Oh come on, you knew what it meant, no one is that stupid.

fuk

Not larger but thicker like a mushroom cap.

Oh come on, you knew what it meant, no one is that stupid.

fuk

thank you! thats all i could think about the entire time i was reading that. i mean unless you have a smaller member then i dont see how it would be possible.

Fuck if I know!
Mine isn't, so I have no clue.

The Glans, the colored tip of the penis, is what is known s the head. The rest of it is known as the shaft.

I know what the head of the penis is. But since when is that larger than the shaft?

Not larger but thicker like a mushroom cap.

Oh come on, you knew what it meant, no one is that stupid.

fuk

thank you! thats all i could think about the entire time i was reading that. i mean unless you have a smaller member then i dont see how it would be possible.

Fuck if I know!
Mine isn't, so I have no clue.

Look at your penis. Then read again. Then look at your penis again.






If you're female recruit a stranger from the street to look at his penis

But it specifies that it's the head of the penis, not just the regular head.

The Glans, the colored tip of the penis, is what is known s the head. The rest of it is known as the shaft.

I know what the head of the penis is. But since when is that larger than the shaft?

Not larger but thicker like a mushroom cap.

Oh come on, you knew what it meant, no one is that stupid.

fuk

thank you! thats all i could think about the entire time i was reading that. i mean unless you have a smaller member then i dont see how it would be possible.

Fuck if I know!
Mine isn't, so I have no clue.

**beefking rolled a random image posted in comment #23 at stock ad photos ** i felt the same way about the SNES, I could never send faxes or call people

the beatles are one of the most over-rated bands ever.

I have this strange hatred for you most of the time, yet right now you seem alright.

While I absolutely love The Beatles, I can't help but agree. Overrated doesn't mean bad, necessarily. I think they're great, but they're not the end all be all of music.

in my honest opinion. theyre not bad, or good they're pretty much a few rungs above meh tier

That's fair. I can see how people don't like their music, sometimes I wonder why I do.

eh you like their music. who can stop you

It was more of a joke. At times, their music seems juvenile and all the members were assholes. They were just really catchy.

like most modern bands

Nothing really wrong with that. I'm the biggest Led Zeppelin fan you'll find, but I still have my guilty pleasures like Taylor Swift.

i dont find taylor swift bad. its just that i dont like it when she calls her music country,

country music doesnt have dubstep drops

See? This is the shit I'm talking about!
There are sensible people here.

It wasn't AWFUL.

But he has done better imo/

I dunno, I guess the whole "deal with it thing" is about when/how the glasses show up. the way you said it she'll have the glasses the whole time. It's still a good idea though.

True

Why do things have to be unique to be miracles? Is today's society so jaded by death, so used to it, that saving a life is only a miracle if it comes from someone totally unlikely? I'd argue that EVERY instance of saving a life is a miracle. Surgeon or random passerby, a person has just been rescued from the end of his or her life, for crying out loud!

I'd even go further and argue that what you just said belittles doctors even more than thanking God does. You just essentially said that it's not amazing when doctors save lives, just because they've trained for it. I'm studying to become a doctor, and I've heard a fair amount of them talk about their profession (either through documentaries or face-to-face interviews). All of them - religious or not - know the immense responsibility, the sometimes impossible odds, the simply massive weight upon their shoulders. None of them finish an operation and wipe their forehead, mutter 'one down, three to go', and move on. Each life is unbelievably precious, and each life saved is itself an amazing victory. But to say that their successes aren't miracles just because they actually trained for them? You sound like you're really taking them for granted. Learn some appreciation.

Is it too much to ask to let people just believe?

He has'nt given me reason to believe.

When they belittle the hard work of others, yes.

Exactly. When I got my first job, a friend of mine told me to praise the lord for helping me get it. Bullshit. No god helped me achieve my qualifications and recommendations. I did it through hard fucking work and training, with some help from other humans.

And who gave you the abilities to do that 'hard fucking work'? Who gave the 'other humans' the ability and opportunity to help you? From a religious person's perspective, all that is the work of God. Are you really so selfish and arrogant that you must feel like you did everything yourself? Let me put it in practical terms, since I know we'll get nowhere if we have a debate about religion on the Internet. Without your parents, you would achieve nothing. Is it belittling to say that? Are you thankful for your parents? Why should thanking God be any different?

Except we are a bunch of chemicals and elements bundled together, you are nothing but electric impulses retard not some divine construct...

you must be a nigger

quite possibly the dumbest comment I have ever read, holy shit that made me cringe

That moment when arnoldbusk tries to take my side and loses a thumb for it. I'm so sorry, man.

I really don't care about thumbs

It's not selfishness or arrogance. It's actually observing the world around me. It's called thinking critically instead of getting offended. Try it sometime.

Besides, I already thanked other humans. Don't assume that I'm not including my parents. Never make assumptions in arguments.

Because there is lots of empirical evidence that my parents exist and have an actual influence in my life.

I don't know which comment to respond to so I'll just respond to the last one because OCD (I hate when the purple bars on the left get all jagged and stuff).

To the first: Your sarcasm is unnecessary and unhelpful. I am not offended. I don't know why you think I am. I assure you that if I were truly offended I would have written something containing many more grammar errors, swear words, and general ranting about how you're a heretical unbeliever. I try to maintain a logical approach to things, hence my attempt to create a comparison rather than simply blathering on about how you're wrong.

To the second: i made no such assumptions. I simply asked two questions about your parents. The questions are answerable either way and do not reflect any assumptions on my part. If you are thankful for your parents' help, you would have answered 'no' to the first and 'yes' to the second. It's that simple.

To the third: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, and I can't tell what you're trying to say.

Wait a minute... When did I ever say that you were offended?

It is clear to me that you cannot tell sarcasm. My third comment was, indeed, sarcastic, but my first was completely serious. Is it possible that you are offended by the first comment and confused by the third because you are forced to realize that there is no empirical evidence for a god, and this is something your trained-from-birth mind has difficulty accepting? It's not your fault- I was the same way for a very long time.

To the first: I quote: 'It's called thinking critically instead of getting offended.' Clear implication there that I was offended, if you ask me. Unless you meant that I was critically thinking and you were offended. It's one or the other, and we can both agree it isn't the latter.

To the second: Perhaps my word choice was sub-par. I knew your first comment was not sarcastic, although I described it as such. Perhaps a better word would have been 'abrasive' or 'caustic'. There is a combative, condescending tone to your words, evident here and there in superfluous little phrases like 'try it sometime' or 'something your trained-from-birth mind has difficulty accepting'. To which I might add that I became a Christian approximately seventeen months ago, and as you so kindly pointed out to me one should never make assumptions in arguments. Again, I am not offended. Merely irked by the unnecessarily confrontational quality of your remarks.

As for empirical evidence of God, it is there if you want to see it. I have. You'll probably tell me that I see what I want to see. Perhaps. Isn't that the core of religion, though? Faith. Complete confidence in something, whether you have evidence of it or not. I don't need empirical evidence.

It's not belittling. People like you look too narrowly - you seem to think that those who thank God do so INSTEAD of thanking the surgeon. But if you actually thought about and got to know what you're hating on before hating on it, you'd realise that they thank God FOR the surgeon and his abilities. It's much bigger than you think.

You can't deny that attributing a person's success in any part to a fictional character is pretty belittling.

Quibble 1: The word 'belittling'. Why is it belittling at all, fictional or not? Must you do everything yourself? Religious debate or not, people in general need to accept the fact that they get a lot of help with everything they do. If you took offense every single time you were helped, you would definitely not be where you are today.

Quibble 2: The word 'fictional'. I don't want to get into a religious debate, because it won't solve anything, but I feel the need to point out that for those who believe in God, he obviously ISN'T fictional. Therefore when we thank God for things, we aren't attributing people's success to a 'fictional' entity. Stop taking it at face value and look deeper.

1. It's belittling to humanity. Just because I didn't get everything I have by myself doesn't mean a god did it.

2. "To a religious person, god isn't fictional." Truth isn't subjective. Something can't be true to one person and not true to another. If that's the case, then one person is wrong. And our observations of the world so far suggest where life, the universe, and religion all came from, and none of them seem to have come from a supernatural entity that suddenly had intelligence rather than evolving it.

1. I didn't say God did it. The problem here is that you keep thinking we (i.e. religious people in general) believe that God actively does everything for you. We never said that. I never said that. Frankly, if people implied that someone else - supernatural or not - did everything for me, I'd be offended as well, religious or not, because it's only human to want credit for your actions. But God doesn't do things for you. When I pray, I don't ask God to do things for me. I ask him to help me do things. There's no shame in acknowledging that I need help to do things. That is the critical difference. He doesn't do things for you. He gives you what you need - be it strength, wisdom, courage, whatever - so that you can do that job. Yes, yourself.

2. Truth isn't subjective. Fair enough. But perception is. A person to the left of a beacon says it is to his right. A person to the right of a beacon says it is to his left. Who is wrong? Neither; they are both correct. In any case, that's irrelevant. My point in Quibble 2 wasn't that God is real. I know that there is infinite proof of either view and making a solid statement like that would get us nowhere. I was just saying that those who are thanking God think He's real, so the logical conclusion is that it is NOT our intention to attribute your success to a 'fictional character'. As cliché as it is, it's the thought that counts. If we were deliberately intending to attribute your success to a fake entity then yeah, we'd be assholes. But we aren't.

1. Why do you keep insisting that I don't understand your argument? I was a Christian for a very long time. I understand the idea that god provides opportunities for us to do things. I'm addressing that as stupid. Stop ignoring me and telling me "I don't understand" just because you don't want to adequately counterargue.

2. That was so full of red herrings I shouldn't even respond to it, but I'll try. Perception has nothing to do with this. You're responding to a logical argument with an empty truism. Argue back with real logic. If you can't do it, concede. And yeah, you're not purposefully attributing things to a fake entity. Just accidentally.

Belittle? My dad is an orthopedic surgeon, when someone thanks god it went well, they're gonna thank him right after, and he's probably gonna respond with something like "You're welcome, and thank God for giving me the gift to help." I don't think that's belittling someone. I think anyone who gets there dick in a knot because someone thanks God a surgery goes well is just an asshole.

In no way is it a gift. You may thank whomever you like, but when it comes down to it you reap what you sow. If you screw up, it's because you didn't pay enough attention, not because of anyone/anything else. If you succeed, that just means that the time and effort you DEVOTED into YOUR practice, has paid off.

I'm sure there's a few doctors out there who would get pissed if they weren't given the credit they're due, but that's only human. I'm also sure that there's many more times that who don't care for it to begin with, their job is to save lives, not to affirm or refute your theistic beliefs.

I couldn't be a surgeon... My hands are not steady, I'd screw it up, regardless of the amount of work and how hard I tried. Therefore, a gift.

It's slightly ironic that you use a prominent Bible reference ('you reap what you sow') to deliver an arguably anti-religious comment.

That aside, you are right - you do reap what you sow. If a surgeon saves a life, he has worked hard and done well. If he screws up, he has...well, he has screwed up. So where does God come in? Well, He provides the surgeon with the ability to save lives. That's the 'gift'. Is it not a beautiful gift, to be able to save lives?

That's the issue here. You're confusing actions with ability. You seem to think that we are implying that God performed the surgery for the surgeon. In that case, yes, I agree that it would be belittling. But He did not. He merely gave the surgeon the ability to succeed.

Why do you insist that a god did it? From what I've seen, medical school is pretty good at giving surgeons their abilities, and the med school came from humans studying, and that came from intelligence, and that came from evolution, and that came from abiogenesis. We can observe everything in our natural world following the laws of physics, including brain chemistry. Where, exactly, does a god enter that equation?

You are turning this into a useless argument over whether God exists, an argument that has raged with no end in sight for centuries, possibly millennia, since the appearance of the first atheist.

Thus far I have never tried to prove the existence of God, and I do not intend to. I have only responded specifically with regard to the allegation that thanking God for an action belittles the work of he (or she) who physically executed the action.

A discussion of His existence is neither productive nor necessary.

Right. The classic "we've been arguing about this forever, so why try?" argument. You do realize what conversion is, right? You do realize that every so often, these arguments DO produce results, and people DO change their minds? Just because humanity hasn't done it, doesn't mean we can't. Furthermore, I saw in your comments to others that you clearly believe in a god. So I decided to talk you. You are simultaneously claiming that there is no use in discussing whether or not a god exists, and adhering to a religion that wants to convert people. I'm just trying to make a different kind of conversion. Don't avoid the argument just because you don't have an adequate counterargument. These kinds of conversions DO happen- I'm living proof.

You're also avoiding my question; I'm asking what phenomena you have seen that clearly show supernatural influence- in other words, have you ever seen something happen that wouldn't have happened according to the laws of natural cause and effect? That is what I mean when I ask "where does god enter the equation."

There are infinite arguments for and against God; it just depends on who you ask. I'm sure we can both agree on that.

On that note, then, to respond to your question, I could insert God anywhere. I could say that God gave the student the opportunity to go to med school. I could say that God gifted the student with intelligence. I could even argue that God created physics to begin with, thus invalidating your entire statement. You could just as easily respond with a scientific explanation. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, to prove the existence of God; I just want to demonstrate how useless it is to bicker over it. Nowhere have I claimed that God exists.

"Do you have any last words?"
"Yes. Just three."
Everything they do is awesome.