sees_all1

First of all, can you please show some intelligence and capitalize the "G" in "God" when you're referring to the Judeo-Christian God? You capitalize the G because God is a proper noun, and by repeatedly making this mistake you (inadvertently?) lose credibility. Second of all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there are three types of baptism - baptism by sacrament (All Christians fall under this category), baptism by desire (wanting to lead a good and moral life - other religious beliefs fall under this category), and baptism by blood (martyrdom, being killed for beliefs of a just cause, not necessarily religious). Third of all, the part of being a "jealous" God relates to the First Commandment - which is why Christians and Jews aren't supposed to worship false idols. Please, get your facts straight before you go spouting off a bunch of bull.

Would you care to repeat, in your own words, the point I was trying to make? I feel that you may have overlooked it, and that would be a real shame.

Enjoyed the Matrix trilogy. It stands alone on its own, much like the Boondock Saints did. They only stand to taint it.

You don't want to just whip it out haphazardly though... which is what the image suggests :mrgreen:

By all means, write one yourself and submit it to us. Who knows, you may even find yourself featured in the near future. EDIT: I think my average has been about 5m in wealth for every gravite weapon lost, so 40m? I've gotten corrupt d-scim drops twice, and a cba once. The rest of that was mostly rune armour (quite a few kills :wink: ).

I think that can be applied to a wide array of topics... politics, drugs, sex.

#8 was today :oops: Maybe you should get a setup in which you can protect them :thumbup: 1 feb is going to be an interesting day.. Now where's the fun in that? I only use G2h's in full armour fights in pvp worlds where the loot is generally better. Unfortunately, there is no +1, and my lag is unpredictable. <_<

#8 was today :oops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yidkJlUBsvM :twss:

I never claimed that "all assumptions are equally respectable," because some assumptions can be proved to be incorrect. The assumptions that can't be proved or disproved are equally respectable, however. Back to math, one does not equal zero is a reasonable assumption to hold. In religion, God exists is a reasonable assumption to hold. Saying that math is more correct than religion because it is based on proofs is ridiculous, because both have foundations on things that cannot be proved or disproved.

Why are you trying to fallaciously argue over petty stuff that is irrelevant to the point I made, and the topic at hand? Two events occurring are not equiprobable even if assumptions are made for both. Lets assume I buy a powerball ticket, and lets assume I roll fair six-sided die. The probability that I roll a six is MUCH greater than the probability that I win the powerball (on the order of fifty million times more likely). Both events required assumptions, and both are not equiprobable. Regardless of the assumptions that must be made for certain viewpoints, the fact remains that for math or science to say anything meaningful about anything, certain beliefs must be established, which cannot be proved. This is the exact same for religion. By simultaneously saying that religion is stupid because it can't prove the fact that God exists while math, science, and logic are somehow more intelligent because the entire subject is proven is short-sighted and ridiculous.

I'm still here, so I guess that asteroid never hit. I don't worry about a life ending asteroid hitting in the next 5 minutes because its out of my control, and I don't have to assume or even think about it. No, because I know that people have been shot in the head and I know that after people were shot in the head a shower of magical flying puppies didn't appear, which is evidence contrary to the assumption.

You assume that everything you see is real, but lets say you're actually on hallucinogens. Everything is a figment of your imagination, so is everything you perceive real? Or lets say that the entire universe and everything in it was created yesterday, including fossils and memories. You have no proof otherwise, yet you'd think this is a ridiculous statement because of the fossils and memories that are there, but were created with everything else. You assume much about the world and are condescending to people that assume different things, this is ridiculous.

I think you already know the answer to that.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different? We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No. However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption. No, you're picking and choosing what you want to assume, and you're berating everyone else for making different assumptions. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous and hypocritical. EDIT: No directed specifically at you, but at those that value logic, math, and science above all else.

I'm saying your sacred system of math, science, and logic are based on underlying assumptions that cannot be proven. How is religion any different? You say that since God cannot be proven then God does not exist, but science and math are proven so they do exist? How laughable.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different?

The point I'm trying to make is that all of math and science are based on a few axioms which can't be proven. If you, in clear conscience can say that God does not exist, therefore all your religious arguments/morality arguments/etc. have no backing, then I, in clear conscience can say that 1 = 0 and all your science and math have no backing, and you can't prove otherwise.

16 is defined as 15 + 1, 15 is defined as 14 + 1, and so on.... Since 1=0, 16 = 15 + 1, that is to say 16 = 15. And 15 = 14 + 1, that is to say 15 = 14, and so on. Which means that 5 = 0, 2 = 0, and 16 = 0. So 0*0 = 0. Why is this so difficult?

5 in math is defined as 1+1+1+1+1? Well guess what? Guess what 1 is defined as? 0+1 You are holding the definition of 5 to be true, but you aren't holding the definition of 1 to be true. This is such complete nonsense. No, 5 in math is defined as 4+1, 4 is defined as 3+1, 3 is defined as 2+1, and 2 is defined as 1+1. There is no definition of 1, except for these axioms: There is a number, one, such that "a" multiplied with one equals "a". There is a number, inverse of "a", such that for "a" does not equal zero, "a" multiplied with inverse of "a" equals 1. Zero does not equal one. These are all definitions though, and they can't be proved.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0? Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0. How are you linking 0*0=0 with 5*2=16? Because 5 in math is defined as ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1), and 2 in math is defined as (1+1), and since 1=0, ((((1+1)+1)+1)+1) = 0, and (1+1)=0. I don't want to write out 16, but you get the picture.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GETTING AT? How do "all equations make sense" if 1=0?? What about 5*2=16? How does that make sense if 1 = 0? Yes, it does, because 0*0 = 0.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work. This is getting quite frustrating to argue with people who don't understand the basics of reasoning. I provided you with everything else you need to indeed prove, with high certainty, that 1 is not the same as zero. What we call 0 is what happens when we look for something and instead find nothing. How many rocks am I holding in my hand right now? This is what zero means. Now if I add a rock, how many do I have? This is what 1 means? No, see you don't understand the concept of a proof. A proof takes something that is known, absolute facts, builds upon them until it shows something that isn't known, or not completely obvious. In math, all equations make sense if one equals zero, really it does. What's 1*1? Well, since 1=0, its 0*0, which equals 0. What's 1+1? Well, its actually 0+0, so its 0. All the rest of the axioms I posted hold when one equals zero, because its a trivial solution. There is no amount of math or logic that you can write down that will explain why one actually doesn't equal zero, you have to believe that axiom to be true. There are no facts before the statement "one does not equal zero", which is why it can't be proved.

Duh, I said that. A definition isn't a proof though, and you have to believe the definition for everything else to work.

I'll stop posting it when you can prove that one does not equal zero, or you stop bashing religion.