Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God

[DMC]

Easily the most important part of you post. I assert that god=PM. That's not a necessary extension. There were people who believed that Ares was a god while also believing that Ares was not the PM. You know that I consider god to be the PM; therefore you accept that I have made an extension for the term. So my position is not illogical.

But you haven't defined god. You've only named it.

That's just a way to try to get out of the argument. It doesn't matter than LotR is fictional. Definite descriptions are just ways to tag ideas. There's no difference between "real" ideas and "fake" ones.

"Prime mover" isn't a description. It does not clear the picture of your god any more than not calling it the prime mover. It's pointless to attempt to define the unknown with the unknown. No one here has any idea what a prime mover is, so saying your god is one is no different than saying "god is a florndorfinitial". What is a florndorfinitial? It doesn't matter what it is, because whatever it is, that's what god is. Whatever the prime mover is, that what you are saying god is, but it doesn't paint any clearer a picture of how you even view your god so it's pointless and yes it's illogical. It's a tautology.

For your benefit, though, I will give you another one:

Let's say I assert the belief: Aliens exist. I extend "alien" to "intelligent lifeforms on a planet other than Earth." We have no idea if there are aliens, and we don't know there are intelligent lifeforms. Indeed, there's a host of questions about what it means to be intelligent, what it means to be a lifeform, even what it means be on a planet. But no one thinks that it's impossible to hold that belief.

We know what "intelligent life form" means. We have standards we use to determine that. We don't know what a universal prime mover is, because we don't have standards to determine that. We cannot even say there was a first cause. We can say there is intelligent life somewhere, even here on this planet (oddly enough).

Not all aliens are intelligent life forms, as a rock can be alien to this planet. Not all intelligent life forms are alien. Are all prime movers gods? Are all gods prime movers?

[Chinook]

But you haven't defined god. You've only named it.

I extended it.

"Prime mover" isn't a description. It does not clear the picture of your god any more than not calling it the prime mover. It's pointless to attempt to define the unknown with the unknown. No one here has any idea what a prime mover is, so saying your god is one is no different than saying "god is a florndorfinitial". What is a florndorfinitial? It doesn't matter what it is, because whatever it is, that's what god is.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that saying "Hiesraj is the queen of Xycoike" is not informative because you don't know what the queen of Xycoike is. It makes no sense. The sentence is meant not for you to understand everything. It's meant for you to create a mental folder led "Hiesraj" and then to add the file "queen of Xycoike" to is.

Whatever the prime mover is, that what you are saying god is, but it doesn't paint any clearer a picture of how you even view your god so it's pointless and yes it's illogical. It's a tautology.

Google "tautology", would you? You'd see that the third definition it pulls up is:

logic: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

Meaning that the bolded part of your above quote is illogical. Me making an iden y claim (which I'm not, but you seem to be unable to get that) is completely logical.

We know what "intelligent life form" means. We have standards we use to determine that. We don't know what a universal prime mover is, because we don't have standards to determine that. We cannot even say there was a first cause. We can say there is intelligent life somewhere, even here on this planet (oddly enough).

You sure seem to know:

I know what the term "prime mover" means.

I'm starting to think you just fundamentally don't understand this. We're talking about extensions here, which means little bullet points that a person makes under the subject. So I am pretty much saying that under the headline "God", I have one bullet point, which reads, "is the prime mover". Other people will have different bullet points, like "omniscient", "benevolent", or "the children of the ans". People don't have to have the same extensions for terms. They just need to clarify in a conversations which extensions they have. This is something I have done numerous times on this issue.

Not all aliens are intelligent life forms, as a rock can be alien to this planet. Not all intelligent life forms are alien. Are all prime movers gods? Are all gods prime movers?

Completely missed the point. In a trivial way, we already know there are aliens, because we've found bacteria on Mars. But no one really thinks we've settled that debate yet. If you've extended aliens to be anything outside of Earth, then you've already won. If you extend it as bipedal creatures with huge black eyes and ray guns, then you've still got work to do. Hence why extensions are important.

[DMC]

Let's get this out of the way first.

You did not present anything in formal logic. You presented rhetorical logic.

Tautology

Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.


You are saying god is the prime mover, but the only reason you think a god exists is because you think the prime mover exists. If you did not see need for a prime mover you would not see need for a god. So by very definition, a prime mover to you would be god. Ergo you are not extending anything. If there are two prime movers, there are two gods. If there are 100 billion prime movers, there are 100 billion gods. This is according to you.

The extensions other people use are actually descriptions. Prime mover is a le. Bestowing another le upon something doesn't define it. Benevolence is an attribute, omniscience is an attribute, but prime mover is not an attribute, but you seem to have go away from using the term "attribute". Have you abandoned it?

Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something. How can "prime mover" be an inherent part of god, or a characteristic of god? The ability to prime move could be, but the le cannot, and you're using the term "prime mover" in a accusatory way, saying god was the one who did the prime moving, but that doesn't make it an attribute of god right now.

[Chinook]

You've really seemed to have fallen off over the course of this thread. It's a little concerning, coming from you.

Oh well, let's go down the list.

Let's get this out of the way first.

You did not present anything in formal logic. You presented rhetorical logic.

Tautology

A tautology is not informative. That doesn't mean that it's illogical. No self-evident truth is informative. Like is it illogical to believe it's raining outside because you belief it's raining outside? Nope.

You are saying god is the prime mover, but the only reason you think a god exists is because you think the prime mover exists. If you did not see need for a prime mover you would not see need for a god. So by very definition, a prime mover to you would be god. Ergo you are not extending anything. If there are two prime movers, there are two gods. If there are 100 billion prime movers, there are 100 billion gods. This is according to you.

As I've said many times, no. God=PM for me because I think that "being the PM" is the only necessary extension to give. But that is not the case with everyone. Some people add other extensions on top of "being the PM", while others leave off "being the PM" entirely. That means that in the world, God != PM.

The extensions other people use are actually descriptions. Prime mover is a le. Bestowing another le upon something doesn't define it. Benevolence is an attribute, omniscience is an attribute, but prime mover is not an attribute, but you seem to have go away from using the term "attribute". Have you abandoned it?

It does extend it. Like if I said that Obama was the president of the United States, when the idea of Obama is extended. Really, though, you're sort of just throwing up all over yourself here. You know what it means to be the prime mover. The term is not just gibberish to you. Therefore, me saying it is informative to you. If I had said originally that I believed existence has always been here, but that a god has always been here as well, would you argue that being was not god BECAUSE he didn't create existence?

Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something. How can "prime mover" be an inherent part of god, or a characteristic of god? The ability to prime move could be, but the le cannot, and you're using the term "prime mover" in a accusatory way, saying god was the one who did the prime moving, but that doesn't make it an attribute of god right now.

"Prime mover" isn't what I'm extending. "Is/was/being the prime mover" is. You keep acting like Prime Mover is a name, but it's not. It's a definite description. It means he/they was the first to start moving the causal chain. That means he did something. What you're saying is like saying that "Went to the moon" is not a characteristic of Neil Armstrong. It's just rather silly.

[Chinook]

Also, my argument isn't even circular. It's not like I said I believe in god because I believe in there being a PM, and I believe there being a PM because I believe in god. I said I believe in god because I believe in there being a PM, and I believe in there being a PM because (entire thread full of reasoning, none of which was based using god as evidence of a PM).

[DMC]

You've really seemed to have fallen off over the course of this thread. It's a little concerning, coming from you.

Oh well, let's go down the list.



A tautology is not informative. That doesn't mean that it's illogical. No self-evident truth is informative. Like is it illogical to believe it's raining outside because you belief it's raining outside? Nope.

You were using rhetorical logic. You don't seem keen on acknowledging anything, just changing directions. In rhetorical logic, a tautology is saying the same thing in two different ways and using one to prove the other. You're saying the PM=God and God=PM. You use the PM to claim that something must have done it ergo god. If that's the case, the God is contingent upon the PM instead of the PM being contingent upon god. We know that's silly though, so then god and PM are one and the same to you, ergo you are not extending anything. Definition, clarity, resolution, all these are about focusing and getting a clearer picture but renaming god to PM doesn't do any of those three things since first cause isn't established. You're saying an unestablished being is defined by an unestablished act.

No, past events are not attributes. Attributes are characteristics, unless you are using a different definition of the word "attribute" which would be to a cause that leads to an effect. If so, then you are using circular reasoning by saying being the first cause is the cause that lead to an effect, and by saying so somehow that defines god.

No, you've abandoned the term "attribute" in your responses and moved to "extension". If you wish to acknowledge that you did not give an attribute of god, I will accept that.

As I've said many times, no. God=PM for me because I think that "being the PM" is the only necessary extension to give. But that is not the case with everyone. Some people add other extensions on top of "being the PM", while others leave off "being the PM" entirely. That means that in the world, God != PM.

Acts are not extensions. Since there can be no more prime moving, the term "prime mover" indicates a past tense and should be preceded by "was" if used correctly to describe something god was. My mother was a birth giver to me, but that doesn't define or resolve who she is at the moment. Benevolence and omniscience defines who god is, not what god did. They are not the same as "prime mover". Obama is currently the POTUS. In the future, calling him the POTUS would not be correct if he's no longer the POTUS. If he was the 1st POTUS, you'd have to say "was". However, that's not something that's decided based on teleological reasoning, it's based on gathered information and what we call facts. Obama is the POTUS. POTUS has defined characteristics. Prime mover does not. We don't know what a prime mover can do, could do, might be able to do, nothing about it because we don't know that one has ever existed. Prime mover might be god of necessity or it might not be. You're defining god as something else you believe happened, not as some characteristic you believe that god possesses.

It does extend it. Like if I said that Obama was the president of the United States, when the idea of Obama is extended. Really, though, you're sort of just throwing up all over yourself here. You know what it means to be the prime mover. The term is not just gibberish to you. Therefore, me saying it is informative to you. If I had said originally that I believed existence has always been here, but that a god has always been here as well, would you argue that being was not god BECAUSE he didn't create existence?



"Prime mover" isn't what I'm extending. "Is/was/being the prime mover" is. You keep acting like Prime Mover is a name, but it's not. It's a definite description. It means he/they was the first to start moving the causal chain. That means he did something. What you're saying is like saying that "Went to the moon" is not a characteristic of Neil Armstrong. It's just rather silly.

I addressed this earlier. How could you identify Neil Armstrong using laboratory instruments and your 5 senses by someone claiming he went to the moon? Look for moon dust? You'd have to look for articles that showed his photo, and from there you'd use a different set of criteria (looks) or you'd find family members using DNA he left in the capsule, again, different criteria.

Your extension does not clarify god. It's no different than not defining god at all.

[Chinook]

If that's the case, the God is contingent upon the PM instead of the PM being contingent upon god.

No. My argument for a PM wasn't, "There has to have been a god; therefore there is a PM." I had a whole thread full of argument for a PM, why it's reasonable for one to exist. Not a one of them had to do with god.

No, past events are not attributes. Attributes are characteristics, unless you are using a different definition of the word "attribute" which would be to a cause that leads to an effect. If so, then you are using circular reasoning by saying being the first cause is the cause that lead to an effect, and by saying so somehow that defines god.

No, you've abandoned the term "attribute" in your responses and moved to "extension". If you wish to acknowledge that you did not give an attribute of god, I will accept that.

Just silly. I started off talking about extensions. You wanted to use attributes. I humored you. But ideas don't have to have characteristics in the same way objects do. If you want to relegate "attribute" to be some physical descriptor, then fine by me. I'll stick to the topic and use the term I came in using.

Acts are not extensions. Since there can be no more prime moving, the term "prime mover" indicates a past tense and should be preceded by "was" if used correctly to describe something god was. My mother was a birth giver to me, but that doesn't define or resolve who she is at the moment. Benevolence and omniscience defines who god is, not what god did. They are not the same as "prime mover". Obama is currently the POTUS. In the future, calling him the POTUS would not be correct if he's no longer the POTUS. If he was the 1st POTUS, you'd have to say "was". However, that's not something that's decided based on teleological reasoning, it's based on gathered information and what we call facts. Obama is the POTUS. POTUS has defined characteristics. Prime mover does not. We don't know what a prime mover can do, could do, might be able to do, nothing about it because we don't know that one has ever existed. Prime mover might be god of necessity or it might not be. You're defining god as something else you believe happened, not as some characteristic you believe that god possesses.

No. The separation between "is" and "was" is based on whether or not god still exists. If he does, then he IS the PM. If he doesn't, then he WAS the PM. If George Washington were alive, he'd still be the first POTUS, because no one else would have taken that le from him.

I addressed this earlier. How could you identify Neil Armstrong using laboratory instruments and your 5 senses by someone claiming he went to the moon? Look for moon dust? You'd have to look for articles that showed his photo, and from there you'd use a different set of criteria (looks) or you'd find family members using DNA he left in the capsule, again, different criteria.

That argument was silly then. It makes no difference if Armstrong ever went to the moon. All that matters is that people think of it when they think of him. You don't have to verify something to make the extension. But falsifying it would eliminate the extension, or at least alter it. Like if I extended "DMC" to be an older white man, it wouldn't matter that you might actually be a young Latina woman. I would have been wrong, but not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable.

Fundamentally, I think you have forgotten what this conversation was about. It's not about proving the veracity of god, or even vetting the rational behind my interpretation of theism. It's about whether attributing PM status to god is informative -- that is, whether saying, "God set into motion what we call existence," is the same thing as saying, "God is god". They're not the same thing. If anyone out there considers there to be a god that did not set into motion existence, then god cannot equal PM universally (and yes, that is a formal logic statement that's translated into English for your benefit). As I've demonstrated many times, and as you have let flow through just as many, there are indeed such people.

[Chinook]

Also, in case you're wondering, no, I'm not using "extension" in the philosophical or logical sense. The technical term for what I am describing is "intension" (with the 's'). But that is rather strange to introduce when "extension" was working just fine. If you actually care, though, here's the Wiki on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension

[cantthinkofanything]

You've got a long way to go to catch the moon landing thread. Better get after it.

[DMC]

No. My argument for a PM wasn't, "There has to have been a god; therefore there is a PM." I had a whole thread full of argument for a PM, why it's reasonable for one to exist. Not a one of them had to do with god.



Just silly. I started off talking about extensions. You wanted to use attributes. I humored you. But ideas don't have to have characteristics in the same way objects do. If you want to relegate "attribute" to be some physical descriptor, then fine by me. I'll stick to the topic and use the term I came in using.

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension. - You

No. The separation between "is" and "was" is based on whether or not god still exists. If he does, then he IS the PM. If he doesn't, then he WAS the PM. If George Washington were alive, he'd still be the first POTUS, because no one else would have taken that le from him.

No it doesn't. Otherwise there is no reason for past tense when referring to prior actions. Did you ever get a question in school "who is the first president of the US?" or is it "who was the first president of the US?"

Does god prime move or did god prime move?

That argument was silly then. It makes no difference if Armstrong ever went to the moon. All that matters is that people think of it when they think of him. You don't have to verify something to make the extension. But falsifying it would eliminate the extension, or at least alter it. Like if I extended "DMC" to be an older white man, it wouldn't matter that you might actually be a young Latina woman. I would have been wrong, but not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable.

You haven't even remotely addressed my point.

Theists (and deists as well it seems) fail to define that which they claim to believe exists. By doing so they insulate it and themselves from critical examination.

Fundamentally, I think you have forgotten what this conversation was about. It's not about proving the veracity of god, or even vetting the rational behind my interpretation of theism. It's about whether attributing PM status to god is informative -- that is, whether saying, "God set into motion what we call existence," is the same thing as saying, "God is god". They're not the same thing. If anyone out there considers there to be a god that did not set into motion existence, then god cannot equal PM universally (and yes, that is a formal logic statement that's translated into English for your benefit). As I've demonstrated many times, and as you have let flow through just as many, there are indeed such people.

"Creator" or "prime mover" isn't an informative comment about god. It would only be informative if no one knew what the word "god" meant, but since we have established what the word "god" means, we have to take a step further to define it and renaming it doesn't do that. Saying Venus is the goddess of love at least shows Venus is a female, and that Venus is all about love. Saying Venus is Aphrodite does not define Venus any more than just saying "Venus".

[Chinook]

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension. - You

And it is. All attributes are extensions.

No it doesn't. Otherwise there is no reason for past tense when referring to prior actions. Did you ever get a question in school "who is the first president of the US?" or is it "who was the first president of the US?"

Does god prime move or did god prime move?

Is Warren Moon the first black QB to be enshrined in the NFL HoF or was he? He is, because no one else will ever take that from him. When he dies, it will become true that he "was".

You haven't even remotely addressed my point.

Theists (and deists as well it seems) fail to define that which they claim to believe exists. By doing so they insulate it and themselves from critical examination.

No. Your point is just silly. It doesn't deserve a better retort than that. You don't have to be able to physically test intensionality (having extensions, as I have been calling them). I don't even know why you have that idea.

"Creator" or "prime mover" isn't an informative comment about god. It would only be informative if no one knew what the word "god" meant, but since we have established what the word "god" means, we have to take a step further to define it and renaming it doesn't do that. Saying Venus is the goddess of love at least shows Venus is a female, and that Venus is all about love. Saying Venus is Aphrodite does not define Venus any more than just saying "Venus".

Completely missed it again. "Prime mover" is not just another term for "god". People believed that Aphrodite was a god(dess) while also believing she was not the prime mover. That's all it takes for those two terms to be separable. That's like saying "being teh first POTUS is not informative" for George Washington.

But more importantly, "prime mover" is not a name, like John or Greg. It's a definite description, meaning it is including a tie to other things within itself. You know what the PM is -- you've said so numerous times. So it's not just an empty string of letters. It's like saying, "first human to set foot on North America" is meaningless because we don't know what they looked like.

[DMC]

And it is. All attributes are extensions.

Even Spinoza defined god better than that.

Is Warren Moon the first black QB to be enshrined in the NFL HoF or was he? He is, because no one else will ever take that from him. When he dies, it will become true that he "was".

So then you agree that "prime mover" is about the past, not the present. You don't define god as a present prime mover, but as the first cause when it occurred. You are attributing the first cause to god, which is a different definition of the word "attribute" than you are equivocating it with by basically using it to define the essence of god. Attributes in the sense of extension should define essence, not roles.

No. Your point is just silly. It doesn't deserve a better retort than that. You don't have to be able to physically test intensionality (having extensions, as I have been calling them). I don't even know why you have that idea.

So then you subscribe to the notion of a personal god, one who is shaped to fit your description instead of a substance that you work to define? It's the typical theist (and deist) mantra that they can believe what they want to believe, and then pretend there's rationale behind it but scoff at the notion that it has to be testable or falsifiable.

Completely missed it again. "Prime mover" is not just another term for "god". People believed that Aphrodite was a god(dess) while also believing she was not the prime mover. That's all it takes for those two terms to be separable. That's like saying "being teh first POTUS is not informative" for George Washington.

Is Aphrodite not a goddess? Is Zeus not a god? Their essences have been defined better than just an association with an event.

But more importantly, "prime mover" is not a name, like John or Greg. It's a definite description, meaning it is including a tie to other things within itself. You know what the PM is -- you've said so numerous times. So it's not just an empty string of letters. It's like saying, "first human to set foot on North America" is meaningless because we don't know what they looked like.

It doesn't even define how many movers you are referring to. There could be an infinite amount of prime movers. In that case, you cannot say the term "prime mover" is an extension since extensions, by nature, are divisible.

[Leetonidas]

Maybe if that lou gehrig got believed in the almighty gawd he wouldn't be paralyzed tbh probably why he so mad at gaaaaaaawd

[DMC]

I find it incredibly ironic that he has that disease tbh.

[mouse]

Atheists don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.

Then stop saying so.

[mouse]

No. But, we may be able to move forward when people like yourself understand that evolution and the existence of a god are two entirely different discussions.

says who?

The existence of a god being, thus far, impossible for us to show evidence of. Evolution, on the other hand, having mountains of proof as to its validity.

What you should focus your energy toward discrediting is Abiogenesis. It attempts to describe how life arose from nonlife. The evolution genie is already out of the bottle, along with heliocentrism, etc. We know species change over time. We still don't know where life came from, and evolution doesn't attempt to answer that question. Your "poof" betrays your misunderstanding.

I will stick to my own conclusions I took time researching.

Even the Pope and Catholic Church have accepted it.

they also accepted sex with boys what does that say?

[spurraider21]

says who?

that's not a matter of opinion. they are two different debates. if you have theists who believe in evolution, that alone is enough to demonstrate they are not mutually exclusive

I will stick to my own conclusions I took time researching.

you mean like the astounding video that talks about how numbers being very precise = there is a god?

they also accepted sex with boys what does that say?

the church has never accepted sex with boys. members of the church have taken that action, though

[pubic hair]

WE are Aliens People! We got left behind while Exploring! We are the dumb s that didn't make sure we were on the ship when it left. It's really that simple.

[spurraider21]

technically if we are born here then we aren't aliens. our ancestors may have been

[Chinook]

Even Spinoza defined god better than that.

Ugh. You're hard-headed. No one except for you is talking about "define" to mean as an exhaustive list of qualities. It's just been you digging in this whole time, because you haven't had a point on the actual topic of conversation.

So then you agree that "prime mover" is about the past, not the present. You don't define god as a present prime mover, but as the first cause when it occurred. You are attributing the first cause to god, which is a different definition of the word "attribute" than you are equivocating it with by basically using it to define the essence of god. Attributes in the sense of extension should define essence, not roles.

Ignoring the "define" thing for a moment, no. God is still the prime mover, because nothing else will ever be the prime mover again. But even if I were to agree that that was a past le, it doesn't stop it from being an extension. Like an extension for Columbus is that he landed on Hispanola. But plenty of people had done it before him, and plenty did it after him. Doesn't mean that that's not something someone thinks of when talking about Columbus.

So then you subscribe to the notion of a personal god, one who is shaped to fit your description instead of a substance that you work to define? It's the typical theist (and deist) mantra that they can believe what they want to believe, and then pretend there's rationale behind it but scoff at the notion that it has to be testable or falsifiable.

Again ignoring your attempts to equate extensions to definitions. Do I think belief in a god is a personal thing? Yes. But do I think that people who don't believe in god are being rational? No. And yes, I think it's borderline idiotic to pretend that things have to be testable to be true or believed to be true. Only people who don't understand epistemology think that.

Is Aphrodite not a goddess? Is Zeus not a god? Their essences have been defined better than just an association with an event.

Oh good, the same argument written again. I would not say Aphrodite is a god, because she was not the prime mover. However, other people would disagree with that. That's why it's informative that I say "God = PM", because it separates my idea of god from those people's.

In any event, you would agree that Aprhodite would not classify as a god even if she is real, since you can't seem to separate god from the PM in your mind.

It doesn't even define how many movers you are referring to. There could be an infinite amount of prime movers. In that case, you cannot say the term "prime mover" is an extension since extensions, by nature, are divisible.

Um...the did you get that idea from? Anyway, infinity is a concept that cannot be tested in the world. There's no way to verify it, yet you can understand it's extensions (what the word means) just fine. Yet, you shouldn't be able to, since in your mind, extensions have to be testable.

[Chinook]

DMC, we're not talking about the actual god, whatever that means. This whole debate's been about the word. Words have to have definitions (meaning they have to have at least one extension). Xmas and SBM argued that "god" has no definition to them, but they still tried to use it as a meaningful term. Not having a definition is completely different from having a definition that some people reject. When you reject a definition, at least you have some ability to know what you're rejecting. When you don't have a definition at all, then there's nothing to say one way or another.

If I say, "I believe in Fpeknied", are you going to tell me I'm right or wrong, or are you going to say you have no idea what I'm talking about?

[Jeff Leppard]

Nothing is worse than two idiots who think they are smart having a philosophical debate.

[pubic hair]

technically if we are born here then we aren't aliens. our ancestors may have been

ouyah reay orrectcay, ancay ouyay eadray hatway iay ritingway?

[spurraider21]

I can read what you're writing. Pig Latin is annoying tho

[DMC]

Nothing is worse than two idiots who think they are smart having a philosophical debate.

My balls slamming against your chin like a high speed sewing machine, preparing to fertilize your throat egg, that could be worse for you or it could be common place.