Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sephiroth_king

  • Rank
    Skeleton Shield
  • Birthday 03/07/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Salisbury, MA
  • Interests

RuneScape Information

  1. sephiroth_king


    Made to believe? You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe? Maybe not a specific gene, but we certainly are inclined to believe and search for the supernatural, both from a sociological and a psychological point of view. And atheism (be it right or wrong) seems to be an evolutionary novel idea, along with liberalism and sexual exclusivity. I would have to disagree with the statement that atheism is a novel idea, liberalism I'm not so sure about, and sexual exclusivity is relatively recent. And ofcourse we would be inclined to believe in god from a sociological or psychological view because humans want to feel special/important or just have a strong belief/hope to help them through life. One of the main reasons people want to believe in a God and even an Afterlife is the somewhat inherent fear of death and the end to one's on existence and the novel complex of punishment for one's wrongdoings--its mostly Psychological. Sociology can really only explain the spread of an idea to different persons. Humans that look at a universe and say to themselves, "Wow, things could have been different," will realize just simply that--things could have been different. A human race that looks at the universe and says, "Wow, things could have been different...I may not have existed...therefore I must have been ordained to exist!" Its an emotional appeal; which of those two scenarios seems more positive? That one is ordained, or that we are simply stupid Apes trying to solve the greatest questions that are floating around now? A human mind is prone to illusion mixed with emotion, and it is no wonder the many Gods and even Goddesses have existed throughout time. I believe that a thinking mind that uses evidence and corroboration to solve things in daily life is naturally what the human mind seeks, but is ultimately overpowered and torn askew by the emotion of the individuals and slowly spread to the masses.
  2. sephiroth_king


    A lot of the Bible we cannot verify, and that is the problem. We don't know if Jesus was real, and that wouldn't even be his name had he existed (it would be Jeshua AKA Joshua); most of the Gospels were written 60-100 years after the supposed death of Christ at around 30 A.D. or so; most of the Chronicles of Jesus weren't even mentioned in other known recorded history. The Bible itself also has no original copies and has a lot of flaws within places such as the old testament. For example, the Jews being enslaved never happened in recorded history. The Greeks, Romans, nor even the Persians have any histroy of slavery. The Egyptians actually hired paid workers to build the pyramids for them. There are even Gospels that were created but aren't considered "canon" such as the Book of Judas, which we cannot even verify s being true but are excluded anyway due to Church doctrine in conflict with some Gospels. So, basically, why would people die for their belief? Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown? Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco? Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego? Do the deaths of these people validate their faiths as a truth, or even show that it isn't something that should be taken lightly? I don't think so; it just shows that people are willing to die for their belief, no matter how crazy or mellow they may be. People die in the name of things all of the time. Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie? How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word - why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different? Because the argument from personal experience does not validate anything, only that you have had a personal experience with it. We knowi things weren't purposefully placed their to lie--that is nonsense unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and is a weak argument in that sentiment. We also don't need to take their word for it because we have actual pictures from space and are always studying it, and people who do believe those things are lies--idiots. No nicer way to put it, they are either idiots or don't want to see the truth to hide in their ignorance to remain blissful. Also, Christianity is in decline. Religion in general, actually. But Islam will soon outnumber Christians, which are at 33% of the world population, with the rapid amount of numbers it is obtaining in terms of new believers, and will surpass Christianity by 2035, if I recall correctly. Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual? I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things. The purpose of a lie is to get people to follow you. Simple. I can go out and make my own Religion, like Scientology, with their Thetan level ad all that nonsense. If you can obtain followers by telling them Demons interact with us and possess us, when clearly these people who are "possessed" are mentally ill, and you can tell the masses that you got the demons out and helped the soul, why wouldn't you do it? People lie because of gullibility. People lie to gain prestige and wealth. People lie because people are stupid sheep that need a shepherd. That is why people--especially "exorcists" or people like Pat Robertson--lie.
  3. sephiroth_king


    Do people also have the right to believe that the Earth is flat and not be called "irrational"? I mean they just happen to believe in something that you don't believe. No, they don't. We know for a fact the Earth is round and we've known this since the 16th century. We've sailed around it, we've seen it from space and saw that it was, in fact, round. There's simply not a single piece of evidence that says otherwise. Calling them irrational might be a bit unfair, uneducated would match the situation better. But honestly, show me anyone that thinks the earth is flat. What Ginger meant, I think (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's unfair to immediately dismiss someone religious for believing in their god, reason being that there's just no definitive answer to give. Believing in a god is personal and is not a science, there's no evidence for either side that there is or isn't a god. First: The Flat Earth Society. Second, and I'll be repeating myself frequently: You can say its personal, and I agree that it should be; but in its current state, no it is not, and it won't be until people realize that not everyone agrees with their claims. Kind of random, but without anecdotal evidence of the powers of either Yahweh or Unicorns, and given the legends of suck beasts as Unicorns, one cannot assert that Unicorns and any God are not on-par with one another in terms of power. There is, of course, Holy Books, but if you must use a Holy Book to prove someone wrong, then you have already lost. The argument for unicorns is an example of faith, pure and simple. No one is trying (and if they are, shouldn't be) to equate that as a God figure, and if they are, then they need to realize their mistake and admit they're wrong. The fact is, Unicorns don't exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people took it on faith that they do because their Bible told them or because they're stubborn to the fact that they do not exist. [sidetrack]I remember when CrustyGoblinFoot was making the argument for God in terms of being unable to compare Santa because one is a Deity, but unfortunately that doesn't work either, because Deities in and of themselves are a product of human imagination, and a human cannot determine the powers of the deity itself first hand. We make concessions to what a God should be in terms of its super powers and wonder, but that is fallacious in and of itself. Now, I think that was the argument he was using against wep but I could be wrong.[/sidetrack] And who are they to dismiss us, and tell us we'll burn in hell for all eternity for not believing in their particular deity? But even to that degree, no one is trying to degrade anyone. But if they shoot us, does that not give us the right to shoot back? If they tell us, "HEY! you're going to burn because you don't believe, and you need to repent!!" and we tell them no and then fire back, that makes us bad? I agree, people are influenced by faith, but not religion. People can have religion with no Faith, and vice versa to that fact. Faith can be incredibly powerful, and driven by organized religion maybe, but it is truly th faith that drives people. And, by and large, its dangerous. "Faith without evidence is not a virtue, it is gullibility; it is evidence that determines if your perception of reality is reasonable and in conjunction with the world as is." -Matt Dillahunty You can believe that there is a God, fine; no one says you cannot. But don't give me the excuse that I should have faith to believe. Produce logical evidence first and then I'll believe. Otherwise, don't make the claim to me and treat me as a subhuman if I don't accept it. Well, first of all, because the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. That's one reason. You take the personal matter thing for granted quite frequently I see. The thing is, no everywhere is tolerant of an Atheist, or somone of an opposing belief, and some of those people try to indoctrinate and incorporate their belief systems into society. Look at the good 'ol USA, where there are thousands of people who assert these claims and dismiss everything else. In the USA, religion isn't personal, and people need to understand this. I've seen whole relationships destroyed because one friend doesn't believe in God, and the other shuns them for no reason other than that. Fine, that is there prerogative. But, unfortunately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Don't preach to me that there is one and tell me I must have faith. Show me evidence. That is why they need to produce evidence; not because we think it to be "scientific" but because they make these claims, and one cannot make a claim and no back it up. If you want to keep it personal, as you said, fine; but unfortunately, that is not the prerogative of a lot of powerful religious people.
  4. sephiroth_king


    I didn't even know this thread was still alive. The last I saw of it was...a month ago? I do agree with you on this statement alone, simply because it was spontaneously created for the sole purpose of protesting against the very fabric of Religion in...2005? I think? (Don't take my word for that) I do know it was fabricated as part of the Parody church, though. I know that history well. :P I guess this logic could be used for every holy book/deity out there. Zeus and the Greek Gods, the Bhgavad Gita, which I like to note is far older than the bible, and African religions as well. What we know is the time of which the Bible was written and why they were written the way they were. The New Testament, for example, was put together significantly after the Jeshua figure died by followers of his supposed disciples. Over those generations things could have been misinterpreted or even exaggerated for more people to come in and believe in the faith. King James screwed the entire Bible up and even mistranslated some parts, and we also know that there are no known original Bible's, only reprints of reprints. But Christianity, like any other Religion, is followed because there are believers, whose beliefs are stemmed from many different reasons--fear, loneliness, because you were born in that specific region that teaches about Yahweh--and those believers have these values because it will comfort them or because they need an explanation. So in basic response to your last statement, I think it would still be followed because people could use the excuse of Divine inspiration for the Bible, which is the main excuse I receive a lot of the time and people know that pastafarianism was invented not-too-long ago as an example to the contra-Gods (or at least that was its original intent). The fact is, though, that neither/nor of them in the end cannot be refuted under any means, as the fact remains that both the Bible and the FSM are human made creations. I probably rambled somewhere, so I hope some of this is relevant (and cogent--I'm tired) somewhere.
  5. No offense, but there's no need to be an [wagon]. It seems like you''re acting like an elitist, intentional or not. I've been playing Pokemon since it first arrived here on th shores of the US, and I don't play it for competition as much as I do for fun. But you do have a nerve to basically say to me that I don't know how to build a party due to your analysis on these two particular Pokemon. That being said, this isn't my only party at all, I use this one against friends and in random match up's online. I mean, literally, your analysis on my terms is pretty...well, pathetic. And I'm sorry if thats flaming. In terms of your Power Trick idea, I have NEVER used that with my Shuckle. NEVER. I said thank you for the advice, but I am no longer extending that hand of gratitude. Maybe in the future you'll eliminate the disingenuous attitude and will also stop trying to act like an elitist. Thanks and goodbye.
  6. Lol. You'd be surprised that my Castform helped KO an entire team of legendaries as a test against a couple of people with one hit each--Arceus took one hit with its max stats and insta-killed, and then Castform significantly handled the rest. I also beat their regular teams, which are also pretty well-built as well Its very reliable, and furthermore, I am laughed at but its power always surprises people. As for Shuckle, he's supposed to be a distraction and incredible defensive tank, and is definitely reliable. I don't understand why he wouldn't be. Nevertheless thanks for the criticism I suppose? I studied up on Ferro and I'm not a big fan. However, I love Victini over many of the pokemon I have seen thus far--I'll probably end up using him in he end, but its still debatable at the time. Again, thanks for the criticism. But surprisingly, those Pokemon can handle themselves quite well. Edit: Maybe scratch the Victini idea. I don't use legendaries anymore, under any circumstances. I feel cheap using them. :P
  7. Thanks for the advice as well! @Mask: I looked into those two extensively, and am considering Reuniculus. @Foursideking: I was thinking of the Elektross, but I was never too sure--I have a weird aversion sometimes to electric types, but I'll look into it. But I'll be honest, your recommendation of Ferro surprised me. A lot, simply because I never examined his beneficial stats before. It was surprising, but my Shuckle already has a place as something with high defensive, then Lucario and Machamp (plus my Castform) go into the offensive. So, seeing how this is my primary party, I'll definitely try to include Ferrothorn in one of my future parties. In the meantime, I'll look more into Elektross and Reuniculus. As a side note, what does everyone think of Zoroark? I personally like him as a cheap trick against an opponent if they have an aversion to a certain Pokemon within my party that they may have withdrawn from previously.He also has some pretty good Special Offensive capabilities. I was thinking of using him but I'm not all-too-fond of dark types in most cases, but I was wondering what everyone else thought?
  8. Sorry for the random intrusion. Having a great time on Pokemon Black, but I'm genuinely looking for some help. I have me entire team nearly built up and fully EV/IV trained to the exact values I want. Right now, I'm composed of five Pokemon, but I'm looking for a sixth. I've repeatedly scanned the entirety of website Pokedex's to look into strengths, weaknesses, the EV values of the newer generation pokemon, etc. and to be honest, I can't find a pokemon in the newer generation that I like at all. The only one I like thus far is Escalevier, who if I EV train in attack will be powerful but most likely slow as crap... In general, does anyone have any recommendations? My preferences are no more fighting Pokemon, steel, hi defensive, nor would I like to add another Pokemon from the previous generation to my current party. I'm hoping to find, train and add a Pokemon from this new generation, and thought here would be a good place to start, seeing as how I can't find anything I like from playing or checking around (which is weird because I'll usually come up with something by now).
  9. Hell yes. @Zilla: Saw that on the Beth forums, didn't think it was worth posting. Maybe because I thought those two were morons who knew nothing of the lore...so personal hatred...:-w But seriously, that did show me some things I hadn't exactly paid that much attention to, and the two guys are pretty funny to listen to simply because they seem ignorant to some things (whether it be on purpose or not), so I would give it a watch if you wish to see everything possible. Shows lotsa little things. ;)
  10. It may be running on the X-Box's dated hard ware, however it is running a new engine and I wouldn't doubt Bethesda's ability to include well rounded textures within the console versions of the game. But of course, the PC version will look leaps and bounds above the console variations, plus I have no doubt the modders will create even better textures than those. The console variations of Bethesda's games, from what I can compare to my PC versions and my friends console Bethesda games (i.e. New Vegas, Oblivion), the console versions can compare to the PC's minimum graphics quality, with HDR and some draw distance effects cranked up a bit. With everything cranked up in Bethesda's games on the PC, and with higher resolutions as well, the game looks significantly better. And I'll echo this again, modders will only make the texture and mesh qualities even better.
  11. Look around a bit more, when they first demo 3rd person and when the spell user casts a spell i the cave. The water effects looks well done there; the white water rapids water is very strange looking at the moment, but it is pretty accurate to real life. They just need to improve the texture quality a bit. I was more referring to the flowing river. Then I agree with you. Though being someone that goes white water rafting quite a bit, its not too far off imho.
  12. Look around a bit more, when they first demo 3rd person and when the spell user casts a spell i the cave. The water effects looks well done there; the white water rapids water is very strange looking at the moment, but it is pretty accurate to real life. They just need to improve the texture quality a bit.
  13. It was all in-game footage. Including the part where the dragon was attacking and the PC was fighting back. I remember Gstaff (or some toher important forum-dweller) at Bethesda forums saying that. The Creation Engine is their newly built engine and everything looks fantastic. Even the particle physics are incredible sounding. I've been following these games since Arena and Daggerfall, so I'm pretty sure Bethesda won't let down--especially since there is information out there other than the trailer that tells a lot about the game. I'm just curious, though. What parts of the gameplay did you know find enchanting? I found Finishing moves looked incredibly fluid, duel wielding was briefly shown, and so was the sprinting ability. Above all, the spell effects looked great. Even the 3rd person view looked great. Even the sneak attack with the Axe was simply awesome. I guess what I'm getting at is no animations look the same from Oblivion. I'm just curious about your point of view.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.