Lurker > Wutobliteration

Tired-Insomniac posted...

The only thing stupider than Trump is a Trump supporter

'the only person' you mean

Cornmuffins posted...

...are you talking about a fade? That shit ain't "trending." It's been around for a long, long time wtf

i've never seen so many boys having that haircut like nowadays though

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

>post pictures of yourself on a board that has people who openly try to dox people and their families so they can be harassed

nope

uhhh, hasn't there been many topics before of people posting their pics here?

those who voted 4/5 and 5/5, dont be afraid to flaunt your majestic beauty by posting pics of yourself here!

i'm amazed. More people voted 4/5 or 5/5 as compared to people who voted 2/5 and 1/5.

WHO KNEW CE HAD SO MANY HUNKS AROUND HERE

LostForest posted...

I always thought a game about Jesus Christ would be a great idea, but it needs to be a legit game made by a competent designer. Is there anything more to this game besides "Press F to Miracle"?

Also, c'mon guys you don't post the last level in your reveal trailer.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1198970/I_Am_Jesus_Christ/

you do get to battle villians like demons it seems.

Key features:
- Open World
- Special skills
- Realistic fight with Satan
- Over 30 miracles like healing people, walking on water, calming storm, feeding people
- Baptising and getting super power of Holy Spirit
- Praying and increasing of Holy Spirit
- Crucifixion and Resurection

and much more...

<img src="">

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQLDdSy2cU

I thought the dev made it as some kind of mockery at first, but reading the steam forums (where the dev is active), it seems he's really legit serious about making this game an accurate depiction of the New Testament.
His rationale is if there can be a show, a movie about Jesus Christ, then why not a game too

DeadBankerDream posted...

Look at this classical creationist dumbo talking point.

you haven't answered my last question but here's another to (hopefully) make you more self-aware:
do you know what a creationist is?

also do tell me why exactly is inflation not a theory? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're thinking here or once again, ***ing BSing your way out of ignorance with half-assed one-liners.

Edit: Also your constant misunderstanding of scientific notions, like the big bang resulting from cosmic inflation, when it was the source of it. This type of language of pretending to understand science while having no clue about it is another creationist hallmark.

look i'm rpelying to so many people at once so was in a hurry typing that, but it isn't even a pressing issue nor the main point i was conveying. Inflation and the Big Bang are interchangeable in the sense that the inflation theory posits the sudden expansion as the driving force. Most scientists do take inflation theory at heart even though it's at best, still a theory. We settle at best what we have at least some evidence of until a better idea comes along with enough empirical evidence to displace.

DeadBankerDream posted...

?????????

I'm clearly not labelling you as a creationist. But if I were it would be because of your parroting of creationist arguments rather than to make you look stupid. You parroting creationist arguments does that well on its own.

Do you see me even once talking about Genesis and the creation of life interpretation given there as some factual truth? I'm not even talking about the Bible here. I'm talking about merely the existence of a deity in general. Please read up what deism is.

MudKip_Master posted...

Exactly, its merely the answer to how.

It's not even that.
We actually don't even know most questions of the in-between, when, what and how either. Let alone why (unless you deem that just a human concept requiring no explanation)

A lot of media has somehow convinced people that we know everything and the Big Bang came from cosmic inflation yet it's been so widely spread that all these have become a cemented fact to us when it IS NOT.

Most of the stuff in astrophysics are simply out of extreme extrapolation and can never be tested, nor falsified. We're literally believing in scientific theories just to comfort ourselves from an excuse of the unknown.

MyMainAccount posted...

There are a couple things the "unlikely" argument doesn't take into account.

1) We were not inevitable, the odds to us specifically don't need to be taken into account, just the odds that any form of life, even ones that cannot exist as the world is now might have come into being.

2) The amount of time it took for this to happen is staggering. If you thought about the longest amount of time you can possibly imagine the amount of time it actually took is longer. It's not like the universe looked behind three bushes and found life behind the third one.

The science behind it says that with enough time life isn't just not unlikely, it's inevitable.

If you want to get into an argument of time, then we can go back full circle by questioning what came before.
secondly, it's not so much a question of when, but a question of why.

If life is truly that meaningless and random and purely probabilistic, please give me your best theory on the Fermi Paradox then.

DeadBankerDream posted...

A lot of Derpstians seem to think this is a good argument. "Some people some time believed in the religious stuff they spewed even though it would seem there is no benefit in a scam. Therefore the religion is real"

It's such an absurd suggestion you just know the people using it as an argument has never even considered "maybe the same thing has happened in other religions?". Which, of course it did. Most if not all religions' history has a sea of martyr histories in their early days. Nevermind that I've never actually seen any atheist suggesting that Paul et. al were scammers rather than devout people who believed in a dumbo thing.

Edit: Nvm, judging by the dude's other posts he is (most likely pretending to be) a creationist, poorly paraphrasing the idiocy of Answers in Genesis, making shit up, and using wikipedia articles that flat out state that their neutrality are questioned at top as his only supporting source (that I had to look up myself).

tell me in what sense are they scammers for? You clearly know nothing about the early church. These people risked their lives to care for others. Not for any profit. Paul himself was a persecutor of Christians until he went 180 and became a Christians himself. Tell me for WHAT reason at all did he have to change and take the hard life of a Christian?

No, more of a deist but it's not like you've even heard the term let alone considered it. It seems far more convenient for you to label everyone that mentions the word 'god' as no, not even a Christian or Catholic, but a creationist, since so it sounds more mocking and makes you feel more fulfilled at your self-perceived self-informed status.

I respect atheistic scholars or just anyone in general who has taken the effort to review the knowledge of a religion they disagree with than just openly mocking it without respect and with sheer ignorance of the subject they're talking about. People like you specifically.

hockeybub89 posted...

Religion means a belief in God. We should not believe in something not proven. We really just shouldn't believe, period. Either we know something or its explanation does not yet exist.

there's some things out there that we can probably never ever prove an explanation for. But we do have a inking to believe in a possibility of the existence. So that doesn't mean you can disbelieve it either. Because disbelieving it means having a belief as well.

this is a logical fallacy as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A fully logical person takes an agnostism stance, not an athiest stance

Solid_Seb posted...

The existence of an unexplained phenomena does not indicate presence of a god (in other words, correlation does not equal causation). That's a very old argument: "If god isn't real then explain gravity!" Of course, by the same logic you can not disprove the intelligent design theory, but thats as much an argument against it than for it.

A fine-tuned universe IS an understood phenomena. Scientists KNOW the universe is fine-tuned. If so, then there has to be cause behind it. This is one of the biggest most controversial conundrums of all that scientists would rather whitewash away with excuses like anthropic reasoning and a multiverse

hockeybub89 posted...

Anything that isn't proven basically doesn't exist until if and when it is. If we have to consider God, then we also have to consider infinite other deities, and infinite unproven concepts as possibly real. That's silly and would drive you mad.

God =/= Religion
God =/= Religion
God =/= Religion

repeat this 100x until it gets stuck in your head. The possibility of existence of a god (intervening god or non-interventionist god) does NOT need to have anything to do with the various faiths and religions humans subscribe to today. This is the problem many people have today. The moment they think of god, they think of religion and the moment they think of religion, all the negativity comes out into their heads.
Someone can believe in the existence of a deity but not believe any religion. Ever heard of a deist? Charles Darwin was one.

Scientists looking from a purely objective view also consider this. Stephen Hawking wrote about his consideration of a god as well in his book The Grand Design iirc

philsov posted...

Only because we've disproven much of the old testament, and this is how they attempt to reconcile reality with scripture.

Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection.[8] According to the Old Testament Book of Jonah, a prophet spent three days in the belly of a fish. Medieval scholars believed this was an allegory (using the typological interpretation) of Jesus' death and his being in the tomb for three days before he rose from the dead.

The book of Jonah was set in ~750 BC written in ~450 BC. How can an allegory exist before the actual event occurs?

uh what?? That's exactly the point. Christians see the Old Testament as predicting the events that later arose in the New Testament.

COVxy posted...

I'd say the system of scientific induction and religiosity are two separate frameworks to understand the world and leave it at that. You can approach science religiously too, and that's bad.

that's a false dichotomy. Science and religion never had to be separated. But it's just the more we know, the more cocky we get and the less we'd like to think a god may be in control.

Humans absolutely hate what they cannot control. That much is a fact.

hockeybub89 posted...

Why do people act like an unprovable being with no hard evidence is real?

can we prove a multiverse? can we prove what lies beyond our cosmos? neither can we.

Scientists nowadays are also having to go into the deep end by disregarding falsifiability and empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the universe beyond our mere telescopes can observe.
And if so, it's kinda funny since it puts intelligent design back into the picture for consideration. The more physcists look harder, the more they have to accept a fine-tuned universe.

quote here:
Physicist Paul Davies asserts, "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because abiogenesis occurs frequently

How do you explain this fine-tuning if not an intelligent creator behind it?

Thoery #1: Aliens designed it!
Scientists: Yup! Yup! Who knows! Could be!

Theory #2: It's still all just randomness and luck we came to be! Universe doesnt allow enough chance for that? No prob, we're actually in...a MULTIVERSE!
Scientists: Yup! Yup! Who knows! Could be!

Thoery #3: God.
Scientists: NO. NO!! NO!! IMPOSSIBRU!!

philsov posted...

But I can say the goal posts are moved when creation was assumed to be literal truth until we found evidence otherwise, and rather than discarding the creation mythos we massaged it to be still accurate all along!

most modern Christians aren't creationists if I'm not wrong. They do take books like Genesis and Noah's Flood as allegories while New Testament books are taken at heart as literal.

some notes here
'Medieval scholars believed the Old Testament to serve as an allegory of New Testament events, such as the story of Jonah and the whale, which represents Jesus' death and resurrection'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible#Middle_Ages

Wewillrocku posted...

if you mean purposely (not purposefully) no you can't. lol

yes, you can. It's funny how the more scientists discover about the earth and our universe, the less we know.
What we do know however, is that it's INSANELY INSANELY likely for life to even form out of some random whammy thunder striking rocks out of a 1 gazillion of a chance of randomness and even a gazillion times unlikely of how the universe came to be. Change gravity by a miniscule amount and this whole universe would collapse. We don't even know what in the world is dark energy and dark matter which is the driving force behind our entire universe.
The very idea of how human intelligence formed is also fishy at best, with the only logical theory about us eating cooked food being kinda dumb as well.

It boils down to a simple question:
Do you seriously believe this whole universe and earth and life was born out of such pure randomness?

Is it unsicentific to attribute such unknowns to a god? of course they use the god-of-the-gaps argument but logically speaking, if our universe is deterministic (everything was known from the very get-go and the future is set in stone... which is actually indeed what scientists agree on... then surely there must be some intelligence behind this whole thing.?

Deadpool_18 posted...

Plenty of logic disproves most Abrahamic religions.

what's interesting though about the Abrahamic religions is that they're all centered on historical figures and events that did happen and did exist. Jesus and his disciples, Paul founding the early church... all these people DID exist. No reputable scholar denies this. And since so, the question to ask is why did they do what they did? The early Christians were heavily being prosecuted. They had no reason to advance their religion if it's all fake. A lot of the new testament are accurately written in its context of time.
I guess an athiest could pull back to the roots and ask, who exactly was Jesus really and why did he do what he did? Why would he tie back to the Old Testament for (which is the part of that is what's most contentious to many)?

it's kinda a weird paradox if you think about it. If Genesis literally explained everything about evolution and how life came to be and became diverse... then well... i think the entire world would be very different now

fun fact: they say people tend to perceive themselves as better-looking than others perceive them as...

vote

what rule would you impose?

-note: only one rule!

well... it made him rich

does that mean drugs are OK and healthy for you

EdgeMaster posted...

You pretty much described proximity in your first post OP, then went on to post 13 where you arent getting any ass.

Luck plays a role, but not a huge one. Sounds like youre admitting defeat and blaming luck lol.

I'm in a position where the only way to communicate w most girls I know or like is through text. Because we hardly ever get to see each other in person. And as y'know, not many girls like texting (and some may see it as unnecessarily creepy). How else do you get in touch with the person by talking physcially then? It's impossible.

ArchiePeck posted...

In shocking news, increasing the range of people you regularly meet (via socializing, hobbies, education or work) greatly increases the chances of meeting someone you are compatible with. Who'd have thunk it!

tell me how many kind of events you can go to where you can meet the person regularly or work together in the same team? Two people who liked each other could literally be sitting in the same class but because they were never given a reason to talk to each other (eg. working in the same team), no relationship is established.

El Mexicano Texano posted...

My relationship was 90% effort and 10% luck. I walked 1 hour and 30mins to see her and then walked the same amount of time back home, rain didn't stop me and I had to make time after school/work as well. I was walking back home around 10pm majority of the times and could only visit her at her house because of her strict parents. When she started working I would go have lunch with her at her work place which was the same distance. Very few times I got a ride and when I did I had to give gas money or buy food or help wash the car or repay with a favor.

but how did you establish the relationship in the first place? Surely you two must have been close friends before becoming attached?

Ultima Dragon posted...

Yeah, and any time I've ever been in a relationship I think, how did I get myself here? Or whatever, and I can never come up with an answer that would be able to help me the next time I'm single lol.

It's crazy. Even if you put yourself in a position to talk to a person, maybe you're tired or nervous or whatever and leave a bad first impression so you never get to know each other beyond that. Maybe you do get a first date and same thing, you don't make the cut. Most people are pretty low on patience and pretty unforgiving, you gotta get these things right the first time.

The thing that's most depressing to me is that I think virtually everyone just gives up and "settles." Everyone will give you the spiel about how "My husband/wife is my best friend and the love of my life, they're perfect for me in every way blah blah blah." I do love my girlfriend and we do pretty much everything together, but tbh we both have pretty different views and like vastly different things. There probably really is someone out there that is everything you find attractive in another person, likes all the same things you like, shares all your hobbies, etc. Maybe even many people.. you just either don't meet them or you don't get close to them. So you find someone that's good enough and call that love, because it's better than being alone and wasting your life hopelessly searching for "the one."

my standards are pretty insanely low already. I think it's luck enough I even get the chance to have daily interactions with a girl -_-

Umbreon posted...

I wouldn't say 100%

You need to put effort into it once it starts too.

yeah I mean getting into the relationship in the first place. That's really alot on luck

nowhere does it say they're trying it for the first time. You never heard of western food in Asian countries before?

I don't know how no one realizes this. Everything about relationships is entirely 100% based on luck, that is, the chance you get to interact with the person. I'm not referring just to romantic r/s but just friendships in general too. You may actually click well w someone you know but because the two of you never ever get the chance to interact with, you two never get to know each other thus the relationship never develops.

Even if two people happen to go frequently to the same group event (eg. a roadshow, a party, meeting, session, class, lecture, talk etcetc) , if the event does not actually allow time for mingling and socialising, then you're only 'so close yet so far'.
Of course you might suggest with technology, you can just text the person. Well, that only works if the person is familiar and comfortable w you in the first place. So if you try texting someone you hardly ever get to talk to, you'd just come off sounding like a creep. Sliding into DMs or whatnot, none of those work if you never get to talk much to someone in the first place.

so little boys sounding like mature hormones-pumping deeply voiced men is not creepy to you?

be warned. this is some serious r-rated stuff. Mods may get me anytime now

Choco posted...

Video unavailable
This video contains content from Constantin Film, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

try this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVaa6FXmbY

Coastal_elite posted...

Touch posted...

I just didn't like how it shit on a lot of the Greek myths

I loved the movie.

But yes, they make zeus so unlikable.

In that clip in OP, for example:


*3 immortals die*
Zeus: "lol, oh well, gotta keep fighting!"
*the girl dies*
Zeus: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! :*( :*( *Stops fighting* "pouts*

then he teleports with the girl's body and lets the other bodies rot.

aren't they related or something? which is why he cared more about the girl.

Anyway I loved how they made the movie have such a twisted ending. You'd think the gods would come down and save everyone for a happy ending but they also got rekted pretty bad. The villian was also a legit sadistic villian from start to end

the tunnel fight scene is the best and highlight of the movie IMO.

It's freaking insane. They cram two armies charging straight at each other inside a narrow tunnel

10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrUwjKUCQE

AvlButtslam posted...

The action scenes with the gods were cool. That's all I remember from it tbh

notice how the titans slowed down in time after they're killed. I always thought it was for mere effects until I found out it's actually a brilliant rendition of showing how they're actually fighting in super-fast speed and the movie is just normalising the pace of the fight in this way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S99kI_SDnoI

I can't believe it blew at the box office. This kinda s*** beats the Matrix out the water

the tunnel fight scene is the best and highlight of the movie IMO.

It's freaking insane. They cram two armies charging straight at each other inside a narrow tunnel

10/10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrUwjKUCQE (click to expand)

let it go.

konokonohamaru posted...

I'm very clearly an introvert though......

no that's being anti-social bro

because by today's definition of it, I'd say almost everyone are 'ambiverts' (another unnecessary term) anyway.
Introvert - someone who energises by being alone
Extrovert - someone who energesis by spending time w others

The problem is almost no one is at either extreme ends of the spectrum. If you actually like spending time all by yourself all the time, that's not being introvert, that's being anti-social. In the same way, if you actually like spending time with others all the time, you must be a super soldier or something since you aren't having any time to sleep/rest or go home.

In reality, people all need time to rest and also need time to socialise.
And so if almost everyone are just ambiverts, then why the hell do we even have the other two terms 'introvert' and 'extrovert' for? It's practically just popularising the habit of being A) anti-social loser or B) a redbull energy machine

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61IpsRz8RGL._SX425_.jpg

>'m black and was in Japan for a good two weeks and didn't experience an ounce of racism

the generalisation fallacy. One person's experience does not mean the consensus nor give you the call to judge an entire country. Neither is your experience spread across the whole of Japan was it.

you get the complete first person view experience, although the facial expressions are pretty dull. Way better than Witcher 3's trash recycled animations at least

whether on a discount or not