The current recorded record is almost 12 days. Incidentally, it was for a school project on sleep loss and its effects on the body. Try looking for it on wiki or the guiness world records website. There have been longer periods of being awake, but all of them involved illegal drugs and kidney failure, as well as not having recorded proof.
[QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"][QUOTE="crucifine"]No it doesn't. It does heighten my brain activity, I can think harder on topics that require more attention, but in no way does it make me a genius. You're just as likely to become a genius by praying, in that it'll never happen. We can't prove you wrong because all we have is your word, and for all we know, your word is like a hair in my soup. But for now we're just going to assume you're wrong, because quite frankly, your statements do not sound like the words of a genius. You sound like a man on PCP, or possibly crystal meth.killtactics
Isn't that the point though? All you have is my word, so you assume that I am wrong.
I know it's politically correct to humour religious people, but all we have to go on are the words in the bible, and they don't offer up any proof whatsoever. ok.. proof that the world/ space/ reaity could be with out God... see its called educated guess...
It very well can...but that's besides the point. We're not trying to disprove the existence of a higher power, we're trying to disprove this man's theory that he is a genius. All we have is his word and his crazy ramblings, so the evidence is against him. Unless of course his theory is that he must be a genius if God exists, due to the words that we are given to rely on. Which isn't a very strong argument. Descartes tried a similar argument to prove God's existence, and that argument has as many holes as this one. Of the two premises required to come to the conclusion that he is a genius, one of them is based entirely on assumption, which is unacceptable as either rational or empirical fact.
Conclusion: You may very well be a genius, Lilac, but the argument you've given to support yourself is flawed. Which technically means you're not a genius, to have slipped up like that. But I'll take your word for it.
what does hype have to do with the fact that halo got a 9.7 here as well as outscoring Timesplitters in every other website on the Internet:question: also halo was not hyped until after it came out b/c it had a really bad E3....also it had a new health system, let you throw nades w/o switching to them, and let you melee with a gun, and let you fly in a SP FPS game with a story..... also if your ganna say game X did nothing new, your should end that sentence with "unlike game Y, which did do something new", NOT game X did't do anything new... oh and game Y did't either.....i dont care which game u liked best, i just wanted to point out some flawed logic....killtactics
because the whole point of the thread is to find the best FPS for the PS2 for the topic creator, not bring up something completely irrelevant. Having played Halo, HaloPC, Halo 2, and reading some of the books, I still think Timesplitters: Future Perfect is the better game, but that's a whole 'nother argument. Yeah, Timesplitters: Future Perfect is a really good one. Zillions of hours of replay due to the challenges and arcade leagues, plus mapmaking, etc. And you can pick it up brand new for about 20 bucks. My favorite console FPS until Half-Life 2 comes out on the 360.
No it doesn't. It does heighten my brain activity, I can think harder on topics that require more attention, but in no way does it make me a genius. You're just as likely to become a genius by praying, in that it'll never happen. We can't prove you wrong because all we have is your word, and for all we know, your word is like a hair in my soup. But for now we're just going to assume you're wrong, because quite frankly, your statements do not sound like the words of a genius. You sound like a man on PCP, or possibly crystal meth.
I'll admit mind-altering substances have changed my perception of things slightly. But that is my stand. I believe that God, or one of his many incarnations (Ishtar, Zeus, Odin, etc.) exists, but not as an omnipotent being. He (they) exist(s) because we have put him there.
Actually, some people do come on here just for the message boards. GS's OT board (although most of the time has some downright moronic topics) also has some of the best discussions on the internet. If you go to IMDB.com to talk about music, all you'll hear is about how Lou Reed was a genius (of Velvet Underground fame, for those of you who don't know). Some forums are better, but oddly enough, you have to pay for a lot of them. I'm not naming names, but a few of the OTcar winners this year are on here for the forums and not the games.
There couldn't have been a big bang or a universe out of nowhere. It must have been created by something or someone...God. God created the universe, and pathed ways for us to be what we are. Then who created God? You can't make a chain. It's more plausible to say "God is infinite, he has no creator" than "the universe is infinity, it has no creator". I don't believe God as a superior image of man, but a being with unlimited intelligence. He can bend Laws of Science. thotoz
I actually do find it more plausible to say that the universe is infinite, but not in the same sense that you're thinking. I do not believe that God is a being with unlimited intelligence, or else he wouldn't contradict himself so much. Bending the laws of science is irrelevant. I believe that God is only a figment of my imagination, a sort of imaginary person whom I have no interaction with. Mostly because Christianity was ingrained into my head while I was younger. And I refuse to give that 'person' a name. He has too many. Heck, most of the Old Testament borrows from Babylonian and Greek mythology, that's two names right there. I take a stand towards religion much like Conan the Barbarian did. Not Agnostic Theism, not Agnostic Atheism, sort of Agnostic Solipsism
Log in to comment