You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
Professor Falken's Flamebate Posts
View Professor Falken's Profile- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next »
Search Results | ||
---|---|---|
3BP contest: MSPAINT freestyleNah, it’s MSPaint alright… I don’t even own Photoshop, let alone being able to use it. Also, it’d be pretty useless for making lo-res 4-color pixelart, wouldn’t it?
Paint will do that. Just try it out.
I actually took this image, resized it to fit, then spent a painful 30 minutes tracing the outlines and cleaning up the result. Seems like I succeded…
I don’t even know what that is. (view post) |
12/12/2008 | |
3BP contest: MSPAINT freestyleBreaking news: Forumwarz is just an adaption of an old GameBoy Jump’n’Run! Log in to see images!
Log in to see images!
****ty 2x version because I can’t figure out BBCode (thanks to AAHZ for notification):
Log in to see images!
(I spent entirely too much time working on this. But it’s 100% MSPaint.) (view post) |
12/12/2008 | |
Contest: Post for a chance to win 45 BPLog in to see images! (view post) |
12/12/2008 | |
is it just me or does is that ad have a girl getting fingered?Posted:
In more topic-related posts, I only get ads for “Deepolis”, “Florensia” and “Perfect World International”. No Adventure Quest. (view post) |
12/12/2008 | |
GOTO?!I suggest Malbolge. It’s got a really nice syntax and everything. This is what Hello World looks like:
(=<`:9876Z4321UT.-Q+*)M'&%$H"!~}|Bzy?=|{z]KwZY44Eq0/{mlk** hKs_dG5[m_BA{?-Y;;Vb'rR5431M}/.zHGwEDCAA@98\6543W10/.R,+O<(view post) |
12/11/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOODarkDespair5 Posted:
Nobody did. At least, nowhere I noticed. I also wasn’t proposed an eternity in hell. I wasn’t talking about this forum – the people here are quite awesome, really. I was talking about the good ol’ nutcases. (view post) |
12/11/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOOOh. What exactly is it you think is “bumerted without proof” there? “God” as a concept basically means “something beyond matter” (super-natural, if you will), and of course we couldn’t find definite proof for or against something “not made of matter”. It’s the same as with every philosophical thesis, really – you can argue ad nauseam without ever reaching an unchallengable solution.
King Krimson Posted:
I’d say there’s not much of a difference between both, really… they’re just obnoxious in different ways. As in, Theists say you’re going to hell, and Atheists call you a science-hater. (view post) |
12/10/2008 | |
New culture thread.Deutsch. (view post) |
12/10/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOOYou’re partially right there. There has to be something all those thoughts originate from – cogito ergo sum, as they say. And if you define “soul” as “where the thoughts originate from”, you do have a “proof” of sorts… for that definition. If you, however, give the “soul” any more attributes (a common one would be “immortal” ), all the quarrel starts again… whether or not we’re actually slaves of our brain chemistry or not and all that stuff.
OverclockedJesus Posted:
Then try understanding it next time, too.
OverclockedJesus Posted:
Nope.
OverclockedJesus Posted:
What? (view post) |
12/10/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOOMaybe you should bother reading the explanation. Agnosticism doesn’t create a mystery where there’s none. You cannot logically disprove the existence of “God” or whatever, since you can’t really know what “God” is. Full stop. (view post) |
12/09/2008 | |
The Official Forumwarz SurveyInego Loxy Ohearn Vixen Eerhart John Ian Za Za Posted: |
12/08/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOOYeah. Awesome, isn’t it? (view post) |
12/08/2008 | |
AGNOSTICISM WOO(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)
You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL. This is why:
You can not clearly and objectively define what these terms even mean. That’s a fact – just look at the sheer amount of religions, sects and interpretations. You’d be lucky if you get a matching definition from two people of the same religion.
If a theory can not be worded exactly, it can not be disproved (or proved, but you can’t prove a theory anyway). That’s a fact, too: How would you try to (dis)prove “X + Y = SOMETHING”? And if the theory you’re trying to prove is not objective… it’s the same with the data you find. If the basic underlining theory can be disputed and is open to interpretation… so is the evidence you can find. A “fuzzy” theory cannot be validated… or falsified. Boolean logic simply doesn’t WORK here.
We have no idea what “God” even is + We cannot do anything with an unclear defined theory -> Religious discussion from a rational point of view is ultimately futile.
QED. (view post) |
12/08/2008 | |
God doesn't exist you fools.Hm. Alright, I shall have a look. Here we go…
... alright. That website mostly just aims at SPECIFIC BELIEFS, not the CONCEPT of a “God” entity in general. Remember, when I say “God”, I mean the CONCEPT OF THE PRESENCE OF A SUPER-”NATURAL” (super-materialistic) ENTITY, not any specific deity described by some religion.
Here’s a more in-depth breakdown:
#1, #5, #10, #13, #14, #15, #16, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #25, #26, #29, #30, #32, #33, #34, #35 etc. exclusively deal with Christian beliefs. Maybe the views/arguments presented here are correct, sure, but “one religion might be wrong” doesn’t equal “there is no god, afterlife, soul or anything”. #2 is pretty rigid with the expected results, and focuses on Christianity. Also, if a deity really showed mercy, wouldn’t it rather give you a quick death and enjoyable afterlife rather than have you endure this existence any longer? Or something like that? #3 makes a good point, but it doesn’t prove anything. Not having found the correct alternative yet doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. #4 made me groan. Imagine you’re looking at a particularly complicated machine, and you’re trying to find an explanation as to why it works in the way it does. You could say “Well, because its creator made it so” and move on, or you could lean a little closer and find out the MECHANIC that makes it work. Both views are equally valid – just not equally useful – and “this cog moves that sprocket” DOES NOT disprove “the engineer made it so”. #6 has actually troubled philosophers for a long time (just with different examples), and gave rise to many outlandish theories of the “Best Of All Possible Worlds”. It still doesn’t disprove the existence of a “God” entity IN GENERAL, though. All it does is make a detailed masterplan AS DESCRIBED seem doubtful. #7 is right… basically. But “seeming highly unusual” (or rather, “borderline very special”Log in to see images! DOES NOT equal “wrong” or “impossible”. “Sensibility” or “common sense” doesn’t matter when you’re trying to scientifically prove or disprove a theory. Santa Clause IN THE DESCRIBED FORM can be scientifically / empirically disproved by investigating the North Pole and checking for presents to appear. “God” AS A CONCEPT cannot, since you can just choose the attributes so the data does not contradict it. #8: “Is this a direct proof that God is imaginary? No. However, it is a direct proof that the NDE (which many people use as “indisputable” proof that God and eternal life exist) has no supernatural meaning.” Nothing to add here. #9 is sort of like #2. Maybe it contradicts the beliefs about Christian prayers, I’ll give them that. The CONCEPT of a supernatural entity (“God”Log in to see images! or a soul or something still stands. #11 made me groan the second time. How do we know the deity did/does not leave any evidence? Maybe we’re just misinterpreting the data. Hell, if you take “God” only as a creator, the existence of the universe would be enough evidence. Again, if you choose “God”’s attributes right, these arguments fizzle. #12 is, again, somewhat centered around Christianity and the “clbumic” flavour of religion. Also, you could even answer this SPECIFICALLY, as its mostly a semantic argument. Maybe the word “magic” was just used as a crutch for us because our feeble minds simply can’t grasp the way “God” works in? #17 is absolutely correct: As with any theory whatsoever, you cannot prove that ””God” exists” is true. You can only try to find evidence for the contrary, which – for reasons described in my previous post – is impossible. #24 only proves that there’s a lot of morons to be found in every demographic, which is the sad truth. However, this doesn’t say anything about the issue at hand. #27 is just wild claims. You may not be able to prove the existence of a “soul”, but you also cannot disprove it. #28 is basically #3. Also: Maybe nobody found the right alternative yet, maybe “God” doesn’t benefit his/her/its/their believers THAT WAY, there’s also no evidence to the contrary that can’t be avoided by switching definitions, blah blah blah. “There is zero evidence that any of these gods exist” – yes. “That is how we know that they are all imaginary.” – NO! #31 aims at specific beliefs, not the concept in general. #34: See #31.
I could go on like this, but I’d just be repeating myself. Therefore:
tl;dr: Maybe you can challenge specific notions of “God” (e.g. Christianity), but the concept in general can’t be falsified or verified. That is to say, you can’t prove Materialism or Atheism to be correct.
God can be scientifically disproven, if his attributes are of the right kind… which is exactly where the trouble lies. Since you can give him/her/it/them any attribute whatsoever – including unmeasurable ones – how could you determine whether or not it exists? (view post) |
12/07/2008 | |
GOTO?!It’s been argued that no scripting language featuring a GOTO command should be counted as “high-level”, and I second that notion. But yeah, you could also say it should be counted as such since it’s one step above bumembler. (view post) |
12/07/2008 | |
Life in HeavenNewsflash – so is atheism. Go Agnostic, we have cookies. They taste like doubt and indecision. (view post) |
12/07/2008 | |
God doesn't exist you fools.You can’t prove the existence of a “God” either way. Thing is, there is no clear, objective definition of what he/she/it/they even is/are; the possible combinations are infinite, especially because they can include certain “fuzzy” attributes that can not be defined or validated either, such as “just” and “almighty”. And if you can give him/her/it/them any attribute whatsoever – including unmeasurable ones – how could you determine whether or not it exists? Even if you you try to analyse certain attributes – such as “answers prayers” – the result still is open to discussion. Sure, it seems silly, but even if you end up with data that appears to contradict the existence of a “God”, you can simply switch attributes or revise definitions or challenge to process or something like that, and the data doesn’t apply anymore.
End of discussion. Log in to see images! (view post) |
12/07/2008 | |
GOTO?!Exactly. BASIC = Log in to see images! (view post) |
12/07/2008 | |
Deliveries: Did I miss something?CeilingCat Posted: |
12/05/2008 | |
FACT: Forumwarz was made by a womanhappy pretty cookie Posted:
I’m not saying anything.
The facts, however… (view post) |
12/05/2008 |
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next »