Zierro

Good. About time they put their gimmicks down and work on the real deal.

Anyone who gives a CoD game a 10/10 deserves to be shot in the head through a solid brick wall.

Each console has their place, but the 360 has my favorite exclusives.

Really? I think we do pretty well for a team of only two.

When the underdog wins.

Friend of mine brought over his 360 so I uploaded it on his to get an achievement. I think I just picked a random match where I didn't even do that well lol.

Indeed. Sometimes I purposely throw myself into miserable conditions so that the reward will be that much greater afterwards.

Actually scientists have been making new discoveries that what we call "race" is composed of more differences than mere skin color alone. When we classify people into Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, common genetic ancestry has a correlation with shared cognitive patterns, habits, tendencies to react to certain stimuli a certain way, etc. (Too lazy to source so anyone can feel free to assume this is a fabrication.)

I don't have a hard drive. I wish I did because I could really use the theater.

My girlfriend, climatic parts of songs, having a full plate of hot food in front of my face, achieving goals, and euphoric rushes.

Gotta say... it feels good to be Mythic. :shades:

A Perfect Circle - 3 Libras

I'm looking forward to it.

Have you seen Cool Hand Luke? It's an old movie, but the message lasts a lifetime.

Chicken quesadillas with salsa and sour cream for dinner. :mrgreen:

I believe agnosticism is usually split into two sects: 1.) belief that we currently don't have any evidence to suggest the existence/non-existence of god, and 2.) belief that it is impossible to find any pertaining evidence, ever. In a nutshell, the difference between claiming it is unknown and claiming it is unknowable. The second form does seem pretty counter-intuitive, since we have no evidence suggesting to us that we will never be able to understand the origin of our universe. We unravel more about the universe each and every day, our technology grows more efficient at an exponential rate, and the world is full of many curious people. In our current state, I'd say we're still in the dark and should remain inductive, but we definitely have been making steady progress. Firstly, I'd like to point out that the article does state that these three qualities are still conceived of in various degrees of abstraction. As ridiculous as it is, some people believe the rock in their lawn to be their god, but on the other hand, if you wish to personally debunk the whole notion of "god's" plausibility then it would unfortunately be a necessity to address each and every proposition of what he may be. Now as for conscious beings requiring some sort of physical host, I agree for the most part. In the realm we've come to understand, living creatures are always composed of non-living elements. Here's a mere thought though: Since not so many religions really specify where god is or what he is, doesn't that leave room for the possibility of a collective consciousness existing through the medium of all the lesser components of our universe? (The whole [a living conscious being] is greater than the sum of it's parts [molecules, atoms, etc.].) --> (God is the universe - which accounts for why there is such a muddle behind trying to articulate anything about his nature.) Of course these are just imaginative theories, but the importance of the question lies in whether this is physically impossible or not. Another thing to look at is whether "consciousness requires matter" is an absolute truth. The only absolute truth I think we can ever be sure about is that there's absolute truth - and that's only thanks to semantics. Empirical knowledge cannot replace absolute truth - our senses and experiences are limited while the universe is not. Either way you slice it, we run into the problem of an infinitely regressing continuum of causes. From what we've gathered scientifically and empirically, every effect has a cause. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't make much sense for a universe to loop backwards into itself. It doesn't make much sense for there to be a being out there who can break these rules, either. Whatever the explanation is, questions like these are why I believe we're in the dark right now. I can't argue with this one. I just don't understand how a concept can absolutely not possibly be understood. Though this might be the pride speaking. ;-) Still seems like a very 'wobbly' term. Would an apple be simple to a child, but complex to a scientist? A cell is complex when you ask yourself where it came from, what it is made from, why it is there, and you can keep questioning and questioning. Indeed complexity comes from evolution - it is an entirely artificial principle. In the context of concepts, you are entirely right. My apologies - I should have worded that one more carefully.

This week for sure. I haven't been on lately because I've been busy with schoolwork and World of Warcraft. :oops:

Yes, how dare someone sell a product that people want at a price they're willing to pay for it. How dare someone be willing to pay more money for something based off trendiness rather than practicality or purpose.* Remember, there are two sides to marketing. Supply will always use pathos and underhanded tactics to pinch as many pennies as possible from demand - this is inevitable. It is demand's responsibility to make sure it is a fair exchange, and if not, that's why we have boycotts, protests, and forum posts questioning society's prodigal spending habits.

Jarhead. It changed my life forever.

Because I was explaining to someone else that the position of atheism is more than just a lack of belief. I don't think I missed the point - I simply chose not to respond because the semantic error makes it impossible to address your point if we don't even have a shared understanding of what "agnosticism" denotes. Agnosticism makes no claims aside from the fact that we have no means of discerning the truth. If you want to argue that agnosticism does make claims about invisible objects existing, then you would have to prove that there really is evidence for/against the existence of god out there. Of course there is no legitimacy to an argument with no backing. In fact, that's exactly what I stated: Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Conceptions of God. Granted, you were addressing the most common illustrations of "god", but as you can see in the link, there is no mutual agreement that every single religious group goes by when it comes to the qualities of "god", aside from them all proposing divinity... to a million different figureheads. There's an easier way of explaining this. If John Brown's Wikipedia entry claims that he is a famous poet who grew up in New York, and you find out it was all a sham and that John is actually a famous painter, does this prove that John Brown doesn't exist, or does it simply suggest someone was wrong about him? Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but are you saying your definition of complex is something that takes a lot of time to form? Isn't that rather subjective and relative? I think "complex" has an opinionated ring to it, which is why I'm confused about your statement, "Complexity implies evolution." Heck, anything becomes complex once you look into it deep enough. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of god's existence: fact or fiction. What other possibilities are out there? No, because square =/= circle, unless you modified the constituents of these terms (a "circle" is now any shape with four equal sides). --- All in all, I do take pleasure in discussing these abstract concepts with someone else who likes to challenge the most generally-accepted epistemological arguments instead of reiterating what they heard someone else say in a Youtube video. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere. :-P

+1 What is the point of drinking? It varies from person to person. I do out of my own curiosity about the causality behind the human psych. Kind of like why astronauts venture into outer space or why divers go leagues and leagues below the surface of the sea - the pursuit of knowledge. Also, I play Halo better when I'm sloppily drunk off gin.

Romans. Heheh. :twss: I stand corrected.

In the sense that they are both beliefs, yes. Now this is getting confusing. How is agnosticism anything like pointing at the sky and asserting the existence of an invisible dragon? If anything, it is just the belief system with the conclusion that there is no evidence for or against the existence of god(s). Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Through all of the knowledge we've obtained, there is nothing out there dictating that invisible dragons cannot exist. Sure it is extremely unlikely, but where is this logical contradiction attached to the existence of a non-visible reptilian creature with wings? It is quite a large universe out there. Also, you seem to be saying that we have evidence that leads us to "the impossibility of a god". For particular deities, maybe. But "god" is such a malleable term with several thousand interpretations - it would be awfully hard to address and dismiss each one of god's proposed characteristics as logical possibilities in one sweeping generalization. The logical fallacies you've gathered could simply be the result of skewed interpretations of this deity - disproving specific qualities about the entity but not disproving the entity altogether. I see no evidence that it is impossible for the world we see to be constructed by intelligent design, but I also see no evidence of the contrary. This "evidence" you speak of is more analogous to pointing at invisible things in the sky than agnosticism is. And since evolution in itself is a complex system, how do you propose that came about? I think you are applying scientific methods to the areas where they don't give very applicable, relevant results (like the non-repeatable event of abiogenesis). You are told that there is a cat in a box. Without being able to touch it or manipulate it, you are asked whether it is alive or dead. Because you circumstantially have no good way of finding an answer, does that suggest it is neither dead nor alive? Insisting something is "unanswerable" is not the same as suggesting there is "no answer out there at all" - we as limited beings with limited perception just cannot reach it.

Pretty much what Giordano said. If a "stern-talking-to" isn't enough to get your kids to stop messing with the neighbor's house, throwing things at people, or being an overall rude, disrespectful little brat, then what else are we supposed to do to teach them a lesson of reality? Yes, trying to micromanage anyone's life usually yields those precise sort of results. However, I believe it is the parent's duty to lead their children in the right direction, on the macroscopic level. By this I mean encouraging them to be productive and respectful members of society, but at the same time allowing them to go their own path and choose whatever music they want to listen to, whatever politics they want to support, whatever religion they are most comfortable with, and whatever career they want to pursue - even if you don't personally agree with it. That doesn't mean you can't challenge them by sharing your own values - you just need to accept that, ultimately, they are their own person with the freedom to exercise individuality, just like you.

Um... how does that relate to my point about atheism being a logically thought out position (aka "belief")? I wasn't making any assertions about evidence or existence, but rather pointing out that it is a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true that one affirms by holding the label "a lack of god".