Zierro

I have no issue with "nooby tactics", but I think Armor Lock really ruins the flow of the game. I'll use it if I see it commonly being used against me, but even when it's causing me victory, I'll still hold the believe that Bungie should have put more thought into it. The concept is okay, but does it really have to last so damn long? Not to mention I've seen several questionable beat downs arise from it (someone turning white and going downwards but yet still getting killed VS someone being invincible before they even turn white or go downwards). The least they could do is make it consistent. For that reason, I prefer Halo 3's combat.

Been working on Bioshock on hard, no-vita-mode. It's such a different game now that my plasmid and ammunition management revolves solely around simple survival rather than efficiency. I love it. I also completed 7/9 missions on Reach: Legendary Solo.

What are you talking about? The event of a person purposely telling another person a falsehood occurred multiple times before someone decided to label it a "lie". In order for there to be a label, an idea is required first. The idea has been conceptualized because it was observed in the physical world first. Someone telling another person a falsehood would be just as "objectively true" as a god existing. Not to mention, we also invented the classification of "truth" and "existent" too. This doesn't mean nothing can ever be "true" unless humans say so. My argument was not, "If you haven't seen it, it must be not true." My point is that spaghetti doesn't even have the potential to perform such feats because it does not possess the necessary components to. The fact that a triangle is a triangle means it has no potential to be any different shape, thus an impossibility. Yet another completely unfounded claim. I don't even think most of your arguments warrant a rebuttal, as you're not even bothering to add anything new to the table other than persistently rejecting all of my claims without good reason to. Actually, I do have a response to reciprocate your "arguments": I DISAGREE. Yes, it is possible for you to be uncertain and doubt it all you want, but that doesn't mean you won't splatter into millions of pieces, every single time - at least nomologically speaking (in terms of our universe's laws instead of some parallel universe crap). What word other than "great force" can describe an average sized man falling 10,000 feet (with earth's gravity included) and smacking onto the hard pavement? Hell, there's even mathematics proving this. Now you're going as far as rejecting the scientific laws of physics in order to cling onto your argument that nothing but abstract knowledge can be impossible. This is why I brought up the laws of nature needing to be changed in order for some things to be possible. It's called nomological possibility. In a different universe with different rules, we have zero idea of what to expect. However, I'm talking about the real world. But we do know. We know for certain that a raisin weighs much less than 100 lbs, therefore has no potential to instantly make you 100 lbs larger. We know for certain that lungs are required in order to take a breath, just like a brain is required to have a thought. We know for certain that 1.) a normal fishing rod is not nearly long enough to reach the sun, 2.) the sun would burn up any matter even close to it, and 3.) no human is strong enough to pull that weight. I handpicked some of the most basic contradictions to reality, and yet you're still desperately trying to deny basic science for the sake of leveraging your already-debunked arguments. Again, in terms of nomologically possibility, these things just cannot happen in the realm we live in. If you wish to assert that these are possible, then you must find a way to get past these things, but all you are doing is making hollow claims that they are possible. Then you have no reason to support the argument that, "If two things both have no evidence, they are equally plausible," which is the logic I've been refuting this whole time. There are more things to take into account than absences of evidence, and I've shown you multiple things that should be taken into account if you wish to make a logical deduction in contrast to Santa and a deity. No, evidence for falsehood would be us legitimately finding out that the origin of the universe was caused by something other than god, or that it has no cause, etc. (Go figure there's probably no way to find this out.) It simply comes down to there being no evidence for god, and none against, therefore it would be illogical to claim anything other than ignorance. Yeah... and now look at yours. You seem to be very content on believing all of your assertions, even after I pointed out multiple ways how they break down. It all boils down to you having a false sense of reality and believing the magical Santa Claus and breathing skeletons fossils are possible. This is the typical crap I see from atheists who love to slither away from the fact that some of their assertions can be just as illogical as a theist's. Exactly - it's amusing how fervent some will get over their supposed "lack of belief". I'd have to say though that it's pretty apparent what they actually believe when they EQUATE GOD TO SANTA CLAUS. =D>

Strong point. Also, in response to killing being the only use of a gun, this is not the case. I'm sure I speak for most here when I say that intimidation is the main reason a gun is desirable for self-defense proponents, and pulling the trigger would only be conceived if an innocent life was in immediate danger. The reason I'm against gun bans in America is because I want lives to be saved.

Not enough, in my opinion. I'd be interested in seeing more rants from you in the future.

It's a kick in the face to humanity. What? Are we not good enough?

I never rejected that there was a difference between these two fields of knowledge. My point is that a "lie" (as in, the act of one person purposely telling another person something which is not true) could still occur without having a specific label to describe it, just as the entity "god" could exist even if we didn't have a word for him/her/it. It was in response to you claiming a "lie" can only exist because we call it such, in which the same could be said about a god then. Spaghetti does not possess the ability to be sentient, just as a triangle does not possess the ability to be four-sided. It's really just a contradiction of nature. Let me guess - simply because it's physical? Tell me, is it also not physically impossible to be damaged from a 10,000 foot drop onto cement? No, the laws of nature dictate that harm will be caused to organisms impacted by a great amount of force. Not only is it logical to say we "know" this, but it's also safe. It allows us to move on from absurd "what ifs" and not kill ourselves testing it out. It is very possible to decipher impossibilities about our physical world. I'll even throw in few more examples pertaining to the realm of the physical: Is it possible for me to instantly gain 100 lbs by eating a single raisin? No, I'd probably just gain whatever the raisin weighed. Is it possible for a skeleton fossil to breathe? No, they do not have lungs or a brain required to perform the action. Is it possible to reel the sun in with a traditional fishing rod? No. Or do you actually believe these things are possible? Is a three-headed rat just as plausible as a twelve-headed rat that speaks Spanish, runs his own cheese business, has twelve beautiful human celebrity wives, can throw a football over a mile, can recite the first million digits of pi, is one of the top RS PVPers of all time, and is your next door neighbor? It does not merely come down to, "Neither have evidence, therefore they are equally likely/unlikely/ridiculous/absurd/plausible". Again, do you not see the flaw in this logic? You can't just lump everything that does not have evidence together into the same boat. There are other factors to take into account, such as whether the concept violates or contradicts a more well-founded truth. Firstly, the most important difference is that god is not Santa Claus. See my point above. Secondly, the only prerequisite for a "god" is that he is the intelligent creator of the universe. The only prerequisite for a "Santa Claus" is that his name is Santa Claus. In this case, a non-magical guy named Santa sounds much more likely than a god existing, but that's not a very strong point. I get the feeling your analogy was in reference to the strange and magical Santa Claus. That being said, if we do have Santa's story wrong (he is not the one who gives out the gifts labeled "From Santa"), we might as well scrap the idea altogether [instead of clinging onto it by going through mental gymnastics and altering every essential detail as to what the entity even is EXCEPT that the entity is still existent*]. If we have god's story wrong (he did not create the universe), we may as well scrap that idea too. The thing is, there is evidence suggesting that Santa's story is a falsehood and the presents are actually just from our parents. Can we say the same for the origin of the universe? No, there is nothing to suggest he did not do it, just as there is nothing to suggest he did; nothing more than an absence of evidence for his story, which is definitely not the case for Santa's story. *In relevance to specific sects of religion, your point is valid because some of their claims and stories do have evidence against them. [Christian: Hell is in the middle of the earth. Scientist: Nothing is in the middle of the earth but molten rock. Christian: Hell is figurative.] But your argument was an attack against theism in general, even though there is zero legitimate evidence against the story of creationism. I do. As you can see earlier in this thread, I was arguing that violence and lenient sex is not inherent to atheism. I point out the logical fallacies I see amongst theists and atheists alike. Bad logic is bad logic no matter who you are. But for some reason, many atheists think all their assertions are exempt from critique, as they like to pull the neutrality card whilst simultaneously suggesting there is no such thing as god. Because, as you have clearly demonstrated to us, you will only believe whatever makes you feel good. :rolleyes: Now seriously, there are a multitude of reasons why someone will not respond to a post. They could be busy, they could have internet troubles, they could have keyboard troubles, they could be too bored of debating, they could be too impatient to keep repeating the same disregarded arguments, they could be dead, they could have retired, etc. The argument "You are not responding. That means you must think I'm right but are too embarrassed to admit it!" is yet another logical fallacy - non-sequitur reasoning.

The point is that you're making a big difference between something physically existing and something being true in an abstract sense - when ultimately they both boil down to claims of knowledge. If you believe four-sided triangles are impossible, you are fully rejecting an idea. And rightly so, as the idea doesn't even make sense. If your definition of "possible" is "able to occur, given that the laws of the universe were altered", then I guess sentient flying spaghetti would be possible. But in this realm, noodles cannot breathe or maneuver aerodynamically through space on their own accord. They don't even have the capacity for these things to take effect when you look at spaghetti's composition. It's like saying it's not impossible for your refrigerator to walk out your front door. Then why is this true for every person every year? Like I said, every gift from "Santa" could be traced back to someone who is not him. If there is just some guy who happens to be named Santa Claus by coincidence, okay, that's very possible but there would be no point in making an analogy about that then. When you mentioned Santa, you were probably talking about the Santa Claus story (a fat guy in red from the North Pole who flies around with reindeer and gives presents to good boys and girls via chimney). Every time I point out legitimate evidence suggesting that the story is fictitious, you abandon the story but stick with there being some guy named Santa. What is the point in arguing that some guy who just happened to be named Santa [that doesn't do anything special] is as plausible as a god? I see someone is very liberal with what they call "evidence". That's one form of it, but you've committed another. Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. No one implied that Santa Claus existed, yet you suggest that if someone believes god or even thinks god is possible, then they should also believe Santa Claus or think he is possible. Someone can believe god and disbelieve Santa at the same time. Hell, someone can believe Santa and disbelieve god. You're just personally slapping the label of "equal" onto these entities because of one similarity, while ignoring every other difference, even when presented to you. Are you really this oblivious to the flaws behind that logic? Come on bro, debates are for learning, not defending your integrity. It's simply a bad argument. There are many other better ways of showing that god is unlikely besides just pointing your finger at works of fiction.

That was never my point. My point is that a lie's existence is just as "physical" as a god's existence. Did Billy tell you he was paying you back? Yes. Did he? No. He lied. The same action would still physically happen no matter what we decided to call a "lie". So, physical, abstract, whatever, it is still an epistemological claim about knowledge and truth. Obviously, since one of the prerequisites for being "mysterious" is to not have an explanation. But the big thing is that there are no such explanations. Santa Claus is just a fun absurd concept. The whole point of the four-sided triangle is just to show that impossibility is possible. And I wholeheartedly agree with you - it is not possible for a triangle to have four sides, just like it's not possible for spaghetti to be sentient and fly, or a jolly fat stranger in red being the one who gives you presents every year via flying reindeer and chimney (WHEN THERE ARE RECEIPTS DIRECTLY SAYING OTHERWISE). I'd like to see the evidence for this claim. When did I ever say I was a creationist? My argument is just that equating God to Santa isn't very logical, but you keep finding entertaining ways to defend an appeal to ridicule.

Human definition dictates what constitutes as "physical", "object", "there". There's no cutting our humanity and subjectivity out of our claims. All knowledge eventually boils down to abstract ideas. Even if there was a scientific explanation for flying around the Earth in one night, that still wouldn't explain all the mysterious receipts and a handful of other enigmas. I still stand behind my claim that Santa is nothing but a fictitious child's tale and I have evidence for this claim. Then what exactly does, "I don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty" mean? A wooden four-sided triangle cannot be determined to be impossible?

No, more that the "mug" exists as a "mug" because we call it a "mug". Uhh, how can someone decide to appear or not appear in front of certain people depending on whether they believe in him or not? Seriously, how can you think that the concept of Santa Claus is even possible? You said you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty. I refuted your claim by showing you an idea that you rejected with 100% certainty. You then went off on irrelevant tangent about the difference between physical and abstract claims (even though the point was aimed at any claim/idea/concept) so I pointed out how you were avoiding the point, and you just avoided that too. Really? I'd like to see evidence for aliens then.

A "god" can only exist, or not, because you define it. They are epistemological assertions no matter how you want to slice it - knowledge always ties back into subjective abstract thought. How can you be 100% sure that there can't be four-sided triangles? If you want to go by, "Well maybe Santa just doesn't appear for those who don't believe" then we can also go by, "Well maybe mathematicians have just been lying to you your entire life." Both sound pretty cop-outish to me, but still technically possible (in the most ridiculous sense). I must have edited my other point in after you already read the first part, so I'll repeat: Why do you choose Santa or invisible men controlling gravity instead of a more respectable less ridiculous theory that lacks evidence, such as aliens?

If people asked you if you like sushi and you never tried it, would you say, "No, I don't like it," or "I don't know - I never tried it."? Technically both are correct, but I have no idea what would cause you to prefer saying the first over the second, since admitting ignorance would be the much less misleading option. Also, this is in a much different vein than your recent arguments. Any time it would be mentioned that god is a mere possibility, you made sure to say the same for Santa or invisible men. If this was your point all along, I don't think I would have argued with you. What got me was Santa = God, which, when you think about it, is a pretty strong suggestion that "God doesn't exist". It's quite amazing seeing an atheist be so open-minded about Santa Claus. By the way, you pretty much evaded my whole point with the four-sided triangle thing. I have proven that you do hold absolute knowledge over certain issues - that it is possible (and reasonable) to be sure of some things. Why doesn't Santa apply here? Why can we not be certain about whether a flying man in red is going around the world giving us presents or if it's just our family and friends? Furthermore, why did you personally pick Santa Claus as an example? Probably because he's only technically "possible" - possible in the most-outlandish-you-can-possibly-think-of sense. If I saw more practical and fair comparisons (like extraterrestrials [a strange concept lacking evidence but yet isn't to the point where "ridiculous" is always the first word that comes to mind), then you'd be much more convincing. But no, it's always conveniently straight to the most ridiculous. Time and time again, atheists reveal themselves to be just as religious-minded as the ones they are ridiculing. Just ask a few honest questions here and there and you'll see the belief "there is no god" hinted very subtly but surely.

Physical supporting evidence of a god is a pretty pointless thing to ask. God, theology, the metaphysical, just does not come down to line-and-grid lab-testing experimenting. Even if there were a god, we wouldn't have evidence. It just does not apply to this field. It's like asking, "How many people did we prevent from overdosing by building a drug rehabilitation center in this city?". Obviously there is an objective answer, but just not one humans can accurately ascertain (unless we had a time machine). So since we physically cannot observe any evidence, does this mean it would be logical to assume no overdoses were prevented? Absolutely not - it would be a jump to assert anything other than ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As for Santa, there's a little more to this entity's plausibility than an absence of evidence. I've explained how there are quite a few things that suggest Santa is not real. Every present given from "Santa Claus" can be traced back to either a family member, friend, or charitable stranger via a receipt, credit card history, camera, etc. There's also the fact that no one has yet to record or photograph him, despite him making no great attempts of hiding himself on the count of him flying across the world and going to your house through your chimney, year after year. If he really was the one giving us the presents, I'm pretty sure we would know by now. As for the FSM, it was the most ridiculous example someone could think of in order to compare to something they deem as ridiculous - that has to say something about it's plausibility. It was created for a good purpose though: to propose the idea that we shouldn't have something so iffy and controversial, that lacks any evidence, as part of a school curriculum; now it has been perverted into a way of asserting that god is not real on an epistemological level. And this just sounds an awful lot like appeal to ridicule to me. Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences. People who argue god is real are not arguing that Santa Claus is real. You are just avoiding debating the existence of god, and instead trying to debate the existence of Santa Claus and FSM by equating them. You have made the claim that you don't fully reject any idea with 100% certainty (such as Santa Claus), yet you claim the concept of a four-sided triangle is an impossibility. So you do pick and choose what to believe with 100% certainty - you just didn't realize it. "There is no god." "The God Delusion." "Religion is the source of every world problem." "All thinking men are atheists." "If god existed, then X wouldn't happen." And my favorite: "If you believe in a god, that must mean you also believe in Santa Claus." The fact that you don't think atheists can make illogical claims driven by their atheism is amazing. Not that I have a problem with atheism in it's purest form - but from what I've seen, it's often a little more than "a mere lack of belief". Sometimes it really can be the [hypocritical] inverse of religion. And this is all I am arguing: People need to stop making baseless assertions about something they don't know. My point is that some atheists can act very religiously and that I find it funny how passionate some can get over a lack of belief. The burden of proof is on you. It would only be logical for us to not believe that the question is able to be answered with science until you can show us the evidence. If I were to propose to you the existence of an orbiting teapot so small that the world's most powerful telescopes could not see it... =P~

Which is entirely fine, but how many atheists actually leave it at a lack of belief? How many go around asserting that "God = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible lizardmen running the Illuminati, four-sided triangles, etc." (hint: "I declare god fictional")? Please, I see just as many passionate atheists reciprocating religious people's unfounded claims with more unfounded claims. Did I mention I love it when an atheist argues in intricate detail how modest their belief is?

-Making a great Forge Map on Reach. -Having a full inventory of mind-altering substances. -Tacos with the works. -Causing other people happiness. -My girlfriend's butt.

So -- when a priest rapes an altar boy numerous times, it's the altar boy's fault? When a husband rapes his wife, is it the wife's fault? Those are all strawmen. The big thing here, that everyone conveniently avoids, is that the girl consented several times. She consented to "marrying" him, she consented to giving him her address, she consented to him coming over, she consented to going with him, she consented to taking her pants off... several times. SHE did all of those things and SHE is fully capable of using logic. Yes, children are bound to make more mistakes than adults... but that doesn't mean they don't count as mistakes. She is still a fallible human, able to think and make conscious choices and mistakes - just as any adult does. She made the mistake of giving consent to an old creepy man several times. I stand behind the fact that it was not a good decision. People, open your damn eyes! Little girls are not infallible! Maybe you guys are just embarrassed that you were stupid at a young age, and thus try to brush the responsibility of your actions off your shoulders by arguing that people have no control over their youth. Stop denying the truth for mental comfort! Going to church because your mom is making you =/= telling a 50-year-old Runescaper where you live. Marriage is a bit of a gray area though. Personally, I don't see why a wife would put up such a big fight over not wanting to have sex with her own husband, but that's a different topic. 1.) Agreed, he's a bad man and deserves legal action against him. 2.) Not that I'm trying to take any of the blame off him, but there is the fact that she could have easily prevented it from happening. The fact... And someone showed you exactly what it entails - you just ignored it, like any other time the evidence isn't going the way you want it to. She is blameworthy for the following: Having an online relationship with a RSer, giving this RSer her actual address, telling him to come over, and taking her pants off. Now let's put two and two together... This entire collection of dumb choices directly led up to the sex, it was well within her power to make different (more reasonable) choices, therefore she could have (and should have) easily prevented the sex. But since she didn't (time after time), and she could have (quite easily), then she is at least partially responsible, by definition of the word. The myth that you cannot think rationally until adulthood is a joke I see repeated by self-righteous adults over and over again because they think they have such a higher understanding of the world, but does it hold up? Absolutely not, there are some children who demonstrate higher thinking skills than some adults. (Fact: Psychological maturity for the most part is subjective.) Not to mention, defending her actions only encourages lost teenage girls to blindly follow their distorted emotions. I for one have a soul and believe there are other girls in similar positions that have the ability to get themselves out of that situation successfully. By saying she had no control over the situation, you are implying that there is absolutely nothing she could have done but get raped by the old man, which, not only is entirely false, but is also an insult to the girls who actually were raped against their will.

WTF? There are children who can play guitar, learn different languages, do all their homework, philosophize, get jobs, learn to drive, play intricate video games, etc. Yet it is believed that children have absolutely no critical thinking skills and are not to blame for anything until the second they hit 18? Clearly Bloodstain ate an excess amount of crayons when he was 13.

The funny part is that it it's only "rape" by law. When I hear of "rape" the picture that's painted is some random girl minding her own business and then all of a sudden getting surrounded by three guys and undressed while putting up a big fight. Not some preteen wanting attention and telling an old man to come to her house and then him proceeding to have sex with her - all without the screaming and scratching. Don't get me wrong, they are both despicable acts, but there is a pretty substantial difference. To equate the crimes is an insult to the women who actually were physically forced into a terrible situation against their will. You never cease to amaze me. Like the time when you admitted you support zoophilia by saying it's immoral to have an outside dog.

Exactly, I don't see what we're arguing then. She made a handful of dumb decisions that she could have avoided pretty easily. I don't ever remember arguing that she was the one egging it on or anything of the sort. The only message I've been trying to get across is that girls in similar positions should be more cautious and not follow the same path this one did. It's almost as if you guys are justifying giving strangers personal information and sexual consent, so long as you're a child. Wait, that's exactly what I see going on... Why not? The evidence is right there in front of you. I'll even say it again: If you decide to do something, you are a cause of that something. Oh the classic, "OT is so stupid". I've heard this from just about everyone on OT by now.

[bleep]ing yes I would, without a hesitation. You are saying you wouldn't put any onus on a child who is 3 years younger, but you feel perfectly fine doing it to a 13 year old child. So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that, at 18, your brain magically snaps into cognitive mode and finally you are now responsible for your actions? It's just a legal guideline - it doesn't mean all adults are inherently superior decision-makers than all children - I can think of plenty of exceptions.

Thanks for proving my point. Yes, if a ten-year-old told a stranger where she lived, the ten-year-old was the one who told a stranger where she lived. The ten-year-old is a cause of the stranger knowing where she lives. It's that simple. You seem to be under the impression that children are incapable of making mistakes. All I can say to you is... WAKE UP!

Yeah, exactly my point. I know 13 might seem young to a lot of you, but when I was in Middle School I still felt the same exact way about extremely liberal promiscuity: You don't know what you are doing, therefore you probably should not do it, and if you do, sorry but you are now stupid. It's almost as if some people are arguing she had no control over the situation. Welp, I give up. Enjoy having no souls ya'll and blaming the victim The old man is more to blame obviously. However, giving personal details over the internet to someone you barely know isn't a very bright idea, is it? What about consenting to meeting up? What about taking your pants off and losing your virginity to someone as old as your grandparents? Are you arguing that these were not bad decisions, because that's all I'm saying here. By the way, I do enjoy not having a soul by discussing the truths of our world while everyone panics and points the finger of shame at me. I come to TIF because I'm a sadist and I love to watch the logic burn. Straw man. *nonchalant yawn*

No, the term "too random" was used for that. There is no "unlikely" connotation behind the word "random" by itself unless you give it one.

Crazy drivers. I find it disgusting how apathetic some people are when it comes to the lives of everybody else on the road. If flooring it and swerving was nothing more than an exhibition to see who is the most hardcore adrenaline junkie (or who is most likely to win a Darwin Award), then go [developmentally delayed] all you want. But since toying around with tons of steel at high velocities on roads populated with innocent bystanders causes death after death after death, I have a pretty big problem with it.