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 - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 580581582 583584 ... 633
17431
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:26:18 PM »
Just going to throw out there, I disagree with Assassin on Genesis.
Like Snake said; if it's not taken literally then it's not really..........doing anything.
It's presence is almost pointless.
I'm basically done arguing with him... He keeps avoiding the questions or trying to guess my answers to his questions. This makes him change his statements to the point of incoherency to avoid "tripping up", essentially. I mean, I have nothing against Assassin, I have positive feelings toward him from Bungie.net. I just don't think he's arguing as efficiently as you did in that other thread.
17432
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:21:54 PM »
Since there's no way to be definitive without being a CEO, I'll stick with my opinion.
Why would developers of a game want to put a game out that's not finished?
Lots of reason. In my head, the head guys at 343 aren't the smartest of people. After the backlash from Halo 4, they've essentially become the community's bitch. I can see someone in charge over there going "we want to make sure we do everything right from now on, so releasing Halo 2 Anniversary on the same day is our top priority. Everything exactly as you remember it, only 10 years later" sort of mentality. While I'm not justifying their actions, I'm just explaining what I think went on. Obviously, making sure the game is working is a bigger priority, but the fact that the game would've had to come out a year later to be "fixed" probably turned them off of the idea.
17433
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:18:47 PM »
 Now this is a feeling I've not felt in a long.
A long time.Post your 11/10's and shit.
17434
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:05:33 PM »
Superman
But Superman doesn't kill, also *cough* DC vs MK.
So? His aversion to killing cool be avoided easily.
Scorpion was in Injustice.
Superman doesn't kill, i'll repeat, he DOESN'T kill, the reason why he said "fuck it, kill shit" is because if you remember the storyline, Batman (if i recall correctly) was sent back in time in a different universe, a universe where Superman is evil and starts to kill people, our superman wouldn't kill but his evil version will. And the reason why Scorpion was in there because mister so call "Ed Boon" wanted to have Scorpion in Injustice because he's a fanboy and he likes Scorpion, it should be quite obvious.
Good thing Supes is a shitty character
17435
« on: March 04, 2015, 09:04:59 PM »
Good: Microsoft I hope you'd be right after they pushed for that barely half finished game known as the Master Chief Collection.
I actually think that had more to do with 343 wanting to respect Halo 2's release date.
Not at all. Microsoft wanted console sales pushed for the holidays, and what better way than to slash the price and tag along the game franchise that kicked them off?
In the end it just turned into a big blunder sadly. Heck, that game STILL has issues.
Since there's no way to be definitive without being a CEO, I'll stick with my opinion.
17436
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:41:49 PM »
Good: Microsoft I hope you'd be right after they pushed for that barely half finished game known as the Master Chief Collection.
I actually think that had more to do with 343 wanting to respect Halo 2's release date.
17437
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:29:41 PM »
Superman
But Superman doesn't kill, also *cough* DC vs MK.
So? His aversion to killing cool be avoided easily.
Scorpion was in Injustice.
Superman doesn't kill, i'll repeat, he DOESN'T kill, the reason why he said "fuck it, kill shit" is because if you remember the storyline, Batman (if i recall correctly) was sent back in time in a different universe, a universe where Superman is evil and starts to kill people, our superman wouldn't kill but his evil version will. And the reason why Scorpion was in there because mister so call "Ed Boon" wanted to have Scorpion in Injustice because he's a fanboy and he likes Scorpion, it should be quite obvious.
Um, do you know who you're talking to. Resident Superman expert, here. I know the character better than most. Superman didn't kill anyone during gameplay. Everyone was brought up to his level of strength because plot. And like I said before, they could easily avoid the killing aspect for Superman if they wanted to.
17438
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:21:11 PM »
Superman
But Superman doesn't kill, also *cough* DC vs MK.
So? His aversion to killing cool be avoided easily. Scorpion was in Injustice.
17439
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:15:46 PM »
Superman
17440
« on: March 04, 2015, 06:45:29 PM »
And you are in a position to judge a being infinitely wiser than you, and who has a full picture of the universe and what's best for it, because? Because his existence is unlikely. Who's to say that you being on the path of atheist is a bad thing? Saved? I'm sorry when did I say anything about Hell, damnation, saving, Jesus Christ or any of that stuff? You didn't. I'm assuming you to be a Christian. I'd like to clarify, this isn't God coming down bathed in golden light saying, "Sup browski, wanna hang out?". Obviously. But the degree to which God shows himself to you is irrelevant, he still showed himself to you. There isn't any forcing or removing the person's choice from the equation. Yes, there is. By God "showing" himself to you (whatever that entails) he is removing the choice of believing in him or not by showing you that he does in fact exist. What kind of an idiot is going to say "God doesn't exist" after God showed him that he does exist? Where you saw it as just someone randomly handing out a million dollars, somebody else might attribute the act to happening because of something greater(God). If God can control people to do things like that, it would mean that God has the power to interact with humanity on a physical level, which opens up to a whole bunch of issues. If that's your argument, I'm pretty sure I'll win, mate. You seem to think it is being forced by God, through some manner, to start believing in God's existence, when the more reasonable answer would be that it's a different perspective of looking at things. So in other words, you need to have a predisposition to believing in God to believe in God? Expecting to have some grand moment of realization where God makes you change will only guarantee that you stay the same, because you need to actively choose to start believing something. There is NO CHOICE involved with belief. You either believe something because it meets your standards of evidence, or you don't believe something because it doesn't meet your standards of evidence. There is no choice involved, that's a common misconception. Evolution is evidence against the faith of the Bible if you were to believe it word-for-word, perhaps. However, that's not how the Old Testament was written to read as(like most mythologies); the beginning of Genesis is a poem, it is not meant as a pure historical record. If the book of Genesis isn't literal, there is no reason/way for Jesus Christ to wipe away sin, thus pushing the religion into irrelevancy. Bashing babies/genocide one? Yeah, that was the Israelite peoples thoughts and resolve after having their cities brutally massacred and taken over by another nation that then took many prisoner/slaves. That makes it okay? No, it doesn't. Yeah, spreading an idea across the world that requires a level of interpretation tends to result in lots of alterations among different cultural groups.
Why are we getting so much into Christianity? Because like I said, I assumed you were Christian. We can switch to another religion/belief if you want, but since the beginning of our conversation, you've avoided the entire point of the thread and forced me to play devil's advocate. Not finding God in your heart would be a personal problem, there's plenty of people that said they have. They are delusional. The fact that I/atheists cannot find God in my/their heart means that no one finds God in their heart. Why would God not be in my heart but be in yours? You said "absence of X is proof of Y". X being evidence and Y being God doesn't exist.
If there is no X(evidence), that is proof of Y(That there is no God). I said:
That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y? Those are the exact same.
17441
« on: March 04, 2015, 04:47:10 PM »
I actually thought Jaden Smith was pretty good in some movies... (the only poor performance I can't think of was After Earth).
But lol, good on you Will.
17442
« on: March 04, 2015, 04:38:20 PM »
Good: Microsoft
Bad: Playstation and Ubisoft
17443
« on: March 04, 2015, 04:36:45 PM »
Top 5 Games on the Playstation 2:
5: Pacman World 2
4: Dragon Ball Z Infinite World
3: Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal
2: Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy
1: Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
17444
« on: March 04, 2015, 04:29:14 PM »
I'd like to interject that basing the existence (or lack thereof) of a deity on the basis of how the Christian Bible portrays him doesn't offer a point against a deity, only against the interpretation of the Christian God.
I was only arguing against the Christian God in this context because I assume Assassin to be Christian, thus it's more relevant. I could just as easily argue against Vishnu or Allah. I fluctuate between a theistic and atheistic view often; not based on any texts, or a gut feeling of belief, but rather what makes for a more exciting narrative at the time.
So basically, whatever causes the most shit XD
17445
« on: March 04, 2015, 03:39:21 PM »
Well, it all really just depends on how you look at things.
Here's where logic comes into play. If God has the ability to interfere with earthly people and situations, he is evil and lazy. If he really loves us, than he wouldn't have led me on the path to being an atheist. You claim to believe because of divine intervention, so he saved you essentially, but he hasn't done the same for me, which means that he's damning me to hell because he didn't supply enough evidence. If he can't interfere with earthly people and situations, then you're justification for believing in him at all is thrown through the window. Correct, but being violent and harassing isn't something that is necessarily always what the possessor of those traits is. I mean, I suppose there theoretically is a way one can violently and harassingly shop for groceries or brush their teeth, but I don't see that realistically. Okay? I agree with you on that, I just don't see it's relevance. Being neutral like being violent and harassing(I never said evil) is an act, a (momentary) state of being. However, ones appearance can be judged by how they most commonly act. Of course. But if someone usually acts like an asshole, but is sometimes nice, they aren't 100% asshole. If they are predominantly violent, then despite them not being violent occasionally, they will be identified as violent. If anything could be taken from it, then it would more like the chocolate can sometimes have a streak of white, but that doesn't make the chocolate white on the whole. I feel like this whole part of our discussion is just going to places that aren't relevant. So what if people are identified as violent? That's not what I said, I said that how God gave evidence of himself to someone cannot be replicated as that evidence worked because of that time, place, emotional status, person's history, personality, etc. that it was given. It doesn't apply to other situations, it's not a blanket evidence, it works when and how it was given to who it was given. Then why doesn't your God supply me with the same evidence he's given this person? He essentially just proved himself to that person, which takes away any choice the person witnessing has from believing in God. Why can't he do the same for me? Then you have evidence against the basis of the faith, which comes before the faith being strengthened. Let's hear some. Evolution, the age of the earth/universe, contradictions between various books of the bible, morally ambiguous stories and laws, morally wrong stories and laws. Really, all it takes is some critical thinking to understand how flawed the bible/basis of any religion is. Well, there's no documented mythical sea monsters really existing, there's been numerous fakes, there really isn't a sustainable food source in the Loch for a creature that size, and Plesiosaurs died out 66 million years ago. So, there's all that. And there's all this that leads us to believe the bible is incorrect. Evolution, the age of the earth/universe, contradictions between various books of the bible, morally ambiguous stories and laws, morally wrong stories and laws. There are numourous fakes in Christianity, depending on your denomination. The Protestant side of the religion is hopelessly divided on every little issue, it's absurd. You can't say they are all right. But you can say they are all wrong. Uh, because you said you had proof of white chocolate(God doesn't exist). I have never said I had proof that God didn't exist. I am saying there is no proof he does and there is no good reason we should believe he exists. Difference is that it's a lot easier to scientifically analyze a loch and say that a Plesiosaur couldn't be surviving there due to various reasons, than say that we've searched for God where he's supposed to be and couldn't find him so he can't be there and so can't be real. It's the exact same thing. We've searched for God in creation, he isn't there. We've searched for God in our hearts, he isn't there. If there was some evidence that God did exist, than everyone would accept that and there would be no debate. But there is no evidence, so there is no good reason to believe he does. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a response to a claim. Exactly. Exactly what? That doesn't answer anything.
You said "absence of X is proof of Y". X being evidence and Y being God doesn't exist. If there is no X(evidence), that is proof of Y(That there is no God).
17446
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:45:19 PM »
It's like when people counter-argue the "God created the universe in 7 days" by saying "God's days are probably longer".
six days, actually.
But why would anyone even make that argument? An omnipotent being would be able to make everything in the time frame he so desires, unless we're bringing God down to a level where he is bound by the universe's own laws.
Whatever. My Old Testament isn't the best. Considering we know the universe to be older than 6 thousand years (which is approx. how old the universe would be according to the bible), people have to rationalise the genesis story to fit what we know about science today to be true (evolution, universe's age, etc.)
17447
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:38:38 PM »
You know damn well why.
Well it's a rather logical hypothesis assuming that black holes function as the roots and branches of the "tree".
That may very well be but any way you slice it, you're just forming reality to fit the belief. Black holes are not roots or branches, they are black holes. It's like when people counter-argue the "God created the universe in 7 days" by saying "God's days are probably longer".
17448
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:35:18 PM »
Y'know, there's this old joke that goes like this.
If God can "control" or work through me, that would mean he has power to control people and events in the earthly world, which we know isn't true. Neutrality not canceling out or adding to negatives is not the same as your chocolate metaphor. What you're saying would require for all Muslims to be violent and harassing all the time, which wasn't what the hypothetical was. The metaphor you brought up was that one would be justified in believing all muslims to be violent or evil if they had only been experienced to violent and evil muslims. Muslims acting neutral isn't the same as white chocolate, because those Muslims might still be violent and harassing but simply not acting that way right then. It is the same as white chocolate, because while brown chocolate still exists (violent muslims), the white chocolate also exists, which contradicts the person understanding that "all chocolate is brown". If there are neutral muslims, then all muslims are not violent and evil. You're interpreting factual information as of value and interpretations of events as of no value. That's because they really don't have any value. You're looking for repeatable tests, in a sense as evidence, right? That cannot be done here. The so called evidence cannot be repeated because you cannot replicate all the factors. So then why should I believe you? If God can only prove himself to you, but not to me, it serves no purpose to the argument. I'm looking for you to justify/explain/prove your beliefs to me. What else would you want, eye-witness accounts of what people say they experienced? Those have shown to be unreliable in regards to what really might have happened. This is exactly right. But you more or less said that "If you've only had support for god in your life, then you are justified in your belief that god exists. But as soon as I "show you the evidence", and you don't change your beliefs, we have a problem." If you don't have proof that contradicts the belief that god exists, then what was your point? I don't have proof that god doesn't exist, no, because you cannot prove a negative. What I can do is show you the overwhelming evidence that straight up contradicts things written in any religion, not just the Judeo-Christian religion. Pretty sure they've done various expeditions and there's been absolutely no evidence supporting Nessie exists, but okay. The picture of a log doesn't count. But there's no evidence that Nessie DOESN'T exist, right? Why are you okay with saying that Nessie doesn't exist because of the lack of evidence but when you bring God into it under the same principles it's suddenly my job to prove the negative? "Pretty sure they've done various experiments and tests and there's been absolutely no evidence supporting that God exists, but okay. The bible doesn't count." That doesn't make sense. How does absence of X equal presence of Y?
Exactly.
17449
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:16:22 PM »
There's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.
How are you sure? Because if you're sure, than I want to be sure, too.
But so far, no one has given me any evidence that would make me "sure" there's a God. It's just people being raised religiously that gives them a natural inclination towards a diety that makes them sure one exists. Think about it, if you weren't raised religiously, you would have no notion of God and wouldn't even be trying to defend your beliefs because, well, you wouldn't have any.
You're very right. If I wasn't raised in a religious home, chances are good I wouldn't believe in God. Thankfully, I was. If you weren't, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you'd say it's a good thing, but you know what they say about opinions. Anyway, back to the other question. I'm sure because I've witnessed firsthand the power that prayer has. Of course, maybe that's all chance. I'm not the one to say. I just feel that prayer has swayed what would have happened, had God not been involved.
I was raised religiously, though. Why was it okay for God to show you how he exists through prayer but not me? It just doesn't add up to me. There are too many inconsistencies, division and severe lack of empirical evidence for me to even consider religion a worthwhile philosophy. I wish I could be religious, but it's not like I can just "Choose to believe", belief isn't a choice.
17450
« on: March 04, 2015, 02:12:25 PM »
17451
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:44:34 PM »
There's so many things I've seen and heard that just make me think there must be a God out there. Maybe my particular Catholic beliefs aren't correct, but I'm 99% sure God is out there.
How are you sure? Because if you're sure, than I want to be sure, too. But so far, no one has given me any evidence that would make me "sure" there's a God. It's just people being raised religiously that gives them a natural inclination towards a diety that makes them sure one exists. Think about it, if you weren't raised religiously, you would have no notion of God and wouldn't even be trying to defend your beliefs because, well, you wouldn't have any.
17452
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:42:32 PM »
OP, convince me that the core of Germanic paganism isn't right and that there aren't 9 known multiverses tied together by what the unknowing ancient Europeans called the world tree or Yggdrasil.
That isn't what I want to do in my thread. Make your own thread if you wish to discuss proving negatives.
17453
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:41:39 PM »
I'm looking for you to explain why you believe.
17454
« on: March 04, 2015, 01:40:55 PM »
Depends on how it's perceived by the recipient, but yeah random acts of charity would probably qualify for most, I think. That's retarded. That isn't the intervention of god, that is me giving you a million dollars to prove a point. Oh boy, it's not baseless, base·less ˈbāsləs/ adjective 1. without foundation in fact. "baseless allegations" Okay, are you even Human? Do you understand people are not robots? Do you understand that adding 0 to -10 still equals -10? That literally makes no sense. If someone says "All pieces of chocolate are brown." because all they've ever seen is brown chocolate, they are justified in their understanding of chocolate's colour. But as soon as I show them a piece of white chocolate, they should conceit that they were wrong, and that not ALL chocolate is brown. You are seriously trying to justify intentional ignorance which is just another phrase for stupidity. If someone shows you the evidence that contradicts your prior understanding, and you still support your prior understanding, you are daft. That evidence would be their entire life story and their interpretation Interpretation means fuck all, I'm looking for factual information. Claiming it's illogical because they lived a different life than you is foolish. I'm not claiming that "living a different life than mine" is illogical. I'm claiming that believing anything without evidence is illogical. Where's your evidence God doesn't exist then? 1) You can't prove a negative. 2) Where's your evidence that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist? Do you believe in her until proven that she DOESN'T exist? (Although in this case, there is more evidence of Nessie than God.) 3) I believe it was Meta who made a thread about how a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist. But yeah, a lack of evidence for God is evidence that he doesn't exist.
17455
« on: March 04, 2015, 12:44:37 PM »
Now THAT is a collectors edition that I will be getting!
And supposedly it only costs about $100... Talk about Ground Zeroes compensation.
17456
« on: March 04, 2015, 08:26:16 AM »
Bump for new info.
17457
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:54:06 PM »
Oh, you ascribe to Verby's line of thinking. I'm sorry, but that really is disappointing. Well, he doesn't own anti-natalism  I hope this doesn't interfere with anything we've established previously about our relationship. Fact is, there's literally nothing there before a child is born. No thought, no emotion, nothing. You're asking for nothing to give its consent. I'd describe it as being like asking an inanimate object for consent before you do something with it, but it's less than that. It's less than asking some plastic and circuitry for consent before building it into a computer. It's less than asking the chair you're sitting in for consent before sitting in it. It's less than asking a lightswitch for consent before you flip it. That's my point. Because you can't ask nothing for it's consent, you shouldn't do it. If there was something to ask for consent before you do something to it, of course I would. But there isn't. The child-to-be does not exist before the egg gets fertilized and starts multiplying into a full human being. Something that does not exist cannot have rights or freedom of choice, because it does not exist.
It will eventually exist. You are still condemning the child to a life it could potentially not want, which makes it immoral. I'd like to continue this debate, but I'm tired. If you don't want to wait until tomorrow PM me so we can have a chat.
17458
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:42:03 PM »
Pls stop quoting me unless you're directly replying to me 
17459
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:40:45 PM »
What if I considered myself a theist but did not follow any religion?
I would ask you why you were a theist.
Probably mostly because I was raised to believe in a deity, so it was hard for me to abandon my beliefs. While over the years I've come to the conclusion that organized religion is ridiculous, I've never seen much compelling evidence against the possibility of a deity/deities existing. I suppose I would more accurately be described as an agnostic.
In any case, hypothetically, I think that a deity would be very different than how most people see their God.
Sorry, I thought I would have something more thought-provoking to say but I'm drawing blanks.
You bringing up your childhood clears a lot of things up. I still have to remind myself that there is no evidence for god from time to time because it was programmed into me as a kid.
I don't really think you can identify just as agnostic. You're either a thiestic-agnostic (IE, I don't know whether god exists or not but I'm pretty sure he does because Pascal's wager [and even this is a bit of a stretch. belief isn't a choice, contrary to popular belief]) and atheistic-agnostism (me), that believes that there is no evidence for god, but we can't know for sure.
Well I think I should clarify that I don't believe in hell and I don't think that an omnipotent god would care whether or not their creations believed in them so therefore I live a completely secular lifestyle...but I don't know if that should classify me as an atheist.
It's simple. If you believe in a god/creator/entity that sparked existence, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist.
Either way, I just want people to be able to backup their beliefs. You can be an advocate for child rape in my books if you can justify it efficiently.
I could not pick either with any certainty.
Let me see if I can help you with that... Do you believe the human race/the universe was created?
17460
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:39:05 PM »
...Because reproduction is the point of life?
Not really. There is no point to life except the subjective meanings we give it. The one basic task we're born in order to accomplish? Says who? That sounds like appealing to nature, which is a logical fallacy, dude. If you follow your statement to it's logical conclusion, the one reason we're born is to reproduce, or to ensure that our genes get passed on. In this specific sense, one could justify the murder of other people's children because it better the chances that your offspring will get some fuk in the future. And we could still reproduce, most likely, just with less...squishiness. Unless there's some way they can get a child's consent to be born, I'm not an advocate for reproduction. Especially when immortality makes it redundant.
Pages: 1 ... 580581582 583584 ... 633
|
Show Posts
