly disprove that there is a dragon in your room. And if it's true that it's impossible to disprove that God exists, why do so many people; who I'm quite sure are much more highly educated than you or I, keep trying?

RIght, so why have we never seen god with our telescopes? Bringing up that last point of more intelligent people trying to prove god real was kinda silly, considering the vast majority of well respected scientists are atheists. But for the few that are theists that are trying to prove it, is because they WANT him to be real, they hope he's real.

I said the ones trying to disprove God's existence, not prove it. And about the telescope, considering the Hubble Telescope can't see in detail the other side of the galaxy, how are you going to be able to argue that we'd have been able to have found Him in the entire universe?

My bad on misreading that. And that's why there is no way to disprove him, even if we could travel to the edge of the universe (assuming there is one) and set cameras up to monitor every area with nothing escaping us, there will always be some excuse as to why we can't see him or any trace of him.

So then to correctly answer that question of yours, why the scientists are trying to disprove god is because religion, not just christianity, has held us back. It has corrupt many people into thinking harmless things, such as pre-marital sex, and homosexuality and even advancing our scientific knowledge are evil and should be punished.... In many peoples's opinions, punished by death. Of course that is a small minority now, but there was a time when most people thought that way.

The points you make in that second paragraph are so valid I could fap to them, but saying that something cannot exist because we can't prove it doesn't makes no sense. We can't prove that Earth doesn't exist, and by that logic it doesn't. I know there are major differences between the two, but following the same logic gives you the same result. It's true we can't disprove God with modern technology, but that could drastically change with some new breakthrough a few thousand years down the line.

And also, you basically said that because you don't perceive a religion as one, it isn't, which makes debating this with you practically impossible because you're using looking at this from a subjective viewpoint.

Much like how you're viewing a non-religion as a religion eh?

Also I apologize for your red thumbs, trying to change that since you're not being a total bigot here.

Also nice touch with the view argument. I try to keep as objective as possible, and one form of Atheism, as the Anon above refers to as 'Gnostic Atheism' does fit the description of one of many forms/definitions of Atheism.

I do, however, accept that I incorrectly defined Atheists. Most are not religious in that sense, but some are.

I still don't think, even the gnostic atheists should be classified as a "religion" but they do tend to have a.... over-zealous almost religion like approach to their atheism.

still, it is getting late so I'm gonna head to bed, good luck with your conversations with the anon's and don't get sucked in by them, good night.

I think it's too late for that, my friend. And good night to you too, sir. Sleep well.

I'm not too worried about the red thumbs, I'm enjoying this argument. I don't get much chance to debate this stuff with people I know in real life, but cheers all the same

No its not about absolutes. Richard Dawkins wrote a whole chapter on this but of course we couldn't expect people like you to read it. Most people from day to day don't operate their lives believing that unicorns could exist. Most people simply take it for granted that they probably don't exist. But if pressed, everyone would probably concede that they would allow for the possibility that it exists, MAYBE, if they were one day shown proof.

That is what an atheist is. (Instead of unicorn, Dawkins uses the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and alienates a lot of pastaferians.) No rational person can every be beyond the grasp of reasoning and proof. A good scientist admits they could be wrong, and will be able to hear argument. In his own example, Dawnkins says most degrees of "non-belief" can translate into percentages. I, for example, am 95% sure god doesn't exist. Just like a flying spaghetti monster. Just like you and everyone else is pretty sure unicorns don't exist.

That isn't a religion, my friend. Please don't confuse it with one.

Dawkins says most degrees of 'non-belief', but not all. And if you're referring to "The God Delusion" I have read it, and I'd prefer it if you didn't make assumptions just because of the point I'm arguing.

And I'm pretty sure that, if pressed, a lot of Gnostic Atheists would argue that God does not, and cannot exist. Those Atheists are the ones I consider religious, not all of them.

That would be a very small percent of uneducated persons who simply call themselves "atheist". The term itself means a lack, which in of itself does not denote we assert the opposite. In logic speak, "if P then Q, not P therefore not Q" is wrong. Those who insist it is, or those who take up the banner "Atheist" but assume (a-)Theist means pro-godless then they are misusing the term. The true expression of logic is that, , "if P then Q, not P therefore... Q is still possible." I am believing there is no P to imply Q. But that is all. And that is what Dawkins was trying to get across. I am wondering if we read the same book.

So you're saying that because your own view on Atheism is that it's possible that a God exists, but you won't accept it without proof, then another person's view on Atheism; in that said person believes that God doesn't exist at all, is wrong?

I am pointing out that most arguments over "truths" are actually misconceptions on the finer semantics of meaning. What any rational human considers "true" and what he/she considers "false" is actually a mine field of literal translation. For things we can't actually have a first person experience of (truths like, my carpet is coloured green) we must rely on probable beliefs which are accumulated and informed by experience.

A horrifyingly huge amount of our "beliefs" are unsubstantiated. I believe, however, that America probably exists. I've never had direct first person evidence of this. But until I have, the remotest possibility exists that the evidence for it was manufactured for some purpose I have no knowledge of. These kinds of absurd arguments only exist to demonstrate that "Truths" are taken on and "believed" by most reasonable people in the course of ordinary life, where there is always a small portion of possibility that it is not "truth". Now, that small portion is absurdly small for some things (like the existence of America) and a fair bit bigger for other things (whether a falling apple actually did stimulate Newton's revelation). Dawkins was pointing this out. Portion of belief that X.... is true, when there is no way to establish it so to the fullest extent (I am happy to believe a whole lot of things about the world, like America, without flying there first.)

Now unicorns. I have a 'belief that X' on that, like most others do. A small number of people honestly hold a contrary belief. Consider the loch ness monster. I apologise for assuming you never read The God Delusion. It was prejudiced of me. You are also, I suspect, right when suggesting that most atheists , when pressed, would probably assert belief in there being no god. But if you lead these persons through the logic points of things they believe about the world,
ie. continents existing that they have never visited,
(continued)

But if you lead these persons through the logic points of things they believe about the world,
ie. continents existing that they have never visited,
you will arrive at a different species of "truth" that is not applied on a day to day literal basis. The most succinct, and scientifically true position to hold, is to say that I DO NOT KNOW IF AMERICA IS REAL, until I've been there. I DO NOT KNOW that unicorns are nonexistent, either. But this isn't how people operate. People believe that America is real, without having travelled there. People believe that unicorns don't exist. And so it is with God.

Being pressed into a corner forces one to admit either some sort of agnostic truth, (AMERICA COULD BE NON EXISTENT, I SUPPOSE) or to assert what is frequently misconstrued as a "religious belief". Because admitting America could be a huge elaborate lie and unicorns could be real sounds silly to most people, being pressed into a corner yields a definitive "non-belief" in God. Which isn't technically true. Real truth is about degrees of probability being SCALED UP or rounded up, if you will, to attaining a status of "real" or "not real". But the logic that arrives us there is different.

Am I making any sense?

(continued on)

What I understand about religion, and what appears to make it hold such appeal for so many people, is there is no scientific doubt inherent in how it is seen. That is what "faith" is, and why it is so powerful. Scientific doubt is concerned with seeing the universe how it truly is, which means we have to concede (individually) that everything told or presented to us that we can't validate could be a lie. If you want to get right into the guts of metaphysics, you end up with arguments about whether our senses lie to us, and end up with the script of The Matrix.

I believe, a level above these sorts of EVERYTHING COULD BE FALSE arguments, that there is a level of reality that I can experience and learn about and discover the truths of. But there are truths even about that reality that I can't prove. A solipsist could call me one who "has unwarranted faith," but I stand with a huge majority on that point, because there is no ascertainable truth beyond it in any meaningful sense.

Therefore, I assert that my "non belief" in some things about this level of reality I inhabit, is actually formed of a likelihood expectation and experience, that does not betray itself to faith to the extent that belief in god does. And to state that being assertive in this position amounts to a "religion" is a poor response. It is akin to stating that being assertive in the truth of such things as "planes rarely crash", "unicorns are fictional" and "America is a big continent over there somewhere" is a RELIGIOUS type of belief. Which most would argue, it is not.

"Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods"

Or: Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Got it out of Google haha

We both did, but I've had debates like this with my old A-Level Philosophy teacher a few times, and in the end she agreed that the logic was sound. I tend not to go into debates wherein I'm certain most of the support will be against me if I'm not well-prepared.

Which would probably be all well and good if she didn't consider me the most intelligent student in her class.

Not trying to be a dick, but teacher's tell all their students that. Every single teacher I've ever had has said that to me, even in my nap class.

Yeah I understand that, but she said it infront of everyone all the time in her rants about my laziness and that if not for the fact that I was the best, I'd have long since been off the course.

Same here, i dont know too much about these kind of debates

Atheism isn't the belief that there is no god but the lack in belief in a god. Now these may sound similar but let me make it clear that they are very different. Someone who believes there is no god will defend that belief even if there is substantial evidence against it. Someone who lacks belief in god only follows evidence, they will acknowledge what ever it shows. Currently there is no proof for god so atheists don't believe. But if somehow there was definitive proof those with a lack of belief would choose to follow this god while those who believe he doesn't exist will continue on the path of not believing. Do not confuse atheism with religion. An atheist can change his or her mind as long as there is evidence.

You are awesome.

Atheism - The theory or belief that God does not exist.

Atheism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as the disbelief in the existence of a deity. Disbelief does not mean belief against. There are "Atheists" who do believe there is not god, and when it comes to these people I will agree that they have a religion or belief system. But Atheist is broken down into A-theist which means not a theist. That doesn't mean an atheist must believe in something else or even the lack of something. It means an atheist doesn't believe at all, one way or another.

I'd have to agree with you on that differentiation, but as you yourself said there are those who adamantly believe that God doesn't exist, and those that believe that are, technically, a religion.

Agnostics are people that aren't sure one way or the other. Atheists are people that either lack belief in God, or believe God isn't real.

No, you're right. They're not mutally exclusive, but in some cases they can be. People can be certain in their belief that there is no divine being, and those people are what I refer to as Atheists. Some might refer to them as 'religious atheists' or 'die-hard atheists', or whatever. But the result is the same.

Just because there are cases of Atheism and Agnosticism not being mutually exclusive, doesn't mean all of them are.

So you accept, then, that some Atheists believe, in the sense that they have no concrete proof against, and therefore have a religious faith in, the non-existence of God?

I never at any point said Atheism was the same form of religion as Christianity.

Yes those are but the majority of atheists (at least the ones who don't have a personal beef with religion) just don't believe that there is a god. To state atheism is a religion is false. Just because they call themselves atheists doesn't mean they are ones. I believe a persona who goes to church but doesn't believe isn't really a christian would be a good analogy. Those people aren't really atheists.

Well in that case you're saying the ones that lack belief aren't true Atheists, whereas those who believe that God isn't real are.

Forgot this.

So in that regard, would you consider people who don't beleive in big foot to be a-big footists? Atheism is the lack of beleif in a god, nothing more. Furthermore, it has been said that something that can not possibly be disproven, can not exist.

First, explain how God cannot possibly be disproven.
Second, yes. I would consider people who do not believe in Bigfoot to be A-Bigfootists, even though that's clearly not the word.
Religion is something in which a large group of people have faith that something is true regardless of concrete evidence. Just because there is no deity to centre your faith on, that doesn't mean there is no religion. Jedi-ism is an acknowledged religion, yet there is no 'Jedi God', and Buddha isn't a God either, so that's two. There are millions of people around the world who have faith that there is no divine, all-powerful being that made us.

He can't be disproven the same you want can't disprove that I have a dragon in my room. If you come by I can say he left, or is invisible or some shit.

I don't have FAITH that god doesn't exist, and for all I know he might, but I have seen not a single legitimate reason to beleive so.

Jedi-ism might legally be a religion, doesn't mean I classify it as one, that's stupid. Buddhism might not have a god but it still follows a beleif set and doctrine, atheists have no such thing.

Sure they do. "There is no divine power, you create your own destiny."

And seeing as nothing with a physical presence is invisible, as the atoms can be seen with a powerful enough telescope, I could most certainly disprove that there is a dragon in your room. And if it's true that it's impossible to disprove that God exists, why do so many people; who I'm quite sure are much more highly educated than you or I, keep trying?

RIght, so why have we never seen god with our telescopes? Bringing up that last point of more intelligent people trying to prove god real was kinda silly, considering the vast majority of well respected scientists are atheists. But for the few that are theists that are trying to prove it, is because they WANT him to be real, they hope he's real.

I said the ones trying to disprove God's existence, not prove it. And about the telescope, considering the Hubble Telescope can't see in detail the other side of the galaxy, how are you going to be able to argue that we'd have been able to have found Him in the entire universe?

My bad on misreading that. And that's why there is no way to disprove him, even if we could travel to the edge of the universe (assuming there is one) and set cameras up to monitor every area with nothing escaping us, there will always be some excuse as to why we can't see him or any trace of him.

So then to correctly answer that question of yours, why the scientists are trying to disprove god is because religion, not just christianity, has held us back. It has corrupt many people into thinking harmless things, such as pre-marital sex, and homosexuality and even advancing our scientific knowledge are evil and should be punished.... In many peoples's opinions, punished by death. Of course that is a small minority now, but there was a time when most people thought that way.

The points you make in that second paragraph are so valid I could fap to them, but saying that something cannot exist because we can't prove it doesn't makes no sense. We can't prove that Earth doesn't exist, and by that logic it doesn't. I know there are major differences between the two, but following the same logic gives you the same result. It's true we can't disprove God with modern technology, but that could drastically change with some new breakthrough a few thousand years down the line.

And also, you basically said that because you don't perceive a religion as one, it isn't, which makes debating this with you practically impossible because you're using looking at this from a subjective viewpoint.

Much like how you're viewing a non-religion as a religion eh?

Also I apologize for your red thumbs, trying to change that since you're not being a total bigot here.

Also nice touch with the view argument. I try to keep as objective as possible, and one form of Atheism, as the Anon above refers to as 'Gnostic Atheism' does fit the description of one of many forms/definitions of Atheism.

I do, however, accept that I incorrectly defined Atheists. Most are not religious in that sense, but some are.

I still don't think, even the gnostic atheists should be classified as a "religion" but they do tend to have a.... over-zealous almost religion like approach to their atheism.

still, it is getting late so I'm gonna head to bed, good luck with your conversations with the anon's and don't get sucked in by them, good night.

I think it's too late for that, my friend. And good night to you too, sir. Sleep well.

I'm not too worried about the red thumbs, I'm enjoying this argument. I don't get much chance to debate this stuff with people I know in real life, but cheers all the same

Except both the Christian God and Allah are both deities, and Atheism is the lack of belief in or belief against the existence of a deity, regardless of which deity, so only one religion exists for 'Gnostic' Atheists.

she does just plain swim sometimes too you know. otherwise, i would fully agree

Have you been watching what has been happening in America recently? Corruption is abound and everyone is too busy with stupid crap to stop it. A majority of Congress voted to keep us in the dark about GMO food and not join the rest of the world including CHINA. There was recently a recall election for corrupt Mr. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. He dismantled union rights, vetoed an equal pay act and many other shitty things. He got flooded with dirty money from out of state and won the election. America has been in a shitty and stupid war for 11 years that no one with a brain supports. Politics has been getting shadier since Bush "won" the election in 2000. Giant buissinesses have been allowed to 'self regulate' with disastrous results for the people, tax cuts for the wealthy, have been exteded while we cut funding for public services are getting cut left and right.

Tell me again how the people are going to change our government with anything short of a revolution now. Which I am all for, I hate our government and it needs to go.

All non-politician government employees go on strike - America shuts down. Politicians think to themselves "Hmm... What could've caused this?"

if the government is so corrupt, why doesnt anybody take charge and expose the truth, and get the corruption out? why has no one tried to do what America was founded on doing and end the tyranny?

Ever heard of Wikileaks or Occupy Wall Street? There is an attempt but it is only going so far. There is a media black out about Occupy unless it gets violent.

its still going on? well thing is though that its just a protest, the government doesnt give a shit. there's no real way to get those assholes out becasue they control the money and power, and they already have the tree of corruption so overgrown and thick no axe can chop it down.

And that is why I hope we have a revolution. The only thing we are getting in this 'trickle down' capitalist system is pissed on.

well, if its a revolution i sure as hell hope it isnt a war, any resistance would have a hard time considering how many loyal patriotic rednecks are in the army and how much tools of destruction we have.

The government would definitely paint us to be 'domestic terrorists'. But maybe it would wake the majority of the people to how sick and twisted our country has become if they started to shoot riled up college students for demanding rights and jobs not being shipped to china.

true. i just hope it doesnt turn to that, it would be another useless war, which we get enouhg of from the government

Believe me I know. What really scares me is that Obama has the power to indefinitely detain a 'suspected terrorist' without a trial.

id be more worried that the gvmnt can spy on you at all times without anyone stopping htem [ie patriot act]

I wonder how long we are gonna let our rights be taken away while lying down submissively? I want this country to be a better place, there is so much potential! But as the rights of the few are put above the rights of everyone else we are always gonna be screwed.

yeah. well, im expecting that if the next president elected [or 2] fuck us over real bad, then somethings gonna happen.

As a woman I have decided that if Romney is elected president I am cutting my losses with the states and leaving. I mean, Obama isn't much better but at least with I will be able to make decisions about my own body. There is also a hope of Citizen's united getting overturned if we can get more Dems into the picture. Hopefully, but not likely :(

well, democrats wont help either. there all out to fuck everybody over. the democrats and republicans are equally stupid, just they use their stupidity in different ways.

unfed trynda, could care less
fed trynda pulls ulti, morde pulls ulti, your move...

Someone uses ignite on Tryndamere. He tries to clutch-heal, but it only gives him half of what it should, and he gets taken down easily. Ashe dies to Morde's ulti, gets taken down in a couple seconds because she's squishier than a mouldy orange. Morde gets killed by everyone.

Karthus pops ulti, so does soraka. Karthus throws a tantrum.

Summoner selects Tryndamere. Entire enemy team ragequit.

unfed trynda, could care less
fed trynda pulls ulti, morde pulls ulti, your move...

Someone uses ignite on Tryndamere. He tries to clutch-heal, but it only gives him half of what it should, and he gets taken down easily. Ashe dies to Morde's ulti, gets taken down in a couple seconds because she's squishier than a mouldy orange. Morde gets killed by everyone.

I'd like to point out that in a reply to post #3867, I rolled 56...

i know

Mine are going crazy because you said "spelling nazi" instead of Grammar Nazi.

sorry about that
didn't make it, just collected it

Wasn't having a go at you, man

i know

hop you like it

It's nice, but my spelling nazi powers are going crazy over the misuse of the word 'of'...
Should be 'have'... or 'Could've'

Mine are going crazy because you said "spelling nazi" instead of Grammar Nazi.

sorry about that
didn't make it, just collected it

Wasn't having a go at you, man

i know

**blnelms rolls 33**

hr you go

HUZZAH

hop you like it

It's nice, but my spelling nazi powers are going crazy over the misuse of the word 'of'...
Should be 'have'... or 'Could've'

Mine are going crazy because you said "spelling nazi" instead of Grammar Nazi.

sorry about that
didn't make it, just collected it

Wasn't having a go at you, man

i know

*here

**bakedkake rolls 05**

**bakedkake rolls 30**

**PopcornViking rolls 45**