Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
Posts
GreatRedSpirit
View playlists
Close
why can't we focus on the things that everybody agrees with in the bible
like that women are made from men's ribs
like that women are made from men's ribs
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
That's one for the tagline thread.
/snark
Wow, Urban Dictionary is enlightening.
I never knew you were invoking an apex predator. You are educated.
/snark
Wow, Urban Dictionary is enlightening.
The most dangerous creature in all the animal kingdom. A combination Shark-Snake (Snark) with a wingspan of over 8 feet! The Snark is capable of flying at speeds of up to 86.5 miles per hour, reaching altitudes greater than 15,000 feet. With its telescopic eyesight, it is able to locate prey from above 10,000 feet above its hunting grounds. The snark feeds primarily in coastal locations, but has been known to venture inland in search of prey. Feeds primarily on unsuspecting children, but is capable of taking down a full sized adult human. Also the Snark seems to have a taste for midgets (it is not known why at this time, but research is ongoing. Some scientists believe the excrete a pungent odor that attracts female Snarks in heat, while others speculate they have a "sweet tasting flesh.") The only defense against an attacking Snark is to run to the nearest Marine for help, they are defenseless against Marines. Though it has been said that Snarks are able to burrow underground, these "rumors" are unfounded.
I never knew you were invoking an apex predator. You are educated.
Dyhalto
7536
author=Kaliesto
I don't know about that. Atheism is considered more like a philosophy rather than a faith.
Nah, that's just what Atheists will tell you because they're holier-than-thou. Active disbelief in God is no less a faith than ardent belief in God is.
author=Kaliesto
On another note Buddhism seems to fall under philosophy as well from what Monks say, and less to do with Faith.
Yeah. They have the big proverb "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
During one's quest to attain enlightenment/nothingness (deep meditation), people sometimes have out-of-body experiences where they think the Buddha is communicating with them (similar to people claiming to speak to God). By "killing" him, you disregard that illusion and continue on your merry way to achieving nil thought.
So yeah, I'd argue that Buddhism would qualify as philosophy over faith :3
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
'Quoth the raven "Nevermore".'
You see, Edgar Allen Poe was a tortured man who spoke his pain through his art and was renowned for it. Anthony W of Runescape fame is much different.
This douchenugget took his undeniable hatred for all humankind and centered it into his work - "Olaf's Quest" - where you must make it across a slippery bridge to fight a boss in order to get a negligible reward. One misstep due to the RNG and the ridiculously high probability of failure will see you retracing your steps back up a mountain, into a cave and back to the beginning of the bridge. The game doesn't remember how far you progressed and ensure you don't fail up to that point again like a smart game/developer would, so you'll more than likely fail to get up to that point ever again.
I completed this quest once before in my youth (clearly before I became an adult with next to no patience for intentional bullshit) and I refuse to return to it after what just happened. Many attempts and two steps into the bridge and I... I just can't. I thought my head was going to explode. I'm pretty sure I got a crick in my neck because of how tense I made it when I lost my temper. It can't be that hard to make a game that doesn't suck. Even if you're trying to mess with people, there's a very clear line you don't cross and that's making the player want to put their head through a wall.
So here I am browsing Google, filling in word combinations that should provide very few if any results because it's so incredibly stupid/likely to go horribly wrong. I'm up to "bikini unicycle", and as was to be expected, perhaps one accurate result.
You see, Edgar Allen Poe was a tortured man who spoke his pain through his art and was renowned for it. Anthony W of Runescape fame is much different.
This douchenugget took his undeniable hatred for all humankind and centered it into his work - "Olaf's Quest" - where you must make it across a slippery bridge to fight a boss in order to get a negligible reward. One misstep due to the RNG and the ridiculously high probability of failure will see you retracing your steps back up a mountain, into a cave and back to the beginning of the bridge. The game doesn't remember how far you progressed and ensure you don't fail up to that point again like a smart game/developer would, so you'll more than likely fail to get up to that point ever again.
I completed this quest once before in my youth (clearly before I became an adult with next to no patience for intentional bullshit) and I refuse to return to it after what just happened. Many attempts and two steps into the bridge and I... I just can't. I thought my head was going to explode. I'm pretty sure I got a crick in my neck because of how tense I made it when I lost my temper. It can't be that hard to make a game that doesn't suck. Even if you're trying to mess with people, there's a very clear line you don't cross and that's making the player want to put their head through a wall.
So here I am browsing Google, filling in word combinations that should provide very few if any results because it's so incredibly stupid/likely to go horribly wrong. I'm up to "bikini unicycle", and as was to be expected, perhaps one accurate result.
author=Mirak
Looking for voice actors used to be so easy three years ago now i can hardly find people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpmUBFlS50
Gavaroc did a Let's Play of Hero's Realm a few years ago, and did many impromptu voices. Looks like he has a podcast for and about voice actors! Reach out to him.
author=GreatRedSpirit
speaking of mega man maker...
WHAT THE BLOODY FUCK, I LOVE THE INTERNET
Also, I am extremely happy that mario maker became a thing. It has already inspired several makers for other games like zelda and mega man, and I so look forward to seeing what other makers we get.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
But atheism isn't the rejection of the claim a god exists. It is the claim no god exists.
It's a very different thing to say: "You have not proven a god exists" than to say "No god exists."
The rejection of both the claims of a god existing and not existing is called agnosticism, and is fundamentally different from atheism in that it doesn't make a claim.
It's a very different thing to say: "You have not proven a god exists" than to say "No god exists."
The rejection of both the claims of a god existing and not existing is called agnosticism, and is fundamentally different from atheism in that it doesn't make a claim.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Jeroen_Sol
But atheism isn't the rejection of the claim a god exists. It is the claim no god exists.
It's a very different thing to say: "You have not proven a god exists" than to say "No god exists."
The rejection of both the claims of a god existing and not existing is called agnosticism, and is fundamentally different from atheism in that it doesn't make a claim.
This. Education.
author=Jeroen_Sol
But atheism isn't the rejection of the claim a god exists. It is the claim no god exists.
It's a very different thing to say: "You have not proven a god exists" than to say "No god exists."
The rejection of both the claims of a god existing and not existing is called agnosticism, and is fundamentally different from atheism in that it doesn't make a claim.
Exactly. As an atheist myself, I fully agree with this statement. I am 100% convinced that there is no such things as a god or other supernatural higher power. And while nothing I've experienced in my life so far has given me reason to doubt this viewpoint, I'm still fully aware that my belief is based on a claim that can never be objectively proven.
But it doesn't have to be. Because while comparing philosophies and faiths can be very interesting, ultimately I don't think it's what really matters. What does truly matter is that if your "spiritual" beliefs - whatever they may be - motivate you to be kind to your fellow living beings, that's awesome! And if they drive you to be an arrogant, judgemental jerk who bashes other people's beliefs to boost your own delusions of superiority, then you're making a mistake, regardless of what your faith is.
Also, for emphasis, this:
author=Dyhalto
Militant atheism is no better than militant (any religion)'ism.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Sated
Of course, this is a waste of time as "reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired". I'll stay comfortable in the knowledge that my "belief system" doesn't dictate that humans were "created" after the domestication of dogs...
The Young Earth proposition is disproven by the usage of "era of time" as opposed to 24-hour period in the original Hebrew. The Bible never claimed the Earth is only 6,000 years old, only that the genealogy of Adam dated back that far.
The Biblical account of Creation and the theory of the Big Bang aren't actually that far off when you really consider it, with the largest discrepancy being a matter of intelligent design versus astronomical chance. The fact that modern man came last (in the final era leading up to oral historical records) says enough.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
I'm not one to dispute Oxford dictionaries and argue semantics a lot, but disbelief and lack of belief are very different things.
Disbelief is the statement "I believe X is not true"
Lack of belief is the statement "I do not believe X is true."
If lack of belief is part of the definition of atheism, then agnosticism is a subclass of atheism, which doesn't seem right to me.
Purely out of interest, and not to "correct your opinion" or anything: If you've been using the Oxford definition of atheism so far:
Let's call disbelief in a god's existence "Hard atheism" and lack of belief in a god's existence "Agnosticism" or "Soft atheism". Do you agree that hard atheism actually goes further than denying claims by theists by stating its own claim, "No gods exist"?
Disbelief is the statement "I believe X is not true"
Lack of belief is the statement "I do not believe X is true."
If lack of belief is part of the definition of atheism, then agnosticism is a subclass of atheism, which doesn't seem right to me.
Purely out of interest, and not to "correct your opinion" or anything: If you've been using the Oxford definition of atheism so far:
Let's call disbelief in a god's existence "Hard atheism" and lack of belief in a god's existence "Agnosticism" or "Soft atheism". Do you agree that hard atheism actually goes further than denying claims by theists by stating its own claim, "No gods exist"?
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Satedauthor=CorfaisusThe bible claims that Adam was the first human and that his genealogy dates back ~6,000 years, so your claim is that humans only came about ~6,000 years ago.
The Young Earth proposition is disproven by the usage of "era of time" as opposed to 24-hour period in the original Hebrew. The Bible never claimed the Earth is only 6,000 years old, only that the genealogy of Adam dated back that far.
Based on available scientific evidence, my claim is that dogs were domesticated at least ~14,700 years ago.
These two statements clearly contradict one another. So just like I said at the start of all this, Christianity and science are not compatible with one another. Those who claim to "believe" both are lying to themselves about one or the other.
Genesis 1:27 mentions the creation of humans both male and female while the birth of Adam doesn't happen until Genesis 2:7. Adam was written as the first "of the dust of the earth", meaning he was separated by the others. Why? Perhaps by death as it's said "from ashes to ashes and dust to dust". Death didn't enter the world until the first sin, but that need not mean a mortal death but a spiritual death, where one goes to the "grave"* separated from God. These are two entirely different chapters, which if you've ever written/read a story, makes a shit ton of difference. Chapters are typically separated by relevance.
This would imply there was at least one entire civilization before the creation of Adam and Eve and the original sin that spelled their banishment from the garden of Eden. This would also account for why inbreeding is never mentioned or condoned in the Bible.
We can also assume that this is why Adam's eyes being opened was so astonishing, as he would've been chosen by God to start a new lineage that would extend forward through the founding of the children of Israel, the enslavement in Egypt, the Exodus and all other accounts leading up to the birth of the Son of God, Jesus. If he was the first then why would it matter? If there wasn't already so much at stake, starting over wouldn't be such a hassle. It wasn't until sin was so prevalent in the world (not even the jealous slaughter of Abel by Cain was enough) that God brought a flood upon the Earth and swore never to destroy the world again by flood, using the rainbow as a covenant.
Maybe you should read the first page of the Bible before quoting it?
*Sheol or Hades.
