Sly_Wizard

lol But, seriously, my three favorite things to do in Runescape were, in this order: 1.) PK'ing 2.) 'Boss' hunting 3.) And if the latter two aren't going well for the day, then staking. Jagex just HAD to go and destroy (Or will be destroying) the things I love the most in-game. *Insert expletives here*

I've said this in the past and I'll say it again, but you're an idiot. And not just any idiot, but an idiot blinded by his own bias. You've let it be known time and time again that you detest PK'ers ever since some pure killed you while you trying to collect green dragonhides. So, knowing this, why should anyone care a lick about what you have to say about the wilderness changes? Not only have you never, ever, ever, ever PK'ed in your life (Your own admission there), but you've never, ever, ever, ever been in a clan before in your life (Also your own admission). Quite frankly, you have zero room to talk of PK'ers and what-not, since you wouldn't be speaking from experience but rather ignorance (Not to mention of your posterior). You say that the wilderness will be better off overall. Please explain. You can't just make a statement without elaborating. Also, the assertion that most resources in the wilderness will be used more now is just inane. The only activitiy which has more people participating in it is abyss runecrafting (Which is ridiculously broken now as there is virtually NO risk in runecrafting there). Apparently you haven't tried mining and/or killing green dragons. Anywho, all I've gotta' say is down with the update. It's, by far, the dumbest idea Jagex has ever come up with. Yeah, that's not very insightful, but I'm far to pissed off to write anything more than that. I loved PK'ing, and now it's gone :(

No, it wasn't and why are Slyfer and Ra labeled as Pokeplushies (Since they're obviously not Pokemon).

All I can say is that's some freakin' BS. And the fact that they're allowing-- Actually enouraging-- Him to break the rules is laughable, to put it mildly. If this is real then I feel sorry for this guy.

This is, by far, one of the best posts ever written, Mel! Keep up the great work! :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

How many people are usually on at this time of night (2:16 AM Central time)?

The negatives far outweigh the positives.

You totally deserve bragging right for the next... Hell, you deserve a lifetime full of bragging rights :mrgreen:

I cannot explain how utterly p*ssed off the wilderness update makes me.

Jesus Christ... Check the last page. I addressed this already and I'm getting tired of being a broken record >_> I've an even better question. Why are you making a correlation between an increase in non-religious beliefs an an increase in evangelicalism?

Irrelevent. ...And you realize this doesn't help your argument regarding 16% of the world not believing in God >_> Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world? Like, uh, no duh. Where have you been? I believe I said this about three or so responses ago: It will if population growth in the Middle East continues as it is currently. Note to self: Subtle humor doesn't go over well on the internet.

I don't even know why I'm going to bother... First of all, you'll find that I specifically said non-religious/atheist folk. Second of all, don't try to play semantics. It won't work. Of the current 6.7B people on the world, you stated that 7B of them don't believe in God (Not a god, as you now want to change your tune to). Also, playing your game with your own source, 8% of the world has no religion. Apparently you missed the notes under the 16% which so clearly states "Half of this group is theistic but non-religious". In case you don't understand what that means, I'll help you out: Theistic = Characterized by a belief in God Non-religious = Not following the teaching of any given religion Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that since 1970 the number of being describing themselves as atheists has, indeed, fallen and is expected to continue to fall clear in the 2020's while the nuber of people denoting themselves as non-religious is expected to rise. Of course, the biggest gainer over the same period of time will be Christianity (More specifically, evangelicalism) 'cuz Christianity is just so darn cool! :thumbsup:

There are more non-religious/atheist folks then there are people in the world? :wall: :wall: :wall: Anyway... In terms of the number of adherents versus world population growth Islam ranks first, followed by Sikhism, Hinduism and then Christianity. This, in iteself, is no surprise as the fastest growing areas are the Middle East/Asia. In total number of adherents for each religion, they're all expected to increase with Christianity still garnering the most adherents. Judaism is expected to increase at a rate much less than that of the aforementioned religions. http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynami ... ources.php

You're a scientologist? Cool! :mrgreen:

Not in the eyes of the Roman government.

I said I was going to stop arguing with you, but I lied. I wanted to go bang my head against the wall when I read this :wall: Biblical cannon is a collection of prophecies, testimonies and eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus. As I'm sure you're well aware, the Bible wasn't written by one-single authoratative figure. Furthermore, why would the Roman government acknowledge any miracle by Jesus Christ, seeing as how Christianity (Well, it the Sect/Cult of Nazarene as it was known at the time) was considered a threat to the establishment of the Roman Empire and Jesus himself crucified on the grounds of trying to overthrow the Roman government? Wouldn't make any sense, now would it? :-k

Well, that explains that. Simple extrapolation of atheist arguments. 1.) Being an atheist you naturally agree with this statement. God doesn't exist unless He's proved to exist as, until then, His existence is unsubstantiated and, in your mind, equal to believing in the FSM or the IPU. 2.) Since you agree, no problems here. I still don't get what you're trying to say here. I agree with the first part, but the part after the comma confuses me. Erm... Are you reading the same thread I am? Here's a quote from just a few responses ago. The title of the thread asks the question is God real. Two or so responses say they don't believe in God; The rest of them state that God doesn't exist based on a lack of empirical evidence. Re-read the thread. It's plain as day :P Erm... Joke? >_> Edit: I realize that last response said offered very little in the way of a discussion, so I'll add to it. Some people are able to view atheism as a philosophy, and thusly can debate without relegating this to a simple "Proof vs. no proof" debate (Which is boring, to say the least). Most, however, cannot. Take this thread for instance; The time I offered up a discussion regarding free will in the context of religion it was ignored in favor of the "There's no empirical evidence of God's existence" argument. Even now, two or so pages later, no one's bothered to respond to it. Oh well...

Yes... Where have you been? Haven't you read the works of Charles Dawkins or Ayn Rand? ...You might want to reword what you typed out, as it currently makes no sense. Anywho, since you misunderstood what I said, I'll try this again. Atheists generally believe two things: 1.) Anything which exists doesn't exist in actuality unless it's proved to exist. 2.) Not everything which might exist actually exists. I then went on to say that I have a problem with these two assumptions because: 1.) Proof doesn't presuppose existence. After all, black swans existed before we knew they did. 2.) While everything which might exist won't actually exist, some things which might exist will exist. Understand? I don't know what you said, but I know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Strongs atheists claim that God doesn't exist; Weak atheists claim that God might exist but the probability of Him doing so is minute. Huh? I really don't understand what you said here >_>

Boy.... I can't believe I'm going to do this (Because it's such a waste of my time, but nevertheless...). Just a little excerpt from the article. You can read the rest of it here :) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770 Articles concerning current day child slave trade: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=26296 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/412628.stm http://abcnews.go.com/International/sto ... 131&page=1 This is all getting off-topic, but I rest my case. Nice try, but no. I refer you to my previous response. Wow... Have you, like, ummm... Not read anything hence far? Do you understand the concept of proofs? Defenses? Ontological arguments? Tautologies? Theodicies? Anything? The fact of the matter is you don't (Which, is okay, it just means you haven't taken the time to learn these things). However, and I say this as nicely as possible, but you have limited understanding of what it is you're trying to argue and, as such, you can only argue the way you know how. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's a waste of my time to debate with you as it stands. If you would have read the Bible you'd know that animal sacrifices are no longer necessary and haven't been since the death of Jesus Christ. Pardon me whilst I go bang my head on a wall. I'm gonna' restate this for like the umpteenth time (I swear you're the only person who still doesn't understand), but "Scientific proof" has no basis in arguing the existence of God or any other unknown, for that matter. This is because science is based on induction, and induction can only measure what's known rather than what's unknown. That is, we can only make conclusions based on what we've observed. This isn't to say that you can't have inductive arguments (Because you can), but rather that you can't turn those arguments into concrete statements. The fact that you constantly go back to the "God doesn't exist because science can't prove him!" fallacy even after I've explained to you time and time ago why such a stance is not only illogical but contrary to the scientific method is, mildly put, astonishing.

Two things here: 1.) You totally ignored the whole "Appeal to morality" thing, evidenced by the fact that you continue to A.) Use pejorative terms and B.) Misconstrue what I was actually saying. Which bring me to my second point. 2.) I believe the phrase is "All men are created equal". Not all cultures adhere to said premise, as some cultures require women to be subservient to men whilst in other children are seen as the property of their parents and are sold off in the the slave trade whilst yet, in other, people originating from outside the country are generally denied basic rights under the law etc. (See: Some of Latin/South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, most of southeast Asia and Russia). Just so you know >_> Existence is independent of proof. Things don't exist because you can prove them. They exist because they, well, exist. Normally, I'd avoid Wikipedia like the plague, but I CBA to write out a long, drawn out paragraph or two or three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence# ... _existence And, yet again, this entire blurb is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anything I've talked about thus far. *Sigh* I'm kinda' tired of saying this, but proof doesn't presuppose existence. Things will exist regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that they might exist. However, that's really a moot point. If the heavens opened rained blood, fire rose from the ground and a loud voice boomed "I am God", the atheist would argue that He's no longer God as now there's scientific evidence of his existence, at which point He becomes provable and is no longer God. Welcome to a few responses ago :wall: You just NOW figured this out? Anything can exist. Everyone knows that. However, some things which can exist won't exist. No one is debating that, either. However, most atheists make the claim (Or at least insinuate) that anything which can exist doesn't exist unless it's first proven or, in other words, because something which can exist won't exist then everything which can exist won't exist as well. That's a faulty assumption which has been disproved time and time again. Didn't we, like, already go over this? *Sigh* Oh well... One more time can't hurt. Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible. (There's a reason why religious beliefs are an admissable defense in a court of law.)

Well, your first line said you disagree with me so I assumed you disagreed with me >_>

Umm... Yeah. That was the argument prior to the 17th century. Black swans didn't exist as they were never observed. That's what I said. Yeah... I believe I said that. Yeah... I think I said that as well. You're just repeating things I've already gone over.

The Constitution is based on an axiom. You accept that axiom even though there's no logical reason to do as much, since it's simply an assumption (And assumptions can either be true or false) yet you claim it's illogical to accept religious axioms? Hmmm... I would ask how that works, but I'm afraid you'll simply misunderstand the question. Logical fallacy. Thomas Aquinas would call that an appeal to morality ;) Not all cultures would agree with the basic premises of the Constitution, just so you know. So black swans didn't exist until some European went to Australia and observed them? No, it's not 'bogus science', as you want to call it. Science is built on induction. It's not static. Scientific theories and principals change as new information is learned. Therefore it can only make conclusions about what it's able to observe (I go back to my alien example). Using your blue apple analogy, there's nothing to say that a blue apple doesn't exist and the mere fact that you've never seen one doesn't mean that no blue apple exists. It simply means that, of the apples you've observed, none have been blue. The only way you can say no apple is blue is to gather up every apple in existence and observe them all to make sure there is, indeed, no blue apple. You're missing the point. As I stated prior, a lack of evidence for existence is NOT the same thing as evidence of non-existence. Let's assume that Australia had never been 'discovered' by the outside world thus never allowing us to come into contact with black swans. Would thins mean that black swans don't exist?

I'm feeling like a broken record here. They're accepted as true because we believe them to be true. Hell, this point is further further accentuated by the statement "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I'm not trying to insult you here, but what aren't you understanding? If I took the Declaration of Independence to another country which doesn't share the same views as the United States and pointed to that phrase, chances are they'd ask me why those statements are true. I think you meant flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorn. Just saying... >_> Before the 17th century, all swans were believed to be white due to the fact that no one had ever observed a non-white swan. Of course, we all know how well that turned out, don't we? In case you didn't know, said argument didn't work out well as a black swan was later discovered in Australia. You see, it's impossible to argue the absolute truth "No apples are blue" unless you're able to observe EVERY apple in existence. The best you can say is that no apple has been observed to be blue. Such is the realm of science. A lack of evidence for existence =/= Evidence of non-existence.