Messages

1741

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 30, 2008, 03:17:34 PM »

No it's based on New York City. I am using pictures and personal experience from when I visited New York last summer to make this. I'm not recreating Liberty City because then people will feel like I am bringing gta to Blockland. I will probably keep the names of the buroughs, buildings, etc. from NYC.

1742

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 30, 2008, 01:08:19 PM »

For some reason, I dislike this map, I know it isn't finished but isnt vice city/San andreas enough?

Why exactly do you dislike it? You haven't even seen it; the screen shots Kit Fisto posted don't do this map justice. Also, I think blockland needs more city maps; sure you can build them with bricks, but nothing to this scale without lag. This map is huge and doesn't lag at all, yet has the illusion of being made out of bricks.

1743

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 28, 2008, 08:58:57 PM »

oh, but still don't share the dl link with everyone; thanks for deleting it though.

1744

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 28, 2008, 08:49:44 PM »

skywalker delete that link, the beta was entrusted to a select few, not everyone. Plus thats the wrong download; I packaged everything wrong in that one so it will only mess up your files.

1745

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 28, 2008, 05:33:54 PM »

Make the statue a static shape instead of an interior.  Then you can just use the actual minifig model instead of the over-simplified one you have now.

I have no idea how to do that in retail. And the way the statue looks now is mainly just a place holder; I'll add more detail later on.

:D

[screenshot]

That's the one lol. And the beta went well; this map is like 8 times larger than san andreas and I had a consistent 90+ frame rate with 10 people on the server.

1746

Gallery / Re: GSFgohst's new mappy (only pic no dl)

« on: April 28, 2008, 12:53:53 PM »

You should post the pic of when I became the statue of blockerty and rode around in a jet, lol. Also many people were complaining about there being no ocean; I deleted it on accident. Rest assured, there will be an ocean.

1747

Gallery / Re: Surface: Severnaya (Image Heavy)

« on: February 16, 2008, 09:32:31 PM »

I didn't say it was the same I said it was basically the same, atleast from what I experienced. The only real difference for me is the texturing, which I couldn't figure out. QuArK was hard for me to learn at first too, but if you have experience with constructor or hammer then it shouldn't be too hard.

1748

Gallery / Re: Surface: Severnaya (Image Heavy)

« on: February 16, 2008, 04:56:07 PM »

You stole my "image heavy" :(
You know you can reduce lag with the trees by grouping them into a shape replicator and by reducing the texture quality on them. Besides the wide trees and sattelite this is pretty good; it brings me back to the good ol' n64 days.

1749

General Discussion / Re: When will you learn?

« on: February 08, 2008, 08:53:10 PM »

As long as maps, items, vehicles, weapons, etc. from other games are made into blocko style, they add possibilities to the game and increase the amount of fun you can have. Some of my maps are based upon gta, but there are hardly any exact refrences to the game. I made the textures look like blocko bricks, which distances the maps from gta, and added many new features that make it unique. Also, the maps are huge to current standards and expand upon the fun that you can't have in smaller maps. And tommybricksetti is right about the gravity gun and the portal gun, they have added so many new possibilities to the game. I think that converting something from another game into blocko style in a way makes it new and unique to how it was in the game it came from, as long as effort is put into it and it is somewhat balanced to everything else.

1750

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 17, 2008, 07:26:32 PM »

"If he only acted through nature it wouldn't even matter if he exists or not, and it definitely wouldn't serve as proof of anything."
God doesn't just act through nature, he acts through nature and in many ways which we can't comprehend.

"Three stories? That's hardly miraculous. Lifting a two ton car? Have you heard about this natural hormone called adrenaline? Living after having been sucked into jet engine? Although unlikely, it did happen without any apparent godly intervention (his helmet jammed the rotor blades). Let's rhetorically say that these were all acts of God, though. That would only mean that God acts very randomly and that he isn't as just as the Bible makes him seem.

People are dying from hunger all over the world, children are being tortured and raped and thousands of people kill themselves out of loneliness. Isn't it strange that God acts not by saving these people, but by letting some guy (working on getting a war machine ready to fire some missiles at people, none the less) survive being sucked into a jet engine?

I'm saying that if God exists and is almighty and all that, he is either
1. Passive (out of curiosity perhaps) and has no real impact on or lives at all. That means that it doesn't matter if he exists. It also means NO MIRACLES!
2. Active, in which case he is a very cruel and inconsiderate being, showing that he can in fact act through miracles but only does so occasionally, and on a seemingly random basis."
I only stated three for examples. Go search the net for the miraculous events that have taken place. And then email or call the people who experienced those situations and tell them that it was just a fluke. How does science explain the child surviving such a high fall? Did his skull somehow harden before impact? And programs have been created to help those who suffer. The people who created these groups want to maintain the greater good, and God is everything that is good.

"I never said that. I said that have little respect for anyone who believes that God created the world. To elaborate, I find it hard to respect anyone who believes that God physically does stuff at all. It's not because you did anything to me at all; it's more like you would disrespect an idiot. Not out of hate, but because you wouldn't trust him to do anything because he's stupid."
But, don't you have little respect for people that believe in God also? And true christians do not disrespect idiots, or commit immoral acts, so who is the better person?

"The difference is that I don't blindly accept anything. My beliefs are based on logical conclusions that I can draw from what I see myself."
Your beliefs are based on logical conclusions that you can draw from what you've seen in a culture that demeans anyone who believes in God? I see a pattern here.

"Reality is always real because the word essentially means "how everything actually is". What we perceive as reality might -- while unlikely --  be different from what is actually real, though. Does that even matter? In the end it's only what we percieve as real that matters.

To all those arguing that religion dictates moral and that chaos would ensue if the Bible didn't tell us what's wrong: Are you really that cynical? People in general are more empathetic and considerate than you seem to think. It's not like everyone acts nice and friendly out of fear of being smitten by God or sent to hell. Modern western philosophy has taught me more about morals and ethics than the Bible ever could, anyway. "
You didn't prove that it exists outside of ourselves. You just said that it's real because that is the meaning behind the word. My point in comparing reality and not-believing-in-God folk, is to prove that we accept that reality is real and we don't question it's existance, and yet we question the existance of a higher being. Not even scientists can prove its real, and they can make us believe anything.

"So did the God in Adolf Riddler kill all those Jews? It would sort of make sense, them still not accepting Jesus as the anointed one and all.

Hmm, it could be that or maybe God just forgot Riddler and left him behind. "
No, Adolf Riddler did that. God is everything that is good. If we do evil it is because we choose to.

"Straw man argument."
My question is a 'Straw Man Argument' just because you can't answer it? Why do people argue about religion when they don't even know enough about the entire debate.

"You blindly accept that we're not really aliens from a far off galaxy set here to have love with everything in order to win voodoo cash prizes because that is the way you were raised. So how does that make you different from us, if that logic is to be believed? "
How exactly is that an intelligent argument? Were you raised believing that you are an alien? Did the media convince you that you were an alien? You are just jumping on the anti-religion band wagon because everyone else is doing it. I just heard that everyone was sending me money via paypal! Quick, send me more money!

---

we can debate this forever, but I am happy with my decision to choose to put my faith in God. The feeling of happiness, accomplishment, and that warm feeling you get when you do something good is from God. Evil is a result from the abscence of God. God created science, and we experience his love through science. Science is even beginnning to prove that religion isn't so far off. http://www.wsmv.com/news/13358825/detail.html

We have even discovered what is very similar to Jesus' tomb. Science can be used to disprove AND prove that there is evidence of God. So, why do people believe in science when it's findings are interpreted by humans, which are inarguably imperfect. One thing is for sure, christians with strong faith will never give up their beliefs, and this is what angers non-believers. If christians maintain good in the world, help other people, and are happy with their decision, what is to be debated? We believe in a higher meaning to life than just "we are here and we don't know why." Linde cleary said that it is foolish to believe in a higher meaning to life, well why is it foolish? Terror raises a great argument. What exactly is wrong with believing in God? It is possible for science and God to coexist in truth. But, the only reason most people do not even consider God is because they are influenced by culture. I do realize that it is hard to believe and explain, but many things in both religion and science go beyond comprehension. Anyway, I am done reading this topic. No amount of intelligent arguments or belief-challenging questions will make anyone in this topic have an open mind.

1751

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 17, 2008, 08:12:05 AM »

Wow, I slowed the world down and didn't even know it, eat your heart out superman.

Seriously, the best argument you can raise is that we are slowing down stem cell research? Are we stopping research for a cure for cancer? Which of those two is more important? We are not slowing down anything. Without morals, we would propably research better ways to execuate people or something like that. Religion holds the world together better than you know or wish to believe. Even entrepreneur in said that the would could be very chaotic without religion. Did you know that our calendar, years, time, and country is based on religion? Fell free to go ahead and change all of that.

And Bisjac, you still haven't answered my question, and I asked it three times. I'm not trying to flame you, but it does provide that science doesn't explain everything. We can't prove life is real outside ourselves, and yet we believe in it because we sense it. Yet, some of us choose not to believe in God because we can not sense him. This doesn't make much sense. Science doesn't explain reality, and scientists have been baffeled over this for many years. Science also can't tell us what the meaning of life is. Religion has two simple answers: Reality is just a test of choice to choose God or not, and the meaning of life is to find salvation. What does your science say? Nothing, and that is where science falls short.

I'm tired of debating this when you can't even answer a question that challenges what you believe. You are the only one still arguing here, and you are acting on pride alone, when we are not trying to make you look foolish. But, remember that I just left a hole in your bullet-proof belief in nothing.

1752

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 17, 2008, 01:22:50 AM »

Recreating life is more complicated then creating a robot or some A.I. program; we can't manufacture life like we do electronics. And explain to me how we are "slowing down" the world, because it seems to me that we are some of the people who contribute to maintaining good in the world today. Also, you have yet to answer my question:

"Reality is not real, and science can not prove that it does exist. It is a fact that reality only exists inside our mind, and we experience it through our senses. This shouldn't be so hard to believe because we experience this as well when we sleep; our mind randomly creates scenarios and locals that we never thought of before. For some of us, our senses even seem to function during dreams. If anyone can prove to me that there is some kind of default reality that exists outside of ourselves, only then will I accept that they might be right. But, why is it that we still believe reality to be real when we can not prove that it is?"

1753

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 17, 2008, 01:09:09 AM »

People believed it because it was unknown, and not proven. Now, the Earth has been proven to be spherical, so we believe it. That's not a guess, that's a fact. The world isn't going to suddenly be revealed as a box and then scientists will say "Oops, we guessed wrong.".

My point is that we may think we know everything, when most of out concepts are flawed until proven otherwise. We know the Earth is a sphere because we have seen it. But, how do we explain what we do not yet know? Through guessing.

Science is just opinions that we accept as fact because it makes sense. Most of science is just best guess

you really have no idea what science is do you. or is this what your priest teaches you?

I know what I'm talking about Bisjac, obviously you don't. This just reinforces the fact that complication of truth leads to confliction. A true christian or someone who has firm belief in a truth will not resort to insulting someone just because they have different beliefs.

If God made those particles and everything else, what created him? To me, those particles were always there and always have been. Just as your god has. The world is a mixed society of religions. This is why I hate talking to Christians about religion, they start implying that everything in their faith is correct. Well, it's not. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever. They could be just as correct as any other religion.

As far as I know, Athiest (though not a religion, but a belief) has had the most evidence proving their theory. One book isn't going to help anything, especially after it's been rewritting several times by multiple people.

Also, it makes perfect sense to not believe in a higher figure. To me, religious people seem to be insecure about their lifetime, so they look for a higher being and a sanctuary of afterlife to feel safe for their life. If you want to continue this arguement, be my guest.

I'm only continuing this argument because we are heading into a loop of ignorance (no offense to you Illidan because you are providing a good perspective in the debate). To me, people who are insecure about life are not religious people, but rather people who where raised believing something, and then are introduced to new perspectives. That is why religion is a touchy subject.

Reality is not real, and science can not prove that it does exist. It is a fact that reality only exists inside our mind, and we experience it through our senses. This shouldn't be so hard to believe because we experience this as well when we sleep; our mind randomly creates scenarios and locals that we never thought of before. For some of us, our senses even seem to function during dreams. But, why is it that we still believe reality to be real? Because we were brought up believing it is real, when it is more like a sofisticated lucid dream. If anyone can prove to me that there is some kind of default reality that exists outside of ourselves, only then will I accept that they might be right.

creating life isn't complex at all, and spontaneously, it would have been possible.
just because we cant recreate it (yet) don't mean its not possible. something religious people have yet to learn

what is a living cell anyway, if not proteins, plasmas, other natural elements, and a little electrical charge.
i can see it happening in nature in one point of time.

Creating life isn't complicated you say? If it wasn't complicated, we would have already perfected it by now.

1754

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 16, 2008, 10:19:49 PM »

Science is just opinions that we accept as fact because it makes sense. Most of science is just best guess, until we are given a new opinion about a situation that makes more sense. We used to believe that the world was flat, that Earth was the center of the universe, etc. And at that time, it made sense. Some things in terms of science don't even make sense, and yet we still choose to believe it. Diosadentro and Rkynick are right about this debate being pointless. I find it funny that the points I have made are being avoided now. No matter how good of a point you make, people who are close minded and are raised in a different culture will continue to believe what they want.

1755

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 16, 2008, 06:13:08 PM »

I didn't say God helps you through you, I said he does it without being seen. If you pray to get out of debt, he will set up the oportunity for you to get out of debt, then it is up to us to take that oportunity or not. He could do this by giving you the idea to go for an interview for a job, and helping you to do well in the interview to get the job.
It is strange how people try so hard to prove our beliefs wrong. They recognize another truth, which complicates their current beliefs, and causes them to get upset for no good reason. They think we are foolish just because we decide to believe in something which, to them, doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to prove that Catholicism is the right religion, it is true that I was raised Catholic so that is the religion I choose. But, no religion is wrong as long as they believe in morals and God. God doesn't exist in a material form like us. He exists in spirit, which is why we can not see him and why we can't prove that he exists in this physical life. Many religions believe in God, but they give him different names and attributes.

If the big bang really did occur, how did it happen? Did infinite nothingness just explode because it felt like it? How were humans created? We are born through reproduction, but how were the first humans born? If we did evolve from monkies or fish, where did the first living organisms come from? Random molecules just collided and made life? That seems even more foolish to believe than in the existance of God. Science does prove most of the things which take place in reality, but there are many things which can not be explained. And this is where science falls short of explanation.

I will state this again:

Everyone believes in reality because they experience it thorugh their senses, but nobody can prove that reality exists outside of our minds. But, go ahead and don't believe in God just because you can't sense him.