Rien

Pika-pi, pikachu! ;)

Mhm, we realised how easy it would be to simply search through staff members' posts, so several of us took a few... extra precautions. Heheh. 'Good luck catching us all. :P

0/10 Who is this "Lady_Shahdie" character? 'Seems kind of shady to me. :unsure:

Pika-pi? :(

Das... you're awesome. :lol:

5,487

Good luck, everyone, and happy hunting! :D

You've played Armies of Gielinor: Zamorak Returns. You've played the Saradomin Strikes expansion. But now it's time for your biggest Armies of Gielinor challenge yet. Today, we at Jagex are extremely proud to announce the release of Armies of Gielinor: Guthix Awakens, a formidable and dramatic conclusion to the Armies of Gielinor trilogy. Behold as Guthix wakes to the horror of a world ruined by warring rival gods. Master 22 brand new missions and acquire 6 demanding new Achievements. Direct fearsome units and manage devastating armies to dominate the war-ravaged landscape of Gielinor. Vanquish the false gods of Gielinor, and lead the righteous Guthix to reclaim his throne as almighty ruler of RuneScape. FunOrb subscribers, become part of the RuneScape legend today in Armies of Gielinor: Guthix Awakens. Mod Gabriel FunOrb Content Editor http://services.funorb.com/m=news/newsitem.ws?id=2793 ------------------------------------ Heh, sounds exciting, to say the least. :o Nothing more to see here; move along... :-w [hide][/hide]

http://www.tip.it/runescape/?page=greegree_guide.htm#making 'Cheers. :)

If you're looking for an average, you'd need to have every f2p skill at approximately level 63 before you could gain access to the RSOF. Of course, it would be more practical to quickly train skills such as Cooking or Firemaking rather than trying to keep your skill levels even (assuming you're only interested in accessing the forums ASAP).

[hide=Reply to Romy (Pt. 2)] You don't seriously mean that, eh? If you do, you should think the same about anything that couldn't be proven not to exist, including fairies, leprechauns, demons, ghosts, monsters, Bigfoot, FSM, the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, Russel's Teapot, and another infinite number of possibilities. If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, then yes, all of these creatures could exist somewhere out in one or more of the infinite number of universes. Who knows, when quite literally anything could be possible? Except I don't "believe there's no God", I "disbelieve in God". And again, I dont see the difference. See the relevant reply somewhere above. Again, I don't think it's atheists' job to prove there's no God. I guess you already understand my point here though, after reading it twice in this post. Nobody is responsible for definitively proving/disproving Gods existence, since it cant be done in the first place. Both strong theists and atheists would equally share the responsibility if it could be done, since they both make absolute, positive assertions concerning it. However, the point is moot to begin with, considering the impossibility. Sure, it could possibly exist despite all that. I still dont like how its been warped from an inventive, valid protest against intelligent design into the crude, religion-bashing cudgel its become to today, though. :P "Pics or it never happend". As I've said quite a few times on this topic, someone who's completely unaware of any form of religion or God, is very likely not to believe in any specific God, not to mention not believe any God at all. When someone as described reaches 30, any religion presented to him would certainly be seen as a fairy tale and nothing more. Atheists do not present a story, it's theists that do. Atheists just doubt that story. Heh, Pics or GTFO is such a tired phrase. :P Anyway, if people who are never exposed to religion will supposedly never cultivate a belief in the supernatural, then why does religion/superstition exist in the first place? It must have some origin. I think I said something similar in one of my past posts, but I believe, if a supernatural diety does exist, that it is not one that we currently know of. It is my impression that all of the dieties worshipped on Earth are merely inventions of man; I doubt the real thing would have any interest in us or present itself. "God doesn't exist" is fairly a negative statement, don'ch'think? Not at all. Its a positive assertion from what I can see, in all honesty. Except, as I said, defining God as unproveable, fills theists' argument with pointless "air". Sure, it means their statements could never be disproven, but that does not mean there's any truth in them. The same could be said of atheists arguments. There are no facts to be had, so of course the debate is rife with fluff/air on both sides. Were debating our personal opinions; would you seriously expect anything else as a result? Dont worry, I feel to same way. :-w There is no evidence, no proof on either side. Nothing can be done about that; there is simply no way to prove anything in this debate. And so, because of this, how is it anyones responsibility to do so anyway? Both strong theists and strong atheists make positive, absolute assertions regarding Gods existence, so they would both be liable if anything could be done in the first place. Since its impossible to support either of these statements with facts, however, neither side can reasonably be expected to provide anything substantial. You probably already know what my answer is here :). And Im sure you know mine as well. I don't understand your reasoning here. Sure, I agree that you could call God "real" in the name of the concept's influence, regardless of whether or not it really is real, but what does that have to do with whether or not God really is real, or even the possibility of that? That "therefore" you put there seems quite pointless... This became something of a tangent. My point was that religion/belief in some form of deity already has real effects on mankind and the Earth, and so it doesnt take a terribly large leap-of-faith to consider the possibility that one or more of the deities worshipped here actually does exist and is making itself/themselves known subtly. I believe the odds of this being accurate is minuscule, but I wouldnt outright deny the possibility of it being true, seeing as how Gods hand can already be sensed in many of our earthly affairs to begin with (after a fashion). But I did take that possibility into consideration. As I had already mentioned, I was a great believer in God, and ended up dismissing the idea. I really don't see why you'd call someone "Close-minded" for disbelieving in something without proof. The part where you eventually dismissed the possibility is what I see as closed-minded. By dismissing the possibility, no matter how small you may deem it to be, you are not remaining open to the question at large. Always leave yourself open to some small doubt; very little (if anything at all) is guaranteed or absolutely certain in this world. [/hide] Heh, this 20-quote limit will be forcing us to triple-post soon. :unsure:

[hide=Reply to Romy (Pt. 1)] That's the main point of my argument. There's no need to prove something doesn't exist. You wouldn't expect me to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist whether someone first claimed that he does and whether not, despite the lack of evidence that supports Bigfoot's inexistence. There is always a need to question. So long as the possibility remains open, then, in order to increase our understanding of the world, we are obligated to pursue the issue until we find closure. Now, in the case of the existence of “God” and the supernatural, we cannot experiment or find evidence through our limited means. This does not mean, however, that we should simply dismiss the possibility; that would be a grave mistake, no matter how slim the chances of the supernatural existing seem to be. We’ll simply have to continue to keep it in mind in the meanwhile, and hope that the future will broaden our means to seek the answer. Except I don't believe there's no God, I disbelieve in God. Please explain to me the difference then, as I’m certainly not seeing any, heh. From what I understand, people can either be classified as a ‘strong’ theist (e.g. “There is a God, and his name is Yahweh”), a ‘weak’ theist (e.g. “I believe there is a God, but I’m not sure who he/she/it is”), an agnostic (e.g. “I don’t know if there is a God”/“I don’t care if there is a God”), a ‘weak’ atheist (e.g. “I don’t know if a God exists, but I don’t believe so anyway”), or a ‘strong’ atheist (e.g. “There is no God”). There is a difference of doubt between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheists; ‘strong’ atheists are certain that there is no God, while ‘weak’ atheists don’t believe God exists, but still acknowledge the possibility that they may be mistaken. So, to get back to my point, which are you? No it's not, it's definitely a negative asserertion... Hmm? I’ve never heard of a “negative” assertion, to be honest. An assertion is any statement a person puts forward as fact. Both “there is a God” and “there is no God” are absolute (i.e. “positive”) statements which would normally require concrete evidence to prove (however, there is none in this case, as we’ve gone over). The adjective “positive” is used more or less to highlight the strength of the assertion, so I’m not sure how a “negative” assertion would work or could even exist. :mellow: The closest example I can think of to explain my meaning is “heat”. There is no such thing, technically-speaking, as “cold”; there is only a varying amount of heat energy in an object or environment. Similarly, there are varying degrees of “strength/truth” in an assertion, but there is no “opposite” which can be used to describe a statement intentionally put forward as fact (i.e. an assertion). The burden of proof does not stand here, just as it doesn't stand for someone who claims Bigfoot doesn't exist. I obviously couldn't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist, even if that's the truth. Dedicating my whole life (and let's go as far as saying my children's life, and my children's children's life) to walking around the world, checking everywhere, and not finding Bigfoot, is not enough to prove beyond the slightest doubt Bigfoot doesn't exist, but for someone to say that Bigfoot does exist, it may take a while, but if he really does, he could eventually be found. Bigfoot =/= God Bigfoot, if he exists, would certainly be a living organism - one which we could possibly obtain physical evidence for in order to prove/disprove his existence. God, on the other hand, would be a supernatural being if he exists in the first place. [broken record] We cannot even attempt to find physical evidence of a being which transcends nature itself, so the “burden of proof” cannot reasonably be applied in this situation. [/broken record] With enough resources (dedicated either now or sometime in the future), the human race could definitively prove/disprove the physical existence of Bigfoot, but this is not so with “God”, by a simple matter of definition. I get your point, but think you're wrong. The mere definition theists give God, makes it impossible to prove he exists. And here lies the problem. What if I told you an unbelieveable story, not necessarily about the supernatural, and claim that I could never prove it to be true, wouldn't my credibilty fall down the drain? Credibility? Certainly, if a single person told me some fantasic story, I would seriously doubt them. However, if more and more people continued to tell me a similar story afterward, I would then take it into deeper consideration. This isn’t to say that I would necessarily profess belief in the story myself, but I would definitely accept the possibility that it may be true if enough people had become convinced of it. I’ve said it before, but I am an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe that “God” exists, but seeing as how billions of people have sworn to the existence of some form of deity for thousands of years, I’m willing to leave myself open to the possibility (however slight) What can I say? I find it absurd that so many adults wholeheartly believe in something that cannot and will not be proven. You find theists absurd for their beliefs, and I can assure you that many of them would think the same of you. Even if you feel that way, it’s important to remain civil and not blatantly insult others in your posts; it’s unprofessional and fewer people will be willing to seriously debate with you as a result. Feel free to expect the same respect from your opponents, and call them out on any infringements that they make, in turn. Again, because the fact that there's no proof for a positive statement (such as "There is a God") is enough to dismiss it IMO. I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument. So, you do ask a loaded question in order to discredit the other side? I’m disappointed, but I suppose there’s nothing to be done with someone who won’t debate honourably. :mellow: To be perfectly honest, you’re in no better of a position, loaded question or no; there is no proof that the supernatural does not exist. “There is no God” is every bit of a positive assertion as “there is a God”. Just as I explained up this post, it's quite usually impossible to prove a negative statemet. When someone states 2 statements, one claiming that "There is a God" (a positive statement) and that "I can't prove God exists", he fills his argument with pointless "air". He presents a positive statement, something which should be proveable, and supports it with a negative one. "Mr. Green is God", "I can't prove that", together mean nothing. So to you, a “positive” assertion is a truth that is ‘true‘, and a “negative” assertion is a truth that is ‘false‘? I must admit, I’ve never head of those expressions being used in that manner, heh. I’ve always understood an assertion to be a statement that a person holds to be true. In this way, “there is a God” and “there is no God” are statements on equal footing (each being “absolute”, with no doubt expressed). Since they can each be asserted with no degree of doubt (even if doing so is erroneous), they are both “positive” assertions (i.e. held to be infallible by those making the statements). As I said in one of the above replies, I don’t know how “negative” assertions can exist unless you’re using some other definition. I probably should have clarfied myself better here. When I say "enslave", I mean "strictly follow". What I meant by that quote is, that I'd never be fully religous, unless I see concrete proof. To further explain myself here, I'll give you an example. If someone believes that some amulet they're carrying will bring them luck- there's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I may be skeptic about that amulet, but the one carrying it (probably) wouldn't worship that amulet or risk their life in it's favor. Ahh, alright, my mistake. " I obviously am asking for proof because I know there isn't and could never be, as a form of a persuasive argument- to make the other side understand the fallacies of it's argument." You don’t find that to be wrong in the slightest? As I said somewhere above, it’s asking a loaded question, since no evidence exists to support either side of the debate. Another ‘loaded’ question would be, for example: “So, have you told anyone about how you beat your wife, yet?”. It would be underhanded to ask this of someone, no? There’s really not much of a difference between the two; you’re trying to unfairly trap someone in asking such a question. [/hide]

[hide=Ridiculously long reply to Godofjoy and Romy:] And that's perfectly reasonable. I've been using "God" in the loosest sense of the word; I'm not referring to any one, specific diety. Through my posts, I've been trying to rely the point that simply dismissing the possibility that a supernatural diety exists is foolish. There have been a few people who have posted in this thread stating that they won't even consider this possibility because no "proof" exists. This is hypocritical and closed-minded because, in truth, no evidence can be found which can either confirm or deny such a being's existence (again, the supernatural cannot be tested through purely natural means). Strong atheists who claim that "there is no God" are at just as much fault as those theists who claim "there is a God, and his name is [XXX]", in my opinion. This is my point; I'm not asking anyone to profess belief in any one diety, but rather to not dismiss the possibility that a diety may exist in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with asking for proof for something as important as a human perspective or as a way of life. Anyone who lives his life believing in something that cannot and will not be proven, is a fool IMO. Again, the 'supernatural' can neither be proven nor disproven through the strictly 'natural' means available to us. You and I are both aware of this, I'm sure, so why would you even ask for proof from the start if you know that everything ultimately comes down to personal belief? There is no evidence one way or another, so why even bother? Assuming that you're a strong atheist (as I suspect), would it be fair to question your belief that "there is no God"? That's certainly a positive assertion, so I could demand that you prove to me beyond a doubt that no supernatural deity exists. However, I realise that it would be unfair to ask for such evidence, since I already know that there is none to be found. Perhaps if I wished to discredit the person anyway, I would go ahead and ask such an impossible and loaded question, but that would be unfair of me and good debate etiquette would have me refrain from doing so. I hope you get my point. And by the way, even if you do consider theists to be fools for their personal beliefs, I would suggest that you keep that to yourself. You come across as very elitist and somewhat closed-minded through your posts when you make these implications, and far fewer people will take you seriously in a debate as a result. A bit of respect, even if you feel otherwise, goes a long way. Mind you, I belonged to the other side myself. I was the perfect believer, I did anything I could think of to "reach God", I studied, I preached, I read, and I even defended God from people like me. I'm also willing to hear the other side, and have done so, times and times again. Unless I see proof, I'm not going to enslave myself in the favor of a fairytale, yet I'm all ears to anyone who wishes to show me the other way with proof. Again and again, I state that there is no proof to support either side. Why do you continue to ask for such, regardless? The debate concerning "God's existence" is one founded on personal beliefs and thoughts - not on facts. You can believe what you want, but don't demand to be shown phyical evidence by one side when you know perfectly well that you have none to support your beliefs either. Also, please lay off the negative connontations you've been applying to religion. Religion does not "enslave" anyone, and I'm sure theists in general would appreciate the gesture if you'd stop trying to insinuate otherwise. This is supposed to be a reasoned debate, but here I find you attempting to subtly demonise the opposing side. 'Poor form. Oh, I'm geniunely interested in debating this topic, but after years of thought and debate, I don't believe the other side can present anything new. I am, however, fully willing to keep hearing the other side, and explaining myself aswell. Really? Then why do you continue to ask for physical proof if you already know that there is none to be had? Are you not trying to discredit theists by asking the impossible (please correct me if I've misunderstood)? And yes, considering how long this debate has been raging throughout time, I doubt either side has any "new" argument to offer, and yet the opposing sides are still deadlocked over what ultimately comes down to a difference in personal beliefs. At one point, Apollo fit that description exactly, today Apollo is nothing but mythology. The fact that a large part of the world's population believes in something does not mean the "burden of proof" no longer stands. You assume I refer to the Judeo-Christian God? I use quotations in the attempt to be as non-specific as possible; by "God" I mean "supernatural deity". Certainly Apollo is a supernatural deity, and so fits the description. Because of this, I accept the possibility that such a supernatural being called "Apollo" exists, although I doubt that he truly does. This is why I am an agnostic atheist (or otherwise known as a "weak" atheist). And as I explained in my last post, the "burden of proof", which would normally fall on both theists and strong atheists for their absolute beliefs, cannot reasonably be applied to this debate. Both sides know the other has no evidence. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's a debate revolving soley around personal beliefs presented as persuasive arguments. Technically, FSM is "beyond our reach and unable to be tested", but that does not mean that we should be agnostic towards it or not "levy the burden of proof" on anyone who truely believes in FSM (even if no one fits that description). You see, only one truth can exist. There can't be no God and at the same time be, it's not possible that both Christianity and Hinduism are correct. And so, I think not believing in any specific God is the natural thing any of us would have done if our parents and/or society did not present the concept in front of us. As such, and since there couldn't be a way to prove God doesn't exist, I believe it's theists' "job" to prove what they think is right, and not atheists' The FSM was quite clearly created by Bobby Henderson as a parody of "God". No one would seriously compare the two (I would hope), as it's still uncertain whether or not a supernatural deity exists, while it's obvious that the FSM is merely an invention of man. Over time, it has degraded into a ridiculous method of mocking religion; very few people take it seriously these days, although the core argument still holds some merit, in my opinion. Concerning that, I agree that (IMO) theists who believe in a specific "God" through a defined religion are at fault, although no more so than the strong atheists who declare that no form of "God" exists. Both make absolute, positive assertions which would normally require substantial proof, however, there is none to be had to support either assertion. It is not possible to definitively prove either argument, so I'm curious as to why you would try to force one side to do so and not the other, or why you're making such an attempt in the first place. Anyway, as an aside, I believe that if there is a "God", then it most likely hasn't made itself known to us yet. I doubt if such a being would even care about us, to be honest, considering how insignificant we are in comparison to the rest of the universe. For that paragraph alone, I can present the Mr.Green case again. I'm afraid I don't understand. I'm well aware of the "FSM" argument, but how does that apply to the paragraph you've quoted? Again, the fact that many believe/believed in God at one time or another doesn't make him "real" by the original meaning of the word. Apollo was widely believed in at one time, and in the same way you claim God to be real, so is Apollo. Sure, I agree. My point here is that you simply wish to dismiss the possibility of there being any form of supernatural being, but to do so is hypocritical and unreasonable. Again, neither atheists nor theists have any physical evidence which can validate/invalidate "God's existence", so the possibility for either belief to be true is still open. Religion/belief in God has had a significant impact on the human race, so it is already "real" to an extent (which is what I was getting at in the paragraph you quoted). Therefore, is it truly too great a stretch to allow for the possibility that one or more of these "Gods" (if not some other) actually exist behind the scenes? All I ask is for the possibility to be taken into consideration, rather than blindly dismissed for "lack of evidence". [/hide]

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs. However, when someone tells you a story, and claims it to be the only truth, it's his job to prove he's correct, and not your job to disprove his story. If I posted here that the only true God is Mr.Green ( :mrgreen: ) because he's so kind, and he really did create the universe, and because I have a book of his word, none of you could prove me wrong, but that's not your job. It's my job to present proof regarding Mr.Green's doings, and the truthfulness in the book I claim to have. "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."- Christopher Hitchens That quote of yours presents an irresponsible and somewhat closed-minded notion, to be honest. I might even go so far as to call it childish (not to imply that you are). :mellow: I'm sure everyone who subscribes to that quote is already well aware that there is no physical, concrete proof which can corroborate God's existence (or that of any other supernatural being/phenomenon), yet they still ask for definitive "evidence" anyway while stating that the original assertion can simply be dismissed if no such proof is provided. Anyone who makes this stipulation does so with no intent of hearing the other side out from the start, as they've already decided that nothing can be done to change their minds; for the most part, they merely wish to discredit their "opponents" by asking the impossible under the guise of innocent curiosity/debate. In other words, it's something of a loaded question, and really wouldn't be used by someone genuinely interested in debating this topic. Now, under normal circumstances, it would be natural to expect the opposing side in a debate to present evidence which supports their claims/arguments, but here we're debating over our personal beliefs concerning the possible existence and nature of "God" - a supposedly supernatural being. Because of this, neither side (those who believe in some form of diety and those who do not) can possibly find/provide evidence as support for their claims, since we live in a strictly "natural" world; the "supernatural" is, by definition, beyond our reach and unable to be tested. All we have to use in this debate are our own personal beliefs/feelings, and so it's ridiculous to try to levy the so-called "burden of proof" on one party alone and insinuate that they must be wrong unless they can satisfy an impossible condition (that of finding "proof" to confirm/deny the existence of the supernatural). Attempting to do so is merely a lazy deflection; neither side has any real evidence to support their beliefs, so it's unreasonable (not to mention hypocritical) to waste everyone's time trying to make either party "prove" anything. --------------------- Concerning the remainder of your post: As Surrealist said, Mr. Green cannot realistically be compared to the concept of "God". Mr. Green is a forum emoticon, while "God" (in one form or another) is a being who has existed in the minds of billions of humans for several thousands of years. In many ways, God is already "real" despite whether or not he actually exists; belief in God has had a much more profound and lasting effect on the human race than any single person or group of people can ever hope to have. Even if there's no definitive evidence to attest to God's existence, it's noteworthy that such a staggering number of people have held a belief in him/her/it for so long. The concept of God is not so easily "dismissed" as you claim, or at least shouldn't be by any open-minded, reasonable person. It's a worthy topic for debate and study, and so shouldn't be trivialised as you appear to be doing.

Of course, you can debate/disprove people's interpretations under certain circumstances, but as I said, no proof exists which can either confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural. My original point was that it's hypocritical to dimiss the opposing side based on "having no evidence", since no such evidence exists in the first place, one way or another. I was addressing this statement, by the way:

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; there is no factual "evidence" to support either side, only opinions/personal beliefs.

How strange, but you are indeed correct. I've personally confirmed that he will no longer offer to buy willow logs. :o Thanks for the heads-up; you've been credited and the note has been removed. :)

Heya. :) I've added the Lumbridge Swamp location as you've suggested, and I would be more than happy to replace the bone-cleaning picture should you provide a better one. As for the ranged weapon which you say is needed, I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. Can you not simply melee the monkies to kill them and obtain a Monkey Paw bone...? :o

The quest guide is fairly explicit on the matter (step 2), but I've decided to add a note to the "Tips and Tricks" for those who make the mistake of accepting the offer. 'Cheers. ;)

Heh, I'd like to at least see Dahmaroc come back to life/break the curse. :( I suppose it's somewhat understandable why Jagex doesn't want for there to be a "great" final reward, but I hope those players who are able to collect all 900 strange rocks and turn them into the museum will be rewarded with something other than XP. Anything will do, really, in addition to the replica statue. :mellow:

Congratulations! \:D/

Ahh, I'm afraid we already list the unlocking of the "MTK" Activity in the rewards section of the quest guide. As for Advisor Ghrim's book, it only briefly describes the basics behind MTK, and anyone reading the quest guide would be better off simply following the link we provide to our MTK Activity guide, which gives a far superior explanation while still being short. I'll add a note to the "Tips and Tricks" section though, to be thorough. :) Cheers, and thanks for your time.

Thank you very much for letting us know about this. It's been fixed. :thumbup:

Damn, is there a known formula to determine how long it'll take? I've been playing for about 7 years now. :mellow:

Excuse me for asking what is probably a foolish question, heh. Anyway, I changed my name in January, if I remember correctly, but I've noticed that the "last-known-as" icon beside my name still appears on other players' friend-lists. :unsure: I was under the impression that it would disappear after 28 days, but apparently this is not the case...? Does anyone know why this isn't happening? I'm not at all fond of my original RSN, so I hope it's understandable why I'm concerned. If anyone can shed some light on this issue, I would be most grateful. 'Thanks in advance. :)