Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Computer over. Virus = VERY YES
  • Interests
    Nobody reads these

RuneScape Information

  • RuneScape Status
  1. 6 years. My predominant memory of things back then are ezarc's massive signature and the admin icon of a character in either full adamantite or adamantite and steel armour - can't remember which.
  2. I don't think you realise my purpose. It makes no difference to me what your opinion is, I was merely pointing out that by expressing such a flawed one you make yourself look like a moron.
  3. Are you proud of your ignorance or something?
  4. 2005 has been a poor year for games. The only decent contenders have been BF2, Farenheit, CoD2 and F.E.A.R. However, even they have their problems - BF2 no bots, Farenheit terrible graphics, CoD2 has samey gameplay, F.E.A.R. has unsatisfying weapons. Games need more originality. Not like that terrible new NFS game - exactly the same as NFSU 1 & 2 just a different layout and OMGZDAYTIME. One game that gets the thumbs up on this part, even though its a console/PC game is Stubbs the Zombie. It's original and very funny - "MY BRAAAAAAAIIIINS!", "What an ugly tie". 2006 just has to be good, what with Elder Scrolls Oblivion. People creating topics like this is bloody poor. If you're gonna create a "whats ur favourite " open topic then at least post your own bloody opinion.
  5. You said that it's been disproven - that means that someone did an experiment. He's just asking for a reference to the journal in which it was published - if it's a fact then I'm sure you'll have no problem pointing him to one... Or did you just believe it because you heard it from someone? Yeah I know I said I couldn't be bothered any more, but this isn't even on the subject.
  6. I am a theist... Yes, I think your beliefs are wrong too - just in different ways not relevant to this topic. I also don't know enough about your religion's structure to form a decent argument.
  7. That's because you should be using a Mach 3 Turbo Express Ultra XP Pro edition with service pack 5.333 recurring. Last year I couldn't be bothered to shave, so I kept a goatee and the rest was unkempt. This year I got a nice electric razor so it's done every day, though it has been very cold lately and my chin has felt the breeze so I may get one back. Back in college I had a goatee so long I could get most of it in my mouth. And I did, often. I ended up making a ponytail out of it.
  8. It isn't as simple as that, it's presenting one theory based on empirical observations, and another based on nothing more than what someone said once which can't be questioned. To question theories and attempt to disprove them is the only way to find out what is really true, and when one is not even formed empirically in the first place... Perhaps you should read my reply on the other religion topic, about the spartan meritocratic and baroque monarchical worldviews. When one is above question, how are we to ever progress in knowledge? Of course it can be tested, it's in line with the scientific evidence we have so far, and as new evidence comes to light it is constantly reevaluated. Just because you don't see on the news "evolution still valid theory: shock horror" doesn't mean that it's not subject to rational enquiry. On the other hand - Vatican accepts evolution theory. NO! The whole idea behind ALL the scientific theories regarding existence is that the time the world was created was NOT the beginning of time itself! It seems like all proponents of IDiocy like to ignore the fact that THE BIG BANG THEORY IS NOT ONE OF ULTIMATE CREATION. I guess it's because they find it difficult to understand that they aren't the centre of the universe. I can't be bothered any more, topics like this just sadden me, to see what the world is coming to at the hands of theists with blinkers on.
  9. The big bang THEORY is a THEORY based on evidence collected so far. What's more you have completely misrepresented it, in school we were taught about how the world came to be from this one event (hydrogen atoms & ions joining to form other elements, gravitational pulls between particles eventually causing build up of particles and eventually planets), and had you known more than a passing glance at the big bang theory, you'd know that it's not claimed to be one event - it's a cycle. However the arguer from first cause is not comfortable with the notion of an uncaused event (big bang, should you choose it as the start of the cycle) but are quite fine with uncaused entities (god). Yet within that lies another farce - how did said entity come into existence? Surely that would be an event. Pray tell, what did god do before he created the world? Sit around twiddling his thumbs? Typical of religionists to be egocentric in considering the time of our and our planet's existence to be the the very beginning of existence itself. Yeah real mature, try and stick your ill-thought-out knife in then ask that no one says more on the subject. Clap clap.
  10. That is not the issue, the issue is that they were going to FORCE creationism on the kids. No one ever said it was just down to that once incident. What about Bush claiming that america was founded on christian principles? Or what about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stating that the concensus that government is a minister of god "has been upset, I think by the emergence of democracy...It is much more difficult to see the hand of God...behind the fools and rogues...we ourselves elect of our own free will." What about the article "Way Too Much God", talking about Bush's inauguration ceremony - from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal: http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush_too_ ... n21_05.htm (not that you'll bother to read it) Those are just a few specifics. For more, just look at the power of the religious right in america.
  11. I went through a phase of using it, until it started seriously messing up explorer. I removed it then explorer was fine. I just can't be bothered with that hassle now.
  12. StyleXP isn't a skinning program, it's just a frontend manager for the native windows skinning. Basically it includes the patch to allow non-microsoft themes and a way of easily installing skins and icons.
  13. What you are talking about is called Pascal's Wager. First of all, it does not indicate what religion to follow - there are many mutually exclusive religions out there; if you believe in one of them you may end up in the hell of another. Implying that you have lost nothing by believing in a god is also wrong. Suppose you believe in something that is wrong - the true god may punish you for your foolishness. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." - that means that if you choose the wrong god to believe in then you will be punished. Also, saying that god is a 'safe bet' for atheists will not convince them to TRULY believe. They would just be saying they did. Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to consider worshipping. Now, onto my feelings on religion in general. Religion, for anyone who considers truth to be important, is an irresponsible option. Here's something I read about a while ago: Humans are ignorant. They don't know about life or how it works, and they want to know. The pusrpose of adopting a worldview is "to provide a basis on which to build an explanation and an understanding of the world". Which worldview we adopt plays a key role in our understanding of life and the facts of the world around us. These are the two worldviews: Spartan meritocracy This means that we assume very little (spartan) and each thing in our worldview is there only on its merits and is always up for questioning (meritocracy). Should we find something to be spurious, it is subject to enquiry and replacement should it turn out to be incorrect. With this worldview, facts can be investigated and our knowledge itself keeps evolving as we discard things which we have learnt to be untrue. Baroque monarchy This means that a large amount is assumed - a complex view of how things are involving god, the devil, angels, heaven, hell - a very exotic view (baroque). Also, you are not allowed to question that which is assumed, the assumptions stand as monarchs, they are there 'just because' and can never be replaced or subjected to rational enquiry (monarchy). Atheists adopt the spartan mertocratic view of the world, whereas theists adopt the baroque monarchy. Atheists question the world around them and are willing to accept facts from their observations, and consider all the evidence before making a conclusion which of course is up for questioning. The theist will assume a lot in the start, then will assume that they are right and will never question it. They will try and fit reality around their worldview. The desire to explain things is an admission of ignorance, so the starting point will always be infected with ignorance - it is inevitably wrong. So, we should be prepared to recognise it as such and to revise it when it is possible to increase its accuracy. Common sense says that the spartan meritocracy is the sensible position from which to learn about existence, in the quest for understanding it is clearly superior to the baroque monarchy. That's why anyone who cares about the truth, or about understanding the world they live in and existence as a whole, will realise that the baroque monarchy and theism in general is irresponsible. It is also worth noting that I say theism in general because there are religions which do not adopt the baroque monarchy - such as buddhism. It just means they are incomplete. We are still learning, yet theists seem to think they know the basis of life itself. If that's a fallacy, then how come other religions have sprung up in parallel, but with different specifics? That is also wrong. It is a view based on facts, or lack thereof. There are no 'facts' about religion, or else it wouldn't be a faith - however it is the lack of these facts from which atheists draw their conclusions. Basically the burden of proof is on the theists. To be honest, christians just listen to whatever the scientists of the day say happened and then say "oh yeah, that's how god did it". As time goes on, religion gets more and more childish. It's posts like this that prevent me being a frequent visitor here. I have shared my opinion, now I won't bother on this topic any more because it's just not worth it when only half the posters can pull their heads out enough to form a reasoned argument. And I don't meant just the anti-religion ones, because there's some stupid posts by them too just as there are some well formulated (notice I don't say intelligent) posts by the theists. It's a shame zealots like Bush give religion such a bad name, too.
  14. I think I registered on tipit original forums around April 01, before they had to move to Ruby's boards. The first thing I did was buy an adam square from Fook A Ji.
  15. Because looks are everything, regardless that the Atom costs a pittance compared to the others, would be much easier to maintain, and wipes the floor with them. I think folks like you are the reason our streets are filled with boy racers with fart pipe exhausts on their 1.2l supercars which look like they just drove through a halfords store, all crowding round "maccy D's" like it's some sort of mecca.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.