Jonanananas

Well...because the bible was written by humans, and humans can obviously only think in human ways, not matter how hard they try. I'd also like to talk about the determinism thing, but I'm wondering if that would go beyond the scope of this thread. Should I create a different topic for it?

Was there really any need for this post? Why are people being overly critical of the Admins responses? People on the first page WERE pretty much saying that it was "probably a leak from a corrupt tif mod." No they weren't. NO ONE ever blamed the admin staff. It was simply stated as a possibility, not as a likelyhood or something that happened. "In your case most likely situations are corrupted tif mods, and imageshack or any other picture host service someone had rented to grab ip's." Not a likelyhood at all, eh? Yup you are wrong once again, you need to read in context, and not just quote the part that supports your (incorrect) stance. "Tif database leak, ip from links you've been to. Social engineering from your name. Corrupted tif mods (People pay like £30 for a single ip leak). Ofc they wouldnt apply if you had a dynamic ip." These are listed as POSSIBILITIES not Accusations. BIG DIFFERENCE. The point. Try not to keep missing it. Nope once again. Here is the full quote: You know, maybe you should stop attacking me for "missing the point" at every occasion. It's really getting ridiculous. I don't think I've done anything to provoke that so I have to say I'm a bit baffled why you keep calling me out on it.

Was there really any need for this post? Why are people being overly critical of the Admins responses? People on the first page WERE pretty much saying that it was "probably a leak from a corrupt tif mod." No they weren't. NO ONE ever blamed the admin staff. It was simply stated as a possibility, not as a likelyhood or something that happened. "In your case most likely situations are corrupted tif mods, and imageshack or any other picture host service someone had rented to grab ip's." Not a likelyhood at all, eh?

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist. Why? And what do you deem public? I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society) EDIT: A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is. Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails. The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief. It's not inexpressible as you claim it is, it is only yourself who has failed to explain it. I'll reiterate: it is not my failure to comprehend or interpret, rather - it is your failure to coherently explain in sufficient detail. It would be an exercise of futility to explain what a favourite colour is - it's of no relevance to this discussion at all. The concept of belief can be expressed, but I won't bore you if you won't care for the response. I'll await your request for elaboration, if you even want it. I really don't want to get personal here, this is in no way an attack on you as a person. But...we've had this debate before. Several people tried to explain religious belief to you. You did, quite simply, not understand it. At all. If you can't comprehend it from your view, no one is going to be able to explain it to you no matter how hard they try. You personally have no place for a religious belief in your mind. That isn't bad in any way. It just means that you will never grasp the concept of it, and only with real understanding you can judge whether it makes sense or not.

I don't have much knowledge with suits either, but definitely go with two buttons, and close the top one. With three buttons, no matter which buttons you close, there is always some part of it that looks stupid/doesn't fit imo.

You have to question how many theists think being gay is wrong because of scripture. And I don't mean them saying it's wrong because of that, it's them actually believing it because of that. Or, to say it differently: I believe that a large percentage of theists disliking gays would still like gays if they were atheists.

My beliiefs are that being homosexual is wrong, but that doesn't mean that I (being a religious person) am going to go out of my way to be unkind to them (or God forbid kill them). I bet that there are also non-religious people that hate gays, hate religious people, and other immoral things. That belief in itself is enough to cause harm - would you vote in favour of minimizing gay rights on that regard? It's 'wrong' by your account, so I'll take that to mean morally impermissible. If you would, that's a good example of how even moderate Christianity has harmful effects. As Vezon said himself...there are enough non-religious people who don't like gays.

I'm not familiar with the Catholic bible, so could you explain the "4 different gospels that also contradict themselves?" The Gospels are the same (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) because there is only Bible. Jona is referring to the fact that the 4 gospels offer contradictory accounts of Jesus' life and deeds and so on, owing to the fact they were composed by different authors across some decades (I forget how many) and with what I presume were different sources. I mean, I've read all 4 of those books in a normal bible, but I fail to truly see any contradictions. It isn't like they were all written by the same person, so there should *obviously* be some kind of variation.... If there was no difference, why would you even have all 4 of those books? Even if there are contradictions, it isn't like science is perfect either. Don't get me wrong, most science is generally accurate, but the kind of science that is being discussed is more theoretical than anything. There is no big difference in the message, in the teaching, etc. There are differences in the literal accounts, which is one argument I used to explain why taking the bible literally doesn't work.

Umm...I was quite specifically talking about non-fundamentalists/extremists so I don't understand why you come up with extreme examples that as far as I can see are basically only due to that group...

Yeah I agree with you here. It's one extremely big logic hole in the christian religion. But you know, personally I'm not too bothered with it, because you know, what does it matter if someone believes it still despite those logic holes? At least he's not fundamentalist :P And yeah, basically the church just chose which parts they thought fit the best.

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid. This is very debateable indeed. For the most part, fundamentalists often stick the bare essentials of a religion with as little interpretation as possible (hence the 'fundamental' part). I would argue they are, in religions such as Islam, more true to their religion than the apologists, whose adherence to scripture (in the Abrahamic religions I know a little of) tends to change with the times. Extremists that go above and beyond that which is written in their religion, on the other hand, such as the Spanish Inquisition, are not fundamentalist but merely extremist (or so I think). As far as I know, Islamic extremists are misconstrueing the quran too. I only know this from some people mentioning it though, I have no specific knowledge of what's actually written there etc. I am a bit more knowledgeable with christianity, and fundamentalists do not stick to the bare essentials of it. They are sticking to the literal sense of it, which is, simply put, stupid. You can argue about common sense all you want, but some parts are definitely not meant to be taken literally and as said, for some parts there even is historic proof of that. Not to mention that there are hundreds of variations of the bible and it should be clear that they a)obviously cannot be literally true at the same time and b)the reason that only some of these are in the standard version of the bible is not because some are literally true and some aren't. Heck, even in the standard (I'm talking about roman catholic) bible you e.g. have two versions of the genesis chapter and 4 different gospels that also contradict themselves at times. How anyone could think they can interpret this literally is beyond me, it's just so mind-boggingly stupid...

I've already tried to explain moderate theism to you. I failed horribly, and to be honest, I'm not in the mood to try again. As for misconstruing the scripture...honestly, the biggest part of it is just common sense, some part of it is knowing when, how and why these parts were written. Just take the genesis chapter. It should, honestly, be obvious to anyone that this was not meant to be literal, and never was meant to be either. What counts are the values of the religion embedded within. In this case, it helps to know that this particular chapter was written by jewish priests when in exile in babylon. They specifically wanted to set themselves apart from other religions with specific values (Such as man being a partner in god's creation) which was supposed to appeal to jews who got swayed by the babylonists(what do you call them?) feasts, parades, etc.

Fundamentalists misconstrue the teachings of a religion. This is not the fault of the religion. A thing doesn't become bad in itself because it is often abused. As such, religion isn't bad just because fundamentalists are stupid.

Indeed, great episode with great acting. Alfie Allen was especially awesome, the look on his face at the end of the courtyard scene.... Peter Dinklage also gives his usual great performance, and I can't tell how happy I am he got to slap Joffrey again :thumbsup:

Is that M. Night Shamalyan?

I'd wager that the majority of runes in game are from monster drops, not runecrafting. If they were from runecrafting, one will expect that the price per rune will drastically increase over the next few weeks due to the drop in supply. If runes in game aren't from runecrafting, then increasing the number created from runecrafting won't do much to the price. I don't think so actually. For F2P runes, this might be the case, but for member runes I'm pretty sure that runecrafting makes up a big portion of it. How many runes do you really get through monster drops? The numbers aren't that big. We'll be able to see exactly when checking the prices of runes though. If they don't change much, then you would be right.

You're talking about fundementalists here, not normal christians. You can disprove fundamentals(regardless of which religion) so easily it's quite boring (Plus it doesn't achieve anything as they just ignore you). Besides, the bible never claimed the earth is 6000 years old. You arrive at that number by adding together all the years of the genealogy since Adam and Eve - While completely ignoring that the description of Genesis was never intended to be taken literally, not even at the time of writing. We even know when those passages were written, and why. Yet, it says that there was literally nothing no light, no land, no water. If we are to take it as it is written we would believe that Earth was 6000 years old and these fossils are weird fakes. Yes, if we take it literally. You are not supposed to though. It doesn't make any sense and you were never supposed to. Yet, if we do not take it literally we lose a lot of the power held with god. Without taking that he created the earth at the very least we have a figure of power who speaks to people without being there, does really cool magic tricks, and gives people the ability to heal... I'm not saying you should see everything as a metaphor, but parts of it. That god created the earth can be taken literally(in the view of the religion of course). Saying that humans evolved from Adam and Eve obviously can't. Working with religious text can be really difficult because you have to be extremely careful about what to take literally and what to view as metaphors.

It all depends on where you live. Here in Germany 48,000 $ would definitely be ridiculously expensive. Apparently not for America/Canada...

You're talking about fundementalists here, not normal christians. You can disprove fundamentals(regardless of which religion) so easily it's quite boring (Plus it doesn't achieve anything as they just ignore you). Besides, the bible never claimed the earth is 6000 years old. You arrive at that number by adding together all the years of the genealogy since Adam and Eve - While completely ignoring that the description of Genesis was never intended to be taken literally, not even at the time of writing. We even know when those passages were written, and why. Yet, it says that there was literally nothing no light, no land, no water. If we are to take it as it is written we would believe that Earth was 6000 years old and these fossils are weird fakes. Yes, if we take it literally. You are not supposed to though. It doesn't make any sense and you were never supposed to.

Stonewall does have a point though. A lot of game trailers are like that. The trailer for the most recent Battlefield game is a bunch of unexplained, jumbled together photorealistic battle scenes (You can easily understand what the game is about though, if only because every 'modern' military shooter out there is about fighting terrorists). Mass Effect 2 was the same, but with more science fiction and Martin Sheen narrating it. The point is less to say "This is what the game is about" and more "This is awesome, buy it". The cinematic trailer does its best to do that, no idea how the commercial does. You don't quite seemto have understood my point either :( Maybe I wasn't able to phrase it properly... A trailer can consist of just battle scenes put together. For a shooter, that probably makes sense. And I don't necessarily expect a trailer to tell me the advantages of this specific game. However, in my opinion the rs trailer is not combat scenes put together, but jumbled together. Badly. They don't make it seem epic, they don't make it seem interesting it's just some random scenes that really tell you nothing. I just think it's a really bad ad.

"I believe god could possibly exist, but for him to exist everything we know about the universe must be completely wrong." What exactly do you mean by that? Why couldn't a god exist without our knowledge being completely false?

Well technically, there can be many 'correct' religions assuming they adhere to the same god. Chritianity, Islam, and Judaism are all Abrahamic Religions, so if God is real all 3 religions are true* but only one diety is real. * Depending on your definition of 'true'. Christianity claims in the divinity of Jesus and the other two do not. So if God did send Jesus, rejection of his teachings could result in the other two religions becoming 'untrue' even though they adhere to the same god. They don't adhere to the same god. They all claim that the god Abraham prayed to was their god, but that doesn't mean the god they adhere to the same god. A god is defined through the values etc. the religions assign to him, by the wonders they claim he's done etc. And assuming there is a deity out there, the chance of humanity defining just the right god are quite slim :P You're talking about fundementalists here, not normal christians. You can disprove fundamentals(regardless of which religion) so easily it's quite boring (Plus it doesn't achieve anything as they just ignore you). Besides, the bible never claimed the earth is 6000 years old. You arrive at that number by adding together all the years of the genealogy since Adam and Eve - While completely ignoring that the description of Genesis was never intended to be taken literally, not even at the time of writing. We even know when those passages were written, and why.

I'm an other - I don't really believe there is a god, although I am not perfectly sure. The main reason why there are still some doubts for me is the scope of the universe, and that I can't imagine where it came from (Though a deity doesn't really solve the problem for me) and the simple fact that there is no real evidence against it, so it would be entirely possible (And due to the nature of a deity, obviously you can't have any real evidence) I am convinced though that none of the religions on earth are correct though. There is an infinite amount of possible deities and a not too small amount of deities imagined on earth. All believers are convinced that theirs is right, yet they have nothing to support it. Holy books, visions, whatever are common in all religions. Theoretically, only one religion can be the true one - And the chance of humanity finding that one religion is basically zero. It's a statistical thing :P To sum it up: I believe there is no god, but am not wholly sure, but I am convinced all human religions are wrong (Wrong as in that the god they imagine doesn't exist, not in the sense of the religion being bad)

How do imagine nuking bots works? If you mean stopping them from working through technical means, that takes time to develop. They use their nukes once they are finished with coding. They simply can't do that earlier. If you mean a mass ban...you have to detect those bots first...and experience has shown that this works really bad because you want to avoid false positives at all costs, so you only really find the most obvious bots.

I said the following: to which you replied: If you say "that's what the WOW commercials are like" I can assume you are referring to my description of the trailer. And my description consisted of: "horrible, jumbled together, no explanation, no connection to the viewer, over far too quickly, not telling why the game is good" The WOW commercials are not like that, at least partly. I cannot know that despite replying to my comment, which was a criticism of the ad itself and not about the ad not containing gameplay or not, you are arguing a different point. Therefore I will obviously assume you are talking about the same thing as me and reply to you based on that.