Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/16/13 01:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/16/13 03:11 AM, poxpower wrote: One it true, the other is false.

Since when did ever that have any bearing on an emotional issue? If you have ever spent time with a girlfriend or wife you would very clearly know that being right doesn't make you right when it comes to emotional issues. Religion is an emotional issue (meaning that religion exists almost entirely within the realm of emotion, not logic).

You speak as if no one has ever thought to justify - or feel justified in - their emotions, as the derivative of an antecedent reality. It is in the expression of the emotion or corresponding truth that the problem lies. That it may be *inconsiderate* (or as you deliberately and misleadingly put it: not right) to call that truth a farce, is beside the point of whether or not it is a farce. The dismissal of veracity in light of emotion is a red herring to the issue of veracity.

Your particular use of the argument begs the notion that one can only just be offended, but not offended by something - as to lay claim to a cause for offense would be to implicitly claim that a truth, as a truth, has bearing. Returning to the matter of red herrings: offense without something to be offended by would be unreasonable.

Girlfriends can be unreasonable when they get emotional.

And religion does not almost entirely exist within the realm of emotion. It is readily expressed in terms and concepts less abstract than mere feeling. It's mythologies are comprised of people, places, events, ... all things that can be dealt with in the realm of logic.

Whether something is considered true does have bearing on whether one finds consolation or suffers distress.

Whether something offers emotional support does not implicitly render the judgement of its veracity wrong.

At 6/17/12 08:08 PM, KeyserSozed wrote: Animals and humans are not, by nature, moral, especially in an evolutionary sense.

Is this meant to read as follows?

"Animals and humans are not truly altruistic."

Is it equivalent to say that something is only moral (by nature) if it is "truly altruistic"?

Or is this "true altruism" thing one big fat red herring?

At 5/30/12 11:23 AM, Ericho wrote: I am in fact a Christain. I admit that it would probably take me a long time to really explain what I mean by that, in the same sense it would take awhile for Trey Parker of "South Park" to explain what he means when he says he's religious. He said something that basically sums up my feelings, which was of all the ridiculous religious stories, he thought the strangest was that life had no meaning. I'm pretty much the same way. Let's just say I'm religious and Christian and leave it at that?

Um no. Let's not, because you didn't.

I can't believe, after years, you're still making an incredibly insulting use of that quote, and still have the nerve to pair it with a smiley face, as if nothing you've said is in any way demeaning.

Smiley face emoticons don't make you a nice guy, and what you say makes you a prick.

At 6 minutes ago, Dogmeat wrote: Umph... If only I had plastic money...

There's been some talk on the NMA forums that Amazon will accept pre-paid cards as well, if you can get your hands on one of those in the next couple of weeks. Wirecard was specifically recommended as it apparently has no monthly fee, but the website looks a little sketchy to me.

This thread is bigger than just one game. This thread is about voting against the DRM crap AAA publishers have been force feeding legitimate gamers, and this isn't one of those make-ur-own-pointless-online-petition type gigs either.

In an attempt to escape the negative influence of major publishers, InXile entertainment has decided to contract with you, the gamer, to raise the capital necessary for a true-to-form and 'next gen' sequel to the original post-apocalyptic RPG, Wasteland. If you're familiar with Fallout, Wasteland is the game that started it all.

And InXile is making sure to assemble the great minds behind Fallout and Wasteland for this sequel, including InXile founder and game designer himself, Brian Fargo (who's also responsible for Bard's Tale, Descent, and Fallout).

Most importantly...

THE GAME WILL BE DRM FREE.

InXile will be taking donations via Kickstarter, starting any day now, and continuing for 30 more days.

Even if you don't like RPGs, or post apocalyptic themes, this is your chance to vote with your money, the thing publishers really care about, to show them you don't want DRM ridden games crippled in the name of anti-piracy.

The minimum pledge as of the creation of this topic is $15.

***

More information on No Mutants Allowed

Updates from Brian Fargo's Twitter

Wasteland 2 Forums

***

(Disclaimer: I do not work for, nor represent, the positions of InXile, Kickstarter, or No Mutants Allowed.)

At 6 minutes ago, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 5 minutes ago, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2 hours ago, Painbringer wrote: Thoughts?

Doesn't a pentagon give you an 11 sided prism?

I mean 11 sided regular polyhedron.

Never mind.

At 5 minutes ago, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2 hours ago, Painbringer wrote: Thoughts?

Doesn't a pentagon give you an 11 sided prism?

I mean 11 sided regular polyhedron.

At 2 hours ago, Painbringer wrote: Thoughts?

Doesn't a pentagon give you an 11 sided prism?

At 4 days ago, Camarohusky wrote: It ain't as easy as you think.

A better dichotomy, and one the puts two important values at odds, is freedom v. community.

I'm not so sure about that dichotomy. According to the ideals of each system, I buy it. But in application both systems tend to favor select communities and provide freedoms to select individuals. In application, it's more a matter of what community gets what freedoms.

At 9/29/11 05:10 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I never said it had to be my God, I simply stated any diety

So then... Mercury it is.

I don't actually endorse Plantinga's "ontological" argument, but...

At 9/3/11 07:30 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Possible, but improbable.

It's relative probability is however irrelevant.

How do you know that? How do you get to this conclusion from your previous assumption?

It's a rather fundamental modal expression. In modal logic, to say that something is possible is to say that, among an array of possible worlds, there is one in which the claim is true.

Wow, it's like you increased the "pulling shit out of your ass" part of your baseless assumption #2 by 1000%

Actually, this step is tautological. It's rather the opposite of pulling shit out of nowhere. Actually, the premise in step 3 is excessive for the conclusion drawn.

It is useless for me to even bother with this shit, since I already proven the previous statements to be wrong, it's not the firs time I see it it has been debunked billion times before.

Well... Kant did it in the 18th century. And he did it without shitting all over the concept of modality.

I've got a fun one from Dr Craig...

(Preface) A maximally great is a being ultimate in all metaphysical notions (omnipresent, etc).

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exist in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.
4. If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, it is said to exist.
6. A maximally great being (necessarily) exists.

At 8/7/11 11:25 PM, Proteas wrote: Then that would be a conclusion you chose to draw based on your knowledge of me as an individual, not on anything that I intended to convey in this topic. If I had started this topic as a known agnostic, would your conclusion have changed?

Bullshit. You didn't forget your opening paragraph, and you are not oblivious to the negative connotations of apathy, solitude (or loneliness), an end to one's existence, or an end to one's legacy. And as much as you want to hide behind innocuous phrasing like "how you feel," you weren't careful enough to keep from phrasing it alternatively as "how you deal."

Given the gratuitous introduction, colorful snark throughout, and punchline, exactly why am I to take your questions as anything but emphatic rhetorical expressions, or this thread as anything more than an artfully passive swipe at atheism?

At 8/2/11 07:35 PM, Phantom-pen wrote: haven't read the entire thread yet, a lot to get through - but reading so far I've noticed a great omission in the skeptical atheist point of view, and that is the abuse of reductionism in there arguments.
Reductionism is an intellectual device to keep a scientific idea simple so as not to bog down facts with mind numbing details, so initial yet important ideas can be taught and understood (with the understanding that there is more in the details).

The irony here is that (I'm fairly certain) you wouldn't say you're abusing the notion that there is more in the details.

At 8/2/11 02:02 AM, GamesArmor wrote: Facts cannot be disputed because they are facts. One may claim that something is a fact, but that does not make it so. Facts are not disputed, their legitimacy is.

All you did there was abstract the dilemma, not resolve or circumvent it.

At 8/2/11 01:56 AM, Chumbawamba wrote: I'd much rather be buried underground without casket whenever they tire of seeing my corpse.

But above the frost line. For shits and giggles later down the road when they might miss you again.

At 8/2/11 01:44 AM, YEC wrote: I wont even bother retorting to that. Instead I'll just second a previous statement.

If facts cannot be disputed, how can science ever revise itself?

At 8/2/11 01:19 AM, YEC wrote: Opinions you moron

Since opinions are by definition not proven, and since it is valid to have opinions, then you cannot dispute an opinion. Simply, an opinion isn't a fact, so you can't hold facts against it.

because in no way shape or form are they proven true, therefore there's room for anyone to debate/dispute them.

My my aren't you the cutest little danger to modern science and critical thought.

Those who survive me are the ones that need whatever they need to feel better about the whole thing, and if that involves doing religious things with my body then so be it.

Opinions? You can't dispute opinions! See, cause, they're personal.

Facts? You can't dispute facts! See, cause, they're already proven true.

So, uh... what can be disputed?

common non-sequiturs for the win

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: natural selection [...] is the mechanism of evolution, as I understand it.

Is this is a grammatical slip (error)?

At 7/29/11 07:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

If you really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're an idiot.

If you really believe my reply to your reply to my post had anything to with idiocy, you're a moron.

Well... seeing as I said I didn't think it 'had to do with idiocy,' I guess I'm not a moron...

... on that account. ;)

Given the dismissive nature, repetition of words and phrases, accompanied by a smiley face (of clearly sarcastic intention given the negative connotations of the words it accompanies), I'd say this is an attempt at wit. But if I said that, well, you'd tell me it isn't and that there's no wit needed when talking to me etc etc. I get the game. I make a point. You divert. I call it out. You divert. We end up on some other topic about who's stupid or irrelevant or dishonest. Yawn.

It's not that I don't believe you had something to say, it's that you didn't. Got it?

So there was no point to my telling you to be careful with your articles? You wouldn't say that such a statement would imply that I might object to your particular use of one - maybe the only one in a portion of text I quoted from you as preface to the 'smarmy cunt' comment?

I'll answer for you, without your flare: 1. There was no point. / 2. You would not.

However, you'd be lying on both accounts. So the question is now...

Are you prodding me to get me to be less passive and more explicit, or are you just insulting me?

That's your queue to not answer the question and come out of left field with something else.

At 7/27/11 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Be careful with your articles.

Or else I won't get an A?

If you really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're an idiot.

If you don't really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're weaseling.

Would I be right in assuming the latter is actually the case here?

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Right, through natural selection; which is the mechanism of evolution

Be careful with your articles.

At 7/27/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: corroborat[ion]

And should you establish a relevant dichotomy, the complementary element would be?

Camarohusky, [ copy pasta: ] A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

At 7/25/11 02:31 AM, X-Centurian wrote: /= I feel like i'm writing an essay so i'm gunna stop, and to avoid anymore conflict i'm going to stop coming back to this thread, I was only speaking my mind after all.

Respond to a fraction of my charges against you, the ancillary or lesser, without acknowledging the actual contradictions being highlighted, by restating a sentiment you'd already well established - and do it all under the guise of brevity and persecution.

Nice.

At 7/25/11 01:17 AM, X-Centurian wrote: I just ask you don't put me down for it.

You know what I'll put you down for? Bullshit.

Like going from "since [I gave up God], I have fought for giving humans more rights that the state takes away because of religion" to "I'm living it as if religion never existed". Blatant contradiction. Really, now, what would be so different about the way you live your life if you lived it as if religion had or does exist? Never mind that you full well acknowledge the existence of religion and describe your (as you assure us very rebellious and individualized) reaction to religion. Would you have to man up and tell your parents?

I'm all for celebrating achievement, but not so dishonestly.

How about these labels? Are you an individual? Are you human? Oh shit. You fit into a category (two!). See, you're inclusion in some groups is not dependent on whether you want to be associated with them. Atheism and agnosticism happen to be that kind of group.

I'm all for celebrating individuality, but not so dishonestly.

Inquisitiveness, individuality, rebelliousness, being able to take matters into your own hands, learning from mistakes yourself. Are these things virtues? Are these things lacking in the religious? Careful now; remember what you said, "I think I have become stronger since I gave up religion."

I'm all for celebrating one's pride, but not so dishonestly.

At 7/8/11 11:01 PM, EpicFail wrote: I know people in Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous find God through that sometimes

Hmmm... new slogan idea...

You may not find sobriety, but at least you'll find God.