Lurker > Wutobliteration

as much as I like Keanu Reeves taking up the stunts himself...he's just not really a hand-to-hand fighter. The gun fights aren't as realistic as JW1 also. Kinda ridiculous how all the soldiers are just charging straight at him like in a shooter game

ViewtifulGrave posted...

wait, what? wasn't Thor with Mjonir in Endgame?

funnily the ultimate edition costs $3 while the normal edition costs $5 so I bought the former instead. I can't play the multiplayer (but it's prob dead anyway) so how's the campaign like?

just drink Coke Zero or some other diet soda.

Problem solved

there's a difference between an intellect and a pseudo-intellect. Unfortunately Kojima falls in the latter. A writer using BS plot devices and illogical s*** for twists and turns is not smart writing.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Kojima already revealed the story premise and it looks as simple as it gets.

Lol this is the first time anyone has described this story as "simple"

People have created "Walls" and become accustomed to living in isolation. Death Stranding is a completely new type of action game, where the goal of the player is to reconnect isolated cities and a fragmented society. It is created so that all elements, including the story and gameplay, are bound together by the theme of the "Strand" or connection. As Sam Porter Bridges, you will attempt to bridge the divides in society, and in doing create new bonds or "Strands" with other players around the globe.

i don't know how complicated to understand this must be to you

I'm guessing you havent seen any of the story trailers.

oh you mean that trailer full of disjointed scenes and an abhorrently try-hard edgy narrative? Yeah wow so deep.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Kojima already revealed the story premise and it looks as simple as it gets.

Lol this is the first time anyone has described this story as "simple"

People have created "Walls" and become accustomed to living in isolation. Death Stranding is a completely new type of action game, where the goal of the player is to reconnect isolated cities and a fragmented society. It is created so that all elements, including the story and gameplay, are bound together by the theme of the "Strand" or connection. As Sam Porter Bridges, you will attempt to bridge the divides in society, and in doing create new bonds or "Strands" with other players around the globe.

i don't know how complicated to understand this must be to you

let's be honest, people only give a s*** about this game 'cos it's by Kojima. Otherwise, it'd be another walking simulator that video game critics would give 5/10 or something

Kojima already revealed the story premise and it looks as simple as it gets. Dunno why you need to market it like some kind of artistic masterpiece with 100 hidden messages or something.

I wont judge by the gameplay since I still have no idea wtf it's about but I'm more astounded by how silly the game is marketed. Looks like a story that's actually simple but made overcomplicated by a whole bunch of silly disconnected scenes and a super abstract narration that tries to lump all the cool words in a single sentence.

seriously, if this wasn't made by Kojima, the game would prob be getting more criticised, right?

Paper_Okami posted...

he'd be a bastard for allowing the world to be like this

tell me what a world would look like without flaws then.

I think questioning God's existence simply because of what we see in the current state of the world is ignorant.
Also you're assuming a kind altruistic God, so that's your limited impression of what a God only should be. Altruistic. And thus your bias clouds and reinforces your belief that a God can't possibly exist.

But what if you think of any God, not only limited to one such as from the Abrahamic religions?

Smashingpmkns posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Asserting that something exists because you can't disprove that it doesn't deserves the applause.

Since when did I say that?

I was pointing out the opposite.

'Asserting that something' does NOT exist. See the word there 'asserting'? Do you know what 'asserting' means?

Fucking lol

this is what users say when they have nothing else to say but still need to reply something...anything... just to acknowledge they haven't given up on the argument

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Because you're asserting a claim that you cannot actually prove either. Saying God isn't real is the same as saying God is real. You can NOT prove either.

Any atheist who does that is making an unwise move. They should never assume the burden of proof.

yeah, that's why most self-proclaimed athiestic people are either agnostic athiests or agnostic thiests (the latter is EXTREMELY rare )

DuranOfForcena posted...

@Wutobliteration

just curious, what do you think of people who don't think the Greek gods exist? do you think we should all just be saying "i don't know whether or not the Greek gods exists, there's no proof for or against their existence" instead?

DuranOfForcena posted...

@Wutobliteration

just curious, what do you think of people who don't think the Greek gods exist? do you think we should all just be saying "i don't know whether or not the Greek gods exists, there's no proof for or against their existence" instead?

It's common today to acknowledge Greek Gods don't exist because of what we now know of the skies, sun, weather etc.
The reason why certain religions continue to persist today are due to how it spread throughout history and how much the religion can fit in the context of our current understanding of the world. Like Christianity is a strong religion due to its flexibility and belief in the omnipotence of God, no limited to any one thing like seas, sun or whatever.

But like everything in life, we can never be 100% sure of anything. Yes, we can never 100% believe in anything, not even that computer screen you're staring at right now. We could be living in a matrix for all we know or maybe you're the only one actually alive in this world and everyone else are holograms or aliens or something
.
'I think, therefore I am'. This famous quote pretty much sums up philosophy. We have reason to doubt everything, including our own existence, simply because we exist in the first place to think and thus, to doubt. The extent of doubt however, would lie in whatever we consider as hard enough evidence to reduce such doubt. Like humans once believed in a unicorn. Now our doubt has gone up to 99% or so, but logically, it should not be 100%

Without such logic for us humans, there'd be no such thing called philosophy. That is, questioning what we do NOT know because we cannot prove we know we don't know.

Only an ignoramus (wanted to use the i-word but the mods here would kick me)would think he knows what he doesn't know.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Asserting that something exists because you can't disprove that it doesn't deserves the applause.

Since when did I say that?

I was pointing out the opposite.

'Asserting that something' does NOT exist. See the word there 'asserting'? Do you know what 'asserting' means?

Smashingpmkns posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Imagine saying all of this:

Wutobliteration posted...

Athiesm technically is not a religion but CAN purported be said to be religion. Why?
Because you're asserting a claim that you cannot actually prove either. Saying God isn't real is the same as saying God is real. You can NOT prove either.

Then saying this:

Wutobliteration posted...

Anyone who understands 'burden of proof' would know.

facepalm.
I don't think you know what burden of proof is,do you

Russell's teapot, Occam's Razor etc. Philosophy 101.

come, let me clap for you.

ThyCorndog posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

What happened to that deist thread I created the last time. Was so fun whacking down every single user on this board to finally admit they're all deists or agnostics.

I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't know whether or not a god exists but I don't believe in one. I guarantee you don't have any reasonable argument to "smack down" anyone with that position

That in general, still makes you an agnostic. Perhaps yes, you're leaning more to the other, but it makes sense for you at least, to keep an open mind to what is unknown.
Unicorns could have existed for all we know somewhere in history. Who the hell knows. Like we don't even know the real colors of dinosaurs because fossils don't exactly tell us that detail. Who knows, maybe there were bright pink T-rexes walking the earth.

Dismissing something on groundless evidence however, is being the ignorant one. A lot of athiests tend to sway their positions once you drill some common sense logic into their brains. Only those too dogmatic and giving up their common sense would remain as 'hard athiests'

What happened to that deist thread I created the last time. Was so fun whacking down every single user on this board to finally admit they're all deists or agnostics.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Imagine saying all of this:

Wutobliteration posted...

Athiesm technically is not a religion but CAN purported be said to be religion. Why?
Because you're asserting a claim that you cannot actually prove either. Saying God isn't real is the same as saying God is real. You can NOT prove either.

Then saying this:

Wutobliteration posted...

Anyone who understands 'burden of proof' would know.

facepalm.
I don't think you know what burden of proof is,do you

Athiesm technically is not a religion but CAN purported be said to be religion. Why?
Because you're asserting a claim that you cannot actually prove either. Saying God isn't real is the same as saying God is real. You can NOT prove either.

Anyone who understands 'burden of proof' would know.

Dyinglegacy posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



No one said atheism is a religion. Jesus dude, I thought atheist were supposed to be smart brains?

Oh well, whatever. Peace.

no, the smart ones are called 'agnostics'. Unfortunately most people are actually too ignorant to realise they're agnostic until you ask them to prove God doesn't exist.

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

Is there a God?
Science: maybe, we won't know until we find evidence
Deism: yes, no proof needed.

There's a difference.

that's not science you wrote on.
God is not falsifiable, testable and thus, outside of the scientific realm. The correct way to write is:

Science: the supernatural is unexplain-able thus, no hypothesis and efforts shall be made to explain it.

Deism: yes, a supernatural creator exists but we cannot explain it and never will be able to.

or...

A completely open-minded rational person who isn't subjected to the bias-ness of human nature but will prob be very lost in life:
everything and anything is possible. A god may be real or false. The Big Bang may be real or false. Nothing can be fully said as true 'cos maybe we could all be living in a matrix for all we know.

sorry, but both perspectives above (ignoring the third) is a biased perspective. The funny thing is, we see science becoming more and more toward breaking its own laws on falsifiability. We cannot prove abiogenesis, nor a multiverse nor even the big bang 100%...unless we could travel back in time and observe it really happening. I think multiverse is the biggest stretch though. It's literally scientists making up their own new religion.

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

You're seriously misusing that word. There's a difference between acknowledging the possibility of something and requiring one specific answer to an unproven question as the basis for a belief.

it's not. It's just being philosophical. The latter you raised can be applied to both sides, and to everything. And it's wrong to say it's a specific answer. It's not one specific answer. It's a never-ending answer till it reaches a final source that only ends the never-ending if it is by itself, never-ending to begin with.

I'd like to say, humans are all hypocrites. No matter how smart you are. It's just a matter how us realising and admitting it.

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "evidence of absence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.

but that's it, you assuming science is in itself, boundless and can keep advancing. See, all of us are hypocrites. And what's worse, the question of 'why?' will keep remaining. Even if scientists somehow...manage to miraculously create life out of non-living matter, it still begs the question, 'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?' and neither will it disprove the existence of a god being behind the creation of creation. Even if we somehow find an intelligent alien life 1000 years later, it still begs the question, 'who created us?' or even the alien says 'I created you, bro', the alien has to ask, 'but who created me?"

and a creator would be, by right, boundless, because like the argument that goes... 'who created god?' can be matched with 'god is infinite'. In the same way, you could ask 'what created the universe?' and the athiest can only reply back 'the universe is infinite.'

Is it an impossible-to-refute stance? yes it is. But is it an impossible stance? No, it's not.

Not quite. I am not assuming that science is boundless, but rather that the pursuit of science has an as of now unknown bound. It's a subtle but important difference.

Also, it's an unreasonable assumption to believe that there is a "why" for everything. If your worldview requires a God to bypass the possibility that some things just "are", then that is a human limitation and not a scientific one.

and what if it is NOT the case that some things just ''are''? You see how hypocritical we all sound? It's basically the same for how science would rather bypass the question of 'why' when it's too inconvenient when there could be a possibility of a 'why'

AdviceMan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?'

The deist position does not answer "why". you have to still ascribe motivation for why this unintervening god did it.

but once you know why the god did it, you literally have the answer to life and the universe.

AdviceMan posted...

Deism isn't popular for a few reasons.

1. It's inherently an unfalsifiable position. The deist and the atheist have effectively the same position. The atheist posits that there is no god or there is no reason to believe in one, and the deist posits there is a non-intervening god. A god such as that might as well not exist.

2. The deist position still has the trouble of distinguishing god from a physical force. So from a deist perspective, it still ascribes motivation and agency to the creator of the universe. Once again, no reason whatsoever for this. How do they distinguish it from just a phenomenon?

3. Any philosophy utilizing a deist outlook on life effectively ignores god anyway. So even if you are a diest, there is no real reason to ever talk about it, because god is a non-factor in literally anything observable. Thus you won't have people picking up from other thinkers because serious deist thinkers don't talk about their deism.

Basically deism is theism without the warm fuzzy feeling of being special. It's more LIKELY than theism, purely because of the fewer amount of assumptions you have to make, but there is no reason to believe that it is a better or closer philosophy than weak or even strong atheism. And with none of the mental benefits that theism can possibly provide, it's really is a belief system not particularly worth mulling over.

you make a case, but deism is pretty flexible. One might believe in a god that can never be known or communicated with. But another might believe in a god not associated with any of mankind's religions but may also be discovered one day (what god that is is currently up to your fantasy). But for the latter, it's no longer god being an empty representative of things like dark energy but a separate entity entirely existential on its own.

It's like saying 'a unicorn could exist!' versus 'a unicorn could exist out there and we could discover it!'

the latter, is just a matter of us actually trying to do that. Unfortunately none of us know how that would work.

Dyinglegacy posted...

When I became atheist/agnostic, I def was not happier for it. I know the usual story is that ex theists are now much happier, but that is not the case with me.

I feel an emptiness now, where before I was happy and content with my god and beliefs.

because maybe it's better to live in a possible delusion than not live in one. Of course if everyone were to do that, wouldn't we be in the Dark Ages again

s0nicfan posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

God of the gaps is less of a fallacy and more a methodology. Yes, science can't always prove the absence of something, although "evidence of absence" can be used to rule out the possibility. The point is that it will be impossible for you as a deist to explicitly define the bounds of what this God is capable of that is beyond science, because in a hundred years or 500 years or a thousand years science may discover new founding principles that break those boundaries. But without creating explicit bounds on your creator, it is nothing more than a collection of unanswered questions.

but that's it, you assuming science is in itself, boundless and can keep advancing. See, all of us are hypocrites. And what's worse, the question of 'why?' will keep remaining. Even if scientists somehow...manage to miraculously create life out of non-living matter, it still begs the question, 'why? why is the universe just so happen to be ripe for life forms?' and neither will it disprove the existence of a god being behind the creation of creation. Even if we somehow find an intelligent alien life 1000 years later, it still begs the question, 'who created us?' or even the alien says 'I created you, bro', the alien has to ask, 'but who created me?"

and a creator would be, by right, boundless, because like the argument that goes... 'who created god?' can be matched with 'god is infinite'. In the same way, you could ask 'what created the universe?' and the athiest can only reply back 'the universe is infinite.'

Is it an impossible-to-refute stance? yes it is. But is it an impossible stance? No, it's not.

SquantoZ posted...

The fear of ceasing to exist is incredibly real and people cling to religion for that. I'm not religious and believe in Deism and even I'm horrified of death simply due to my consciousness no longer existing.

it's a very real fear. Without meaning to our lives, we lose sight. You can be happy 24/7 but without an end goal, you'll eventually get depressed at some pt in time. Religious people cling to their religion to find meaning. It's also why athiests struggle more with finding some path to satisfaction.

Garioshi posted...

I know what deism is

a lot of people are deists without realising it. It's just a matter how proding them and getting them to say 'oh, yeah it's a possibility too'. And suddenly you don't feel like attacking religion that much anymore.

How many people are truly hard athiests though?

ChrisTaka posted...

Tl;Dr

God is a person and a term.

tldr; god =/= religion.

simple words but completely changes your perspective on how you view everything

s0nicfan posted...

What you're describing has a name. It's "God of the gaps"

I know that's still the valid argument against deism (and pretty much the only one honestly...) and y'know what...'god-of-gaps' argument does make sense in that by conceding to a supernatural possibility, you won't advance science that way. Science is always about finding the unknown.

BUT the 'god-of-gaps' argument as a fallacy can also be said to be a fallacy by itself since it's attempting to rule out a god as a possibility in the first place. Which you can't disprove either.

Furthermore is there no limits to science? There are some things I dont think science can ever explain. Perhaps the supernatural can be explained too if we're willing to let go of the constraints of science like falsifiability.

I seriously don't get this widespread belief by almost everyone. This is esp. so when it comes to the key questions no one can ever explain:

1. what is the first cause behind the universe?
2. how is the universe so fine-tuned?
3. why does it seem we are alone in the universe? (fermi's paradox)

When you raise 'God' as a possibility, atheistic scientists always have to associate this belief immediately with religion, leading to this extreme bias of something like 'ew! Christianity!'

But no one else can explain it, not even science.
Of course, religion can, but then, it's easy to refute religion with today's logic like mocking the Bible for certain inconsistencies some may find.

Well, how about just believing that a creator is behind the universe? NOT associated with the Bible, Quran or any other religion out there, but just the existence of a god. . The funny thing, when you put it that way, it's completely feasible. You can't disprove nor prove the existence of a god alone.

This is called deism.
- The belief that a 'creator' made this so extremely fine-tuned universe and left it without intervening ever since (altho the belief varies abit depending on who you ask). It's also such a rare belief because:

A. For religious people, they would find the idea of a non-intervening god unappealing. Why should you care to worship such a god then when there's no reward awaiting you?

B. For the atheistic people, they find the idea too problematic to deal with since they can no longer refute any specific parts of the belief when the belief is as simple as it gets. Even the famed Richard Dawkins had to subtly concede to saying he could be deist when faced w the argument.

And so it's a ideology yet completely overlooked. So overlooked, in fact. The reason being, it's scary how you can't refute it anymore. The possibility of a god behind the universe is as much a possibility as a multiverse. Yet most of us would rather believe the latter than the former.

Why?

Now, I'm not saying you all should start believing some kind of creator or god or any form of divine higher intelligence really, created the universe but it IS a possibility as much as believing a completely unfounded multiverse theory (becos that's really the only athiestic excuse scientists have to explain a fine-tuned universe).
But when we stop associating a creator existence to religion, and start seeing just the possibility of the existence of a creator alone, we could really change our perspective of the universe.

PS. Also, it's funny how we keep asking 'why?' and asking 'why?' is what advances science...yet when it comes to the very beg. of the universe or things science can't explain, we're just willing to let go and stop asking 'why?'

anyway I dont get how people can refuse to play a gane when they switch voice actors (eg. Batman Arkham or Splinter Cell)..isnt that just as weird?

Wetterdew posted...

I've never rejected a game for feeling unable to relate to the protagonist's design. However I do think character design matters. If it's a boring design then it piques my interest less. (I'm thinking along the lines of the grizzled straight white male protagonists in their 20s or 30s that share the same bland design and personalities)

huh...that's exactly the kind of MC I'd like.

just to be clear, I'm not racist or anything but I suppose I'm too affected by how much I can relate to an MC when I'm playing.
Like I just cant as play Geralt in Witcher given he's kind of look and background but I'm ok playing Skyrim if i can design my own character. Wish I really could just put myself to it. Does anyone not feel like that at all?

littlebro07 posted...

It looks good, but in the action scenes she's clearly a woman - I haven't seen the movie in years but didn't she keep up the man disguise until the end?

did you just assume her gender?!!

Zikten posted...

they have done this for years. the actors insist on showing their faces . tht's why in Spider-Man 3, Venom kept peeling back his mask like every fucking 5 seconds

Sony's Spider-man didn't have this issue though. The posters in the entire Spider-man trilogy was about Spider-man, not Tobey Macguire. Yet ask anyone who Spider-man is and they'll reply Tobey Macguire. You don't need to paste a celebrity's face and ruin an otherwise great superhero poster for this

Aristoph posted...

Well...yeah? We know who they are. Their secret identities aren't secret to us, and we're the ones the posters are for.

so why do they need to plastic their faces in posters for then? Everyone already knows RDJ plays Iron Man. Yet Marvel would rather photoshop a badly angled RDJ face on a poster than just show Iron Man himself.

We could have gotten a lot of cool MCU movie posters if only Disney wasn't so bent on selling celebrities instead of selling superheroes.

Like, when was the last time we saw a fully suited Iron Man in a poster?

jeez, not even Spider-man is spared anymore

boxington posted...

kinda looks like a post-apocalyptic setting where nature is reclaiming its place, but the building is still in great shape

see Crysis 3

can anyone figure this out

where a person dies, then is resuscitated and then claims to have experienced events like being in heaven and seeing and knowing things they couldn't have known while in comma. How do you explain such things happening?

one example is the case of Landon here

jeffhardyb0yz posted...

Endgame had a few flaws but boring? Yup, you're the only one

how can you not to yawn through 90% of the movie full of talking and generic time travel shenanigans?

Raikuro posted...

Hawkeye fought Black Widow >_>

oh like how Captain America fought Captain America for just a couple of minutes...
they were nice. The fights were mild and just lacking for a movie which could have epic intergalactic fight scenes or something.

Infinity War had some amazing fights throughout. But Endgame is literally just a 90% time travel comedic adventure romp and 10% rehashed Wakanda big war scene.

I was expecting a more dramatic turn of events and the whole movie to be packed with unnerving moments throughout.

Instead we get 1/3 of the movie being on recruiting back the Avengers. Then 1/3 of the movie being on revisiting the past and just going through the old MCU movie scenes like your typical time travel BS. Then only the last 1/3 of the movie we get any actual action going on...using the same old big all-out war scene we see in every other blockbuster finale. By which time they just decide to pack in as many superheroes as they possibly can at the expense of 90% of said characters getting little to no development at all.
Also did it not occur to anyone we didn't even see Hulk or Hawkeye fight at all?