It sits on my table, warranting the occasional train of thought and stark stare as I pass about doing my daily things.
I almost read it today.
I was in an accident last night.
But, as of yet, I've merely attempted to ignore it.
*shrugs*

So, that's the saga of N.L.Y.'s bible.
It sparked a nifty thread.

What kind of accident, life changing or nothing serious?

I skidded about 20 feet across asphault, getting a concussion, and removing the epidermis of my right arm in the process.
I then proceeded to pass out, wake up, walk to a gas station, and feel grateful for having a quarter for the pay phone.
I think eventually I could've driven back (luckily my car is virtually unharmed), but after the initial accident my right arm was pretty much immobile.

Mmmmm... road rash >_<

I'm thankfull to have never experianced it.

My cousin did though. He was riding his bike (of the motorized variety BTW) and took a corner too fast and he skidded out. He hit the pavement going at a good clip, and his bike started to tumble. Fortunatly he ened up getting thrown in to a pasture, so he only suffered a couple broken bones but the whole outside of his left arm was, to quote him "hamburger."

@ NLY

Ouch. Sounds harsh. How are you recovering?

@Staffy

[Edited out.]

Check your PMs, Staffy.

Oh btw Staffy, the argument is not the Babblefish argument, it's the Babel Fish Argument. Oolon Colluphid used this in his book "Well that about wraps it up for God." The Babel Fish Argument came about from an Atheist who misappropriated the word "faith". When the word Faith is applied within the Christian faith, it is not applied to "if God exists", but the term Faith is applied "that Christ died for us and we have salvation in him, not of ourselves", in which we put our faith in him - then again, the term Faith is destinctly separate from "Fideism". Thus the Babel Fish Argument attempts to attack off of a false premise.

The Babel Fish Argument has numerous false premise:

1) It assumes that the term "Faith" is applied only to "If God Exists." Thus the argument attempts to flow from a misappropriation.

2) The second premise assumes that God did not allow us proof that he exists, and if he did, that it would negate the term "faith." (a) the term faith is "misappropriated" by the Atheist, and (b) it attempts to create a fallibility with the Christian by assuming that God did allow himself to be known or proved.

3) The distinction between "Faith" and "Fideism" is not made. Faith is a belief held to by proof of itself and it's certainty, while Fideism is a belief held to without proof of itself and without certainty, thus Faith is grounded while Fideism is ungrounded.

Thus by all three premises the argument is invalid by 1) using the word faith to mean something it doesn't, and 2) applying the same error it made in it's first premise to actualize the truth of the second premise, but on both occassions the foundation for the entire argument is made invalid. Finally, 3) not only is the word "Faith" missused, but it's also mis-applied and ill-defined because of the third premise in which the Atheist assumes that Faith is the same as Fideism when they are entirely different.

Also, I covered the act of "faith" of an Atheist in the PM I sent you where I cover the theories of evolution and laws -- it's funny now that you mention it, because I can easily apply the flawed Babel Fish Argument back to the Atheist that, if evolution is incomplete and unwarranted (missing links), the belief of them is a leap of "faith", thus evolution cannot be explained by logic and is false. Not only that, but even Atheism would be deleted by the Babel Fish Argument because 1) Atheism requires a faith to make a claim that "God does not exist" while lacking absolute knowledge, therefore not knowing all things it asserts an absolute statement. 2) The lack of absolute knowledge cannot be accounted for using logic simply because that would be called the Argument of Ignorance. 3) Therefore, because of the lack of knowledge it is a statement of faith, but in an attempt of using logic with this belief, the Babel Fish Argument would thus negate the Atheistic decision because Atheism assumes no God though with a limited, finite knowledge and attempts to use logic in it's application. The Babel Fish Argument is more harmful to the Atheists than to the Christians.


Then again, the Babel Fish Argument is void in and of itself in it's attempt to apply itself to the Christian belief because of it's false premise -- of course, I don't play childish games like this, and I would hope you would seize to do so in the future.

So...they're both grounded?

Rofl, typo. I'll correct it.

(*Edit >> Addition: Corrected. )

HOLY CRAP!!! how did you get into such an accident?? O.O

Thunderstorms, 3am, alcohol, swerve, no seat belt, door fail, flung at somewhere between 50-80, unconscious for 2 hours, wandering the expanses of Hwy 179 till I could find a gas station, drunkenly wondering if god *chuckles at self* gave me a quarter (I keep all my change in my cd player), getting picked up, and alot of trying not to look at my arm.

Jeez... it's a wonder you're okay.

Yeah. I'd post a pic of my arm.
But I fear for taizon's capacity to handle things of that nature, groteque as it is.
One must always consider the youth you know.

I haven't had an arm injury that bad. How many stitches?

None, there is no skin to stitch, I must regrow the majority of it, and am on my own essential oils remedy for the most part Lavendar oils.

That's too bad.

Bah, *chest puffing foolishly*
I No Feel No Pains, Me Strong-Bad Man,
Yes- Feel My Gludius Maximus.

Or something to that effect anyway.

I dun' want to feel no man's gludius maximus... >__>

Most of my injuries are, for the most part, not physical - heart trouble or other organ trouble - right now I have a problem with my Triglisterides.

Anyways, start feeling better.

I hope you recover soon.

Post a pic and don't make an excuse. I've seen things in real life worser than you can imagine,. Including a dead body with arms and legs chopped off with blood spewed over the bed.

Well, the same to you, if your ticker gives Ixz might not recover, so beat on, for all the mag's sake.

I've seen tons of nasty stuff IRL, especially a guy completely wrecked from a motorcycle accident, and... well I really don't want to go into detail on some of the worst stuff I've seen.

But anyways, all you need is a little content descriptor warning or something, and I'm sure Ix won't mind... well, not sure, but I'm guessing he won't.