This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Doctor Doom
Pages: 1 ... 203204205 206207 ... 246
6121
« on: February 14, 2015, 10:00:40 PM »
Even after all my shenanigans I'm still not up there.
Gosh darn it to heck.
6122
« on: February 14, 2015, 09:59:29 PM »
Dem yaut'ja though.
6123
« on: February 14, 2015, 09:26:02 PM »
I played it, and while it's not canon (or so I hear), I really enjoyed it for what it was. It was nice to see Big Boss building up his army. Peace Walker was the one I could never get into sadly.
I hear it's given a passing mention in Peace Walker, so I suppose it's kinda canon, but Kojima apparently doesn't like it. Take that as you will.
6124
« on: February 14, 2015, 08:13:50 PM »
Get ready for another round with the greatest character in the series, Spoiler Frank motherfucking Jaeger.
6125
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:09:37 PM »
12, maybe. 'Bigger = better' is a fairly simple concept to grasp. And squeeze. And fondle.
6126
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:06:55 PM »
 Yeah, someone should call him.
6127
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:01:35 PM »
to be honest i doubt the people that write wikipedia articles are even human
Well, clearly, Wikipedia is a self-building AI that writes itself. It all makes sense...
6128
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:54:33 PM »
"Do I know you?"
"You killed my father!"
"...Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?"
6129
« on: February 14, 2015, 04:42:33 PM »
Like, it's one order of improbability that Jesus will come back in 50 years. It's a whole other order of improbability that he'll come back in 50 years to Massachusetts. Hence why I said equally possible and not equally probable. Is it possible he'll come back in 50 years? Yes, nobody can deny (or prove) anything so uncertain, given there's no evidence to work with. Is it possible he'll come back to Massachusetts specifically? Yes. One is clearly more probable than the other, but one is not more possible than the other. If you think all possibilities are equally possible, you have no way of justifying your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The possibility that it will not rise is equally possible to the possibility that it will. However, probability indicates that it's almost guaranteed that it will, barring some stellar accident or something.
6130
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:15:49 AM »
Alright, alright, I'm not too proud to admit you just kicked my ass, and looking back a few hours later a lot of what I said was bullshit. Too opinionated, too poorly-worded, and too far from the original issue. Lemme clear it up a bit. Getting back to the crux of my post, what I wanted to see was why they reached the conclusion that he wasn't divine. There's no evidence to support it, true, but there's nothing against it - after all, nobody from two thousand years ago is still alive to settle whether or not he could, in fact, walk on water and heal the sick and do all his other divine shenanigans. That's what I base my personal belief on - all possibilities are equally possible, from the concept of God to the Big Bang to aliens to who-knows-what-else, until sufficient evidence is given to prove one over all the rest. Hence, religious neutrality. Complete impartiality. I suppose that stems from my existential terror as to what happens after death. But back on topic, that's fine that they think like that, it's just that it's still, y'know, a conclusion based on personal way of thinking. It's still a belief (or lack of belief). And then I see people asserting that, 'no, he was definitely not divine in any way' (or to the opposite effect, to be entirely fair) and my face immediately goes:  Wha-huh?! Why do they think that? What logical process did they use to reach that conclusion? I mean, is it probable that he was just a regular guy? Yeah, in all likelihood. A lack of evidence is definitely a good reason to personally believe he was merely a man, but it's rather jarring when I see someone say with absolute conviction that he wasn't divine in any way, when in my belief it's entirely possible (though admittedly improbable) that he was. And yes, it is just me being pedantic over wording and trying to force my belief on others. I know I shouldn't expect everyone to foreword their posts with 'in my opinion', but literally nothing irritates me more than a definite conclusion to such an intangible issue.
6131
« on: February 14, 2015, 01:36:20 AM »
Prove it!
6132
« on: February 14, 2015, 01:32:26 AM »
Just when you think you've gotten all the way across the map you hear Eli call out in his most British accent, 'It's not over yet, Snake!'
6133
« on: February 14, 2015, 12:05:18 AM »
WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
*drops steamroller*
6134
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:38:06 PM »
It doesn't have to disprove it, it's never been proven. 'I can't disprove it, so they have to prove it!' It's not even something that can be proven, disproven, or analyzed - it's a matter of personal belief, not science. Speaking of which, how does the concept of a being (or Being) deliberately causing the Big Bang contradict the scientific theory of it? (The methods utilized in the belief, however, can be disproven, such as most of the historical happenings in the Bible.) Maybe God exists, and He caused the Big Bang. Or maybe He doesn't, and He didn't. Maybe there are several gods, who did. Maybe it was aliens (but would there really be any significant difference?). Maybe it was all an accident, a cosmic coincidence. Just because none of the former have been proven doesn't automatically make the latter the 'correct' conclusion - that's a toddler's way of assuming anything they can't see doesn't exist. That's the basis of my personal belief: Any religion could be correct, or maybe none of them are and it's all a coincidence, but nobody knows for sure. 'I'm atheist because I haven't seen any reason to believe in God' is all well and good, but it's no 'better' than saying 'I'm Christian because I haven't seen any reason to not believe in God'. Besides, believing that the Big Bang happened because somebody in a position of authority told you about it and gave their reasons for their theory is rather similar to how most Christians gain their beliefs. Christians haven't disproven Greek mythology or Islam either. That's true, they haven't. There's no knowledge to gain from believing it. There doesn't have to be. It's not a matter of science, it's a matter of personal belief.It's not against all odds, there's hundreds of trillions of stars with several planets existing for billions of years. And how many of them can support life? How many of them that can do? The odds of even one planet out of countless supporting not just one species but millions when every other stellar object we've examined haven't, even if they could, are mind-bogglingly slim. Do you have any idea how many factors need to be exactly right for life to exist on a planet? The number of things that could go wrong are near infinite, and yet here we are. It could be a cosmic convenience on our part, or maybe this one single planet was deliberately set up with life in mind. None of us know, but a disturbing number of us pretend to. But not impossible. NASA has observed several planets that are in the goldie locks zone and have similar atmospheres as ours. The analogy of the atom bomb is similar to the watch maker and just as fallacious. You're comparing a non-natural process to a natural one. The big bang is far more complex than a nuke explosion. A release of energy and matter that expands presumably eternally, and along the way creates only one planet (that we know of) that has life on it while all others (that we know of) do not. The probability of this one planet having all the right conditions for life are slim to infinitesimal. There's no evidence That's my point. Without substantial evidence, it's pointless to base your life on it.
I should amend that to there being no evidence that we know of. Rather key words here, eh? And we probably will never know of any evidence either, which still does not guarantee there is none at all, just that we're ignorant of any that may exist.
6135
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:13:45 PM »
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.
This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists
There's your problem.
Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.
It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?
I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.
Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.
As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.
Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.
There is evidence of a big bang, which we can make accurate predictions with, while there is not of a divine being.
Which does nothing to actively disprove the concept of a creator deity. Perhaps the Big Bang was set off by a specific being, for instance. Or maybe it just happened for reasons we can only speculate. Neither of us know, and we'll probably never know. Our planet isn't perfect. Most of it is inhospitable for humans without technology. The poles and Antarctica, deserts, salty oceans, etc. 99% of all known life has gone extinct on this so called "perfect" planet. Okay, perhaps not perfect. But it's at least enough to support millions of forms of life, still against all odds. It was a matter of probability. There's trillions of stars with their own solar systems in trillions of galaxies. It's not impossible for at least one planet to harbor some life.
But still highly improbable that even one planet in the universe would have the right atmosphere, the right distance from a star, the right biospherical conditions for so many forms of life to thrive on. Compare an atomic bomb blowing up a bunch of scrap and forming a house. There's no evidence that the creation of the one planet we're aware of that contains life was deliberately conceived by a divine (or not-so-divine) being, but dismissing the idea entirely is exactly as ignorant as clinging to it.
6136
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:54:30 PM »
Mine grow back, so yes.
6137
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:51:30 PM »
Yeaaaaah, if they do it well then that's great. It might pave the way for an IG FPS game lol.
Survival FPS?
Could be an Alien: Isolation-esque game, or some excuse could be made for how you can kill every adversary you come across.
6138
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:25:02 PM »
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.
This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists
There's your problem.
Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.
It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?
I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.
Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.
As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.
Illogical based on what? What are you basing this conclusion on? I fail to see how a Higher Power setting Earth up for us is any less logical than a massive release of energy somehow, against all odds, making a perfect planet for millions of different forms of life to prosper on.
6139
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:03:04 PM »
>doesn't tell us
Okay
He never said he would, did he?
6140
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:02:21 PM »
I do deserve a reward. Now bend over.
6141
« on: February 13, 2015, 08:53:45 PM »
Oh yeah, that. It's pretty good.
6142
« on: February 13, 2015, 08:52:41 PM »
Punch him in the fuking throat and laugh at him with all my friends while he cries on the floor
added to beta faggots.
6143
« on: February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PM »
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.
This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
>assuming god exists
There's your problem.
Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.
It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?
I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy. Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist. As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
6144
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:36:07 PM »
I have a HTC one, don't get one. Get either the Nexus 6, one plus one, or sony xperia z3
What's wrong with the HTC One anyway?
Nothing, I love mine.
6145
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:29:43 PM »
'Doxing'?
6146
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:21:59 PM »
Without because I'm not a gypsy.
6147
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:20:59 PM »
Followed by Just Cause 4: Carrie and Just Cause 5: Pet Semetary.
6148
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:18:11 PM »
Eating steak then eating dick
10/10 would do again
How the fuck do we have the same plans...
Because you're a massive faggot :^)
But doesn't that make you one too?
Eating dick makes me the opposite of a faggot
It makes you a cannibal actually.
Exactly, they're polar opposites. Yin and yang, sweet and sour, light and dark, cannibals and faggots...
6149
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:16:47 PM »
Fuck that noise, you're Spider-Man!
6150
« on: February 13, 2015, 07:14:37 PM »
just go to your local organic food store and ask all the stay-at-home milfs for some fuck
but what if I get maced
Then you'll die.
Pages: 1 ... 203204205 206207 ... 246
|
Show Posts