BlueLancer

Heh, you're right. 8-) Let's see... 1. Taking walks and camping is free, at least in most countries. 2. Swimming is quite neat, it's usually free too. 3. Ehh.. Public events are free? Well, yeah... To experience the more 'spicy' things of life you would probably need a bit of money... But yeah, things like love are highly appreciated by people and since love's just a concept, it's free. You could argue it's one of the best things in life. But the coolest things in life, now that's another story...

It isn't, what about electricity and internet costs? :P Looking to a sunset is free.. You're on the right track. 8-) Like Anesthesia's point that relationships in practice cost money, everything costs if calculated with a formula. If you look at the sun, you still had to walk to the spot to watch it, to do it, you needed energy, -> you needed food, -> you needed money. Even if you take just a few steps away from your home door to see the sunset from a good spot, you consumed a few calories. In theory it would be possible to calculate how much money was spent on those calories, admitting that it would be a fraction of any sensible amount... Let's see... True love, I assume that means a human of the male or female gender (not to say a domestic animal can't be loved but that's another story) Regardless of gender, but I assume a female, the person will want to eat. You will most likely provide her with restaurant meals. Once in a while, you will probably give her a gift. If you get married, you will spend possibly thousands of dollars on an expensive, (in practice) useless wedding ring. You will buy flowers or other gifts, which cost money. She will want to live. You are most likely paying monthly rent or you paid money for your own house. You will probably take her to an amusement park or some other entertainment avenue. That will cost you money you wouldnt've normally spent. After a while, the woman can be demanding and you will be spending money on her new clothes, shoes, etc... Unless you have your own kingdom and tax the hell out of your people, you probably didn't get money "out of nothing". :P Before work, you have to eat. It costs money. You have to sleep. I assume you don't sleep in the forest, your apartment costs money. You might assume "but I still got more money than I spent on living costs". True, but what you lost was your energy and a fixed amount of your labour force. While you spent 8 hours mowing lawns to get $250, some other person just got $500,000 in 1 hour by selling away his stocks on the stock market that suddenly burst in price.

Some manufactured goods can't be found easily online, it at all... I found very few results for this, one such being a dutch merchant online that sells these for about just a bit over ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã1 pound (your currency, I assume) http://www.sjalom.com/shop/artikel/212139.html A picture is not supplied though, so don't hold me responsible. 8-) However, given it's supposed rarity I'd give it a shot with that price. From the little I can understand on that site, it's color is blue though..

Great comparison actually. The free will of humans actually can't be 100% proven, given the possibility that is highly probable we have free will. But no matter how absurd thoughts we make up, some 'entity' might have planned it already before we did it. It's a possibility, but that's a discussion for another thread...

Yep, so if any of you actually buy one of these, get the protection goggles as well (they don't look dumb at all if you were wondering about the word "goggles"). Just looking at some of the stronger rays can be blinding from close distance; No 'eye contact' necessary.

The ones with up to 300mW are really powerful (but also come with a price tag most people can't afford). The blue one with 40mW is still quite strong and it costs a bit under $4,000. If you bought one of these, be careful. :) People can see from 10 miles away where the laser is originating from. On the other hand, this is an excellent tool for schools, especially for teachers (or boasting students who, when asked by the teacher "could you show me which excercise on the blackboard are you actually talking about"? whip out a laser and say 'that one'). Those are at http://www.wickedlasers.com and they have military lasers too but I seriously doubt they'd sell them to you... Also, excellent for pesky kids. A 40mW laser can pop a balloon at a birthday party or amusement park so easily in a fraction of a second...

Happy birthday! Unfortunately, as you know I quit rs related stuff years ago and due to work and other stuff IRL can't chat with you on msn as often as I could before. Hopefully alls going well with your education and family, what was that british expression again, "one more birthday, one year closer to death" :P But really, if you enjoy it, you should continue on the runehead project. Looks like a great supplementary site to tip.it (not that it couldn't stand independently) Yours 'dark killer0'

Seems like everybody missed this point of his post, and it's so true. It should be the definitive origin for the usage of 'noob' today in a dictionary. Think about it, if you're an old player, you very rarely have used this word. Now that I think of it, in RS I last used this word maybe 6 years ago when I was under level 10. Once. After players grow mature and they level up more, the 'noob' will occur rarely. Of course there are immature level 126's too but taking from a general pool of hundreds of high level people, they wont overuse this word. On the other hand, most people who WILL use this word are exactly the "noobs" themselves: People around level 30-60 who feel inferior to people higher level than them so they go to Lumbridge and get a kick out of calling every new player a noob.

True. Wronger than ever. I don't know what you had in mind, but a lot of things can be proved as unexistant. Let's claim dinosaurs no longer exist on our planet. It is so easy to prove this with modern technology that could even scan underground soil just to make sure. That's just one thing out of a billion things in this world. I'm very willing to prove you that for example, counter-gravity as a natural phenomenon can NOT exist in our world and it CAN be proved not to exist. It, too, like God, is a thing you can't touch, feel or hear. True. Given that the universe could be potentially limitless, even the infamous "pink flying elephant" COULD exist. As neither you or me haven't explored the ENTIRE space, you can not say with absolute certainty that odd creatures like that could not exist somewhere, given an unlimited amount of possibilities. True. If you can hold a neutral object such as an apple in your hand, you can taste and feel it, it is the absolute truth to perceive it as existing. You cannot deny with any philosophical argument it does not exist should you hold it in your hand and see it. True, a possibility no matter how slight is still a slight possibility. It may gain fuel if a big number of people start accepting that possibility and spread it to other people, however this does not make the claim any more powerful. A religion with 1 billion followers is just as credible as one with 10 million. Very possible, but it will be ridiculously easy to prove our atoms are just that, atoms, and our bodies are not made of cheese or caviar or wine. Not true, let's look at the statement again: However, in this case, it is very simple to prove that your body does not consist of cheese. It is possible, but definitely not in our world. As I repeatedly stated, people could be brainwashed into thinking they are made of cheese all they wanted, but it still would not change the fact they are NOT made of cheese. It would be simply that, a *belief*. Not a fact. True. While you hold an apple in your palm, it is not possible for it to NOT exist while existing. The same thing applies to God, he cannot be true and false at the same time (exist and not exist). There either is a God or there is not. It's up to somebody's beliefs if they want to absolutely believe it or accept the fact that they can only BELIEVE the God exists, not gain undisputed proof of it. C3: Humans cannot be proven to be made of atoms because the possibility of them being made of cheese exists. It's just ridiculous nitpicking. An apple can't be proven to contain water because there is a possibility it could contain nitroglycerine. But yes, it can. You need very simple tools to determine what it contains. In fact, not even tools. Just squeeze some of it and analyze the liquid substance if you feel the need to. Technology can easily give undisputed fact that the human body naturally does not and can not consist of cheese. I'm willing to research you some of this undisputed fact. Assume C3: P9: What we believe as truth, cannot be truth because of the possibility that other ideas exist. Excellent, very true. :) But this only applies to disputable truths, such as concepts/beliefs (which are not necessarily always supported by fact). Such a disputable truth does not include truths that can be PROVEN. If I can prove the apple I hold in my hand contains water, I drink the liquid substance and I don't get the side effects of drinking nitroglycerine, it cannot be disputed that it's IMPOSSIBLE for the apple to contain nitroglycerine, no matter how hard somebody might have a different idea or belief about it. I don't care if they were teached since childhood that 'eating apples is lethal', if they can't prove it, their idea is just that, an idea. It does not create FACT. Some people in Africa still believe the AIDS vaccination they are being offered would just in fact infect them. But the company that made the vaccination knows for a FACT the patients can not be infected. In this case, the believer is wrong IF the company can succesfully prove that they have given out this medication to millions of people and the risk of infection is literally 0 percent. Therefore, the believer can be disputed by facts, therefore, he is wrong. Eventually, if this person was forced to take the vaccination for preventing AIDS, he'd see nothing happened to him. Therefore, he is wrong. I think it's needless to repeat myself again. With proof that is intepreted by your brains (eyesight, hearing, feeling), it is VERY possible to prove a lot of things. It cannot be proven as false that earlier, you posted on this thread. No matter if all the data about it is erased, it HAPPENED. This is a classical case of "Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it". In theory, it could be *possible* it wont make a sound but if you placed ultra-sensitive satellites thousands of miles away, it would be quite obvious a sound was made. It only depends on if anything is around to intepret it (such as human ears) This is not a case of apples and whatnot. You cannot disprove the existence of God, unlike the water content of an apple. Because, in the first place, you don't know as a fact that a God does not exist. I know, as a fact, that my apple does NOT contain nitroglycerine. Anything can be proven with empirical evidence, see above P10 C5: Therefore, agnosticism is not the most logical belief there is. I'd like to think quite the opposite. You, despite the efforts, did not give me convincing PROOF that God doesn't exist (or does for that matter). Atheism as a concept: A God's existence is impossible/You don't believe in a God. By standard logic, something either exists or it doesn't. Do you KNOW God doesn't exist somewhere? Have you browsed even one thousandth of the universe to find out? Atheism is logically just as fallible as theism. It is impossible to give SOLID proof the other way or another. There is, as of today, no conclusive evidence of God's existence, nor is there extensive evidence about the impossibility of a God's existence. On the other hand, there IS extensive evidence that, for example dinosaurs do NOT exist in our world any more. It is undisputed fact, no matter how hard some person would like to believe it's true. The possibility that they might exist is NOT possible, because there is overwhelming proof to show otherwise. As a note, some people can misunderstand the point of this thread. It was not made to convert people into thinking otherwise. I'm NOT saying agnosticism is the best belief, I didn't even say I'm necessarily an agnostic myself either. I'm saying agnosticism is the only LOGICAL belief in the current state of the world where there is no extensive proof of supernatural beings but neither is there proof of a God not existing. I'm not saying atheism or theism (theism= Believing in a God or Gods) are inferior beliefs to agnosticism; they are not. They are equal because they are BELIEFS. What I'm saying is that agnosticism is currently the only LOGICAL and rational belief, *not* the best or anything to that tone.

Once again, they are beliefs. I can't counter you on that one. Even better if you came up with your own beliefs. (Or a reason to believe :) I must disagree. You should research the terms deeper. Atheism: The belief that no God can possibly exist That's not what I imply. It's possible for one to exist, I have just as much information about the 'reality' of God/God's as you do, therefore I don't dispute your beliefs as false. But you also, can't state for sure they are the 'right' views. You can only believe so, not state so as a fact. You assumed, that when I said I don't have a religion, I don't believe in a God. I find the statement fallible. Any person can be spiritual without having his name registered in some office papers with the box Christian [ x ] / Buddhist [x] / Muslim [x] crossed. Religion is not the same thing as being spiritual necessarily. Many people who belong to religions (with the main example of christians) are in fact not spiritual in any sense, and they'd go to a church just once a year and only because their elders asked them to come.

To bad most of them were civilians then... And don't say "its war anything goes" ever heard of the geneva convention? During the balkan wars in the 90's, Serbian soldiers would mass-exterminate male civilians even aged 5, they would rip out a pregnant mother's stomach and make the mother murder her own child. Do you really think that in a pathologically heinous world like ours people in real situations give a damn about international law? It's quite the same thing as Israeli mathematicians calculating how many civilians killed per terrorist is an acceptable amount (recently coming up roughly with the number 3 on a newspaper but I can't find a link online). I'll tell you: Not even 1 death of an innocent child is acceptable. THAT if anything should be a war crime. Not only that, but if you go and try to kill "terrorists", definitely don't do it the "israel" way. They killed what, 50, 100 Hizbollah soldiers? 1,300+ civilians+ a few UN observers? When you must wage a war where women and children take the heaviest casualties in order to "protect your country", you know your military leaders have f* up really bad, and recently they have begun admitting too. ... How did you come up with this? Neither Iran nor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have *ever* expressed interests to obtain nuclear weapons. As of recent they have even been letting the IAEA inspectors inspect their power plants and Ahmadinejad even challenged Bush to a TV debate (ridiculous, knowing that Bush in a real debate situation without lines of text being fed to his mouth would most likely stumble with his words) The nuclear project has massive popular support in Iran, allowing them to produce nuclear energy and thus = consume less oil which they can sell for even more profit. The program has been all the time about energy production. It's only suspected they could use plutonium to build nuclear weapons, there is absolutely no proof of this as of yet. The biggest suspicions were launched when president Ahmadinejad was speaking to a crowd of 1,000's of students in the university of Teheran about the necessity to "wipe out Israel from the world map".

If you were to really research all the "miracle" healings happening around the world (and as of recent years, sadly on American television), how many times would you actually find a medical explanation behind these 'healings'? Or something as simple as 'faith' boosting your endorphine levels and making you feel less pain. I'm not one to say it couldn'tve been 'sent' by God but it's impossible to prove. You have an incredibly strong belief, nothing wrong with it. But if you can really prove that Brahman or any other of the God's in Hinduism are/were real, you would indeed be the first person in the world to do so. You cannot prove him with faith (and I can't unprove him with facts). What you can do is believe in hinduism, but if you say any of the supernatural events possibly mentioned in the sacred books of Vedas were possibly real, you are cheating yourself. There is absolutely no proof (though counterproof doesn't exist either) Just because you have strong ideologies or concepts it does not mean you should "follow a religion". Do research on the samurai bushido ethics code; Some people in Japan still practice it. It's one of the most refined ethical guidelines ever created and it is not a religion. It's just how you choose to live. Confucianism, just as well, is a concept, not a religion. There is a very clear line between the two. For example, this 'ideology' advocates many good changes to society to make it a better place for everyone. You do not worship anybody. That's getting off topic though... I can't argue on that one as it's obviously an opinion and I can't persuade you to think otherwise. But I strongly believe anybody can live 'life' even if they don't have a religion... I don't follow any religion but I don't consider myself emotionally or spiritually poor. Sure, a God could exist, who am I to dispute that? On the other hand, nobody can hand me over solid proof. Good to see a reply, I'm not at home right now so I will carefully view the other replies to your post in a few hours from now to make sure I can add something new to the table. I agree with that. I'm not ruling out the possibility... But, isn't it quite natural? If not, then what made you believe in God in the first place? Your school or parents? We must remember that our parents are humans too. They learned their beliefs possibly from their parents and so on. If there is not definite proof, it should be natural to question the existence of an entity. Galileo had definite proof the Earth is indeed round based on his astrological studies, but the catholic church persecuted him based on simply beliefs. The earth doesn't stop being round just because you believe God wrote some text in a book thousands of years ago. The facts remain no matter who inteprets them (or if nobody inteprets them at all)

But you can never be 100% sure he doesn't exist, given his supposed omnipotent nature? It's irrational to state he doesn't exist as that argument falls on thin air. If he doesn't even have a physical form and is a spiritual entity, how would it even be possible to disprove him if you can't see him, touch him, hear him..? Neither can you ever be 100% sure he does exist based on empirical evidence or scientific facts (given the probability that God will most likely not show up on Earth during our lifetime and perform miracles in front of our eyes). Is there any documented data about him other than religious scriptures? Photographic data? How about live footage? So far, no "supernatural" footage has ever been proven as real and on this I want to challenge anybody as well. As far as I know it's all "entertainment" or pseudoscientific or staged junk.

It's ok; I appreciate any kind of comments (even that), I just want to know whether you have absolute proof to support your current belief in a rational sense and/or to thus challenge agnosticism as the only RATIONAL 'belief' (or concept or theory or whatever you call it). Maybe then you can follow up with a reply. :)

I felt this shouldn't be posted on an already existing thread because I'm about to start a new discussion on this matter which is not related to religious beliefs itself. This has nothing to do with religion, this is from a rational/logical viewpoint: To make a long story short, I want to challenge anybody who believes agnosticism is not the only RATIONAL belief. I'm not talking about 'feelings' about your religion or so-called proof that 'God doesn't exist', I'm talking only about the absolute and discoverable, proven facts and realities. (Agnosticism, you're not sure what it means? Here's the short definition: A man cannot know for sure whether God exists or not) Argument: 1. Nobody has solid proof of a supreme "God's" existance (assuming there'd just be one) 2. Not a single person in the world can prove God doesn't exist. 3. A human cannot be judged by his/her religion to eternal damnation by a righteous 'God' if one were to exist. This would in ANY case mean the following: 3b. The majority of the people in the world would be judged to damnation (Hell, or whatever any religion with this concept would call it) as no religion in the world has an absolute majority of followers. 3c. [*:10t5tu9l]Islam is the "True religion" with 1.3 billion followers: 5.2 billion people are damnated [*:10t5tu9l]Judaism or any of it's subsections is the true religion: 6.484 billion people are damnated [*:10t5tu9l]Christianity or any of it's subsections is the true religion: 4.5 billion people are damnated [*:10t5tu9l]Other non-abrahamic religion is the "True religion" and assumes damnation for 'gentiles': Not specified, as this is usually not emphasized Conclusion? Religion= Thumbs up if you feel like wanting to be a part of it and it helps you in your life. Thumbs down if it makes you even briefly think other people who don't believe the same as you will "go to hell" and you can judge them. Sadly, no matter what religion you represent, that represents more than 70% of the world's population. Numbers: http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm Therefore, if anybody can present me convincing proof otherwise, I'd be happy to debate the FACT that the only LOGICAL (not religious) 'belief' is agnosticism. Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

True, but it's very questionable to automatically assume "Look, if we spend this HUGE load of money on this new space shuttle to find out if there are numberless gold and other metal sites on Mars, we'll probably find what we're looking for". I don't know your view 100%, but I'd much rather spend more money on solving problems on our own planet, and after the easiest and most obvious problems are solved (such as 'stupid' deaths of children to very easily curable diseases) continue with secondary expensive projects. When a human life depends on a medicine shot worth $0.40, I'd much rather spend at least a fraction of all those billions of dollars to give life to people rather than 'look for extraterrestrial one' Somebody said that "America isn't obligated to do it". Well, I don't subscribe to primitive nation-thinking. That's just my view. Humans are humans and they deserve life no matter who it is that helps them. How can you enforce a law against having sex? Making a law against having sex would be a horrible waste of time. Besides, if people want kids it's their choice. If they can't afford the kids they want and they go ahead and conceive a baby anyways, then I think they should be forced to deal with that rather than be told they can't have sex because everyone around them has too many kids already. It can be enforced quite effectively; Have your local communist government make sure they spend lots of money on surprise-raids on every single village and town and you won't want to risk having the government take away your child. But then again, tons and tons of people get away with it by bribery, and on the other hand, some chinese people (especially in the rural areas) would even kill their female child to make "space" for a male one for economical reasons. They think their male child could be financially more succesful and bring money to the family and help the farm with harvesting, etc. :wall: Sad world. In case you didn't know yet, the 1 child per family law has been in effect in the Republic of China for years now. While it sounds sad, it is an absolutely necessary step to at least partially prevent an 'explosion' in population numbers even though that has already happened. In a few decades, Chinese citizens will very likely make up 1/3rd of the world's population. Now, already, there are over 1.3 billion chinese citizens (compare to USA: 300 million, entire Europe: 400 million, Japan: 220 million, entire African Peninsula: 500 million)

I always thought tip.it was Italian based because of its domain name. But then I have no idea where they host servers are. The guy who created this site along with Lightning is from Italy. 8-) His name is/was Silverion and he mainly work/ed on ArenaScape stuff ever since years, years ago. The site had also subforums and hints for Asheron's Call and Dark Ages of Camelot but as far as I remember they had very little activity. P.S. Actually, if a bill like this was passed in the U.S., it would effect other nations as well, thus hugely pissing them off. Most of the backbone pipes as mentioned are in the U.S., the domain registry monopoly is held by the U.S., and so forth.

Just a few hundred at most. Could be a lot more but unlike some people, I decided to delete all the crappy songs, which accounts to about 80% of the stuff you find online. You know, if you go on a spree and look for "heavy metal" for example, the sad truth is that random downloading doesn't pay off. Just buy good stuff or look hard for it If you have a library of 5000 but think even half of that is unnecessary or outright 'boring', I think it's a good idea to free up space on the drive rather than just keep them there for the sake of having a 'big library' :wall:

Gosh, not to mention, who would even want to, let's say RENT a dvd about wine tasting? Unless you have some strange affection towards wines... Pirates of the Caribbean- Dead man's chest is very overrated. It's getting a lot of hype because it "breaks the billion dollar bar". People just like to see adventures with their friends and families and sadly because there is little competition (most "adventure" movies today are lame Scifi-effectfests like Aeonflux that get crushed by critics and prove half-baked Saturday night entertainment) in original, high-quality adventure movies. The movie itself is just that, entertainment. You'd rather drink a glass of salty water than watch the movie 3 times. The Shawshank Redemption is absolutely --under--rated.. No commercial bull*, no stupid characters, just makes you appreciate your freedom you take for granted. This movie has each and every right to claim the #2 spot on imdb.com's top 250 movies of all time. =D>

Oh yes, and Adam lived then for what, 7 billion years? If we are to assume that no matter how the hebrew word "yom" for day is to be intepreted, there was some man who lived 930 years? Do you, as an educated person, actually believe it could be possible for a human being with nearly no technology, intelligence or advance to live up to billions of years because a hypothetical "God" granted him the ability to do so?

There is so much information dis-prooving evolution it really is hopeless isn't it? What kind of a source would you exactly call that? While we're on that track, let's start citing geocities pages, shall we... #-o Not. Let's take a look at few of your sources: http://www.remnantofgod.org/ Reliable research and news site? Let me pick one of the current headlines... This one takes the prize :lol: You call this site an actual SOURCE compared to verifiable dictionaries, encyclopaedias, observing news agencies such as Reuters, etc.? But the story does not end here friends. Let's take a look at another so called "source" (even though most people with a bit of brain already realized it's not worth posting here, so let me work doubly as hard on behalf of those people)... http://www.mtblanco.com/ This site is quite contradictory to your agenda; It proves facts and photographs of dinosaur fossils, are you sure you wanted to list this one? Did you list sources just to get credibility? This site represents a museum... This site takes the piss too, all I can find there is a desperate guy's attempt to sell as many books and ad space as possible. If you'd like to link me to a REAL reliable source on your list, I'd be happy to check it out. XplsvBam, if you allow me to tell you the truth, you have been brainwashed by the so called "tinfoilhat media", i.e. a network of pseudoscientific and ultra-religious fanatical sites maintained by semi-loony characters on the internet. P.S. No Bubsa I'm just checking out this place for a long time. Good to see you're enjoying your stay 8) With so many posts too.

Too much provocation, can't really think of any other reason why you'd post this thread other than try to get kicks of it by frustrating as many people as possible. Your post is so full of misinformation and lack of research it's not worthy of discussing. Why don't we go and hear the other side of the story then? http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe ... t_science/ Either you're just trying to make yourself ridiculous or you should really back up your claims and sources. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4731360.stm Yeah, there are also a plenty of people who still believe the Earth is round. What about the majority of them?

AW Online is a direct copy of runescape, you will be surprised to even find out some of the NPC characters have the same lines, some locations have similar names, the skills are nearly identical, etc... The GM's are very imbalanced, I have only bad memories about them. They would jail you for 30 minutes just because you 'stole' resources from their friend while he was mining ores. It also has a cyberpunk element and lots of robotics and that kind of futuristic stuff, so if you're interested feel free to check it out. 8)

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in that article, but during the WTC incidents, Moussai was already in jail. So he's really getting punished for nothing, the CIA had no idea America would be under a terrorist attack, and he is getting a life sentence just for 'not telling' something. But given that his behavior if he got out of jail would be quite predictable, for the sake of national security it's better he stays in the jail.Sorry for not posting for about a year 8) Lots of interesting threads have spawned here.

You've never even driven a car. Just admit it 8)