Messages

76

Off Topic / Re: If the world was ruled... (game)

« on: January 22, 2008, 04:46:48 PM »

We'd be mindless sheep controlled by mindless sheep.

If DISCO ruled the world...

77

Suggestions & Requests / Red/blue Stereoscopic screenshots

« on: January 22, 2008, 04:36:50 PM »

Take a pic with the camera slightly shifted to the left, tint it blue, shift it slightly right and tint it red and then just mix the two pictures (even just add them together since the color components are entirely separated). This should of course be done automatically, like when you're taking a DOF screenshot.

Not many might find use for it, but it can't be that hard to implement, can it?

78

Suggestions & Requests / Re: A Guitar

« on: January 21, 2008, 03:57:08 PM »

I actually connected my Skullrape's Guitar Hero controller to my computer and converted the input to MIDI notes. Each of the 32 different combinations of the fret buttons corresponded to a MIDI note in a preset scale. I was literally just mashing the buttons and it sounded like a typical masturbatory metal solo. I think a similar approach will give pleasant noise if you can work it out

32 sound datablocks would be worse than Rky's add-ons.

I assumed that it was possible to alter the playback rate of a given sound (like when changing the timescale) - that way one would only have to record one or two actual notes (depending on how "natural" you want it to sound) and alter the sample playback rate appropriately for each of the different notes.

79

Drama / Re: Do i need to change my name? or stay as spacedude?

« on: January 21, 2008, 02:51:06 PM »

Wadge

80

Suggestions & Requests / Re: A Guitar

« on: January 21, 2008, 02:12:13 PM »

Looking back at the old thread I think that it would be better to just have it play in a pre-defined musical scale rather than the full chromatic range. That way anyone can bust out Yngwie Malmsteen solos with very little effort (if you use, say, a pentatonic scale).

I actually connected my Skullrape's Guitar Hero controller to my computer and converted the input to MIDI notes. Each of the 32 different combinations of the fret buttons corresponded to a MIDI note in a preset scale. I was literally just mashing the buttons and it sounded like a typical masturbatory metal solo. I think a similar approach will give pleasant noise if you can work it out

81

Gallery / Re: Young Link's Mansion (Improving)

« on: January 21, 2008, 11:21:04 AM »

This looks great and the colors in the first version were much better.

82

Drama / Re: Do i need to change my name? or stay as spacedude?

« on: January 21, 2008, 11:14:58 AM »

cool_guy_76489

The number is sure to make the name original.

83

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 21, 2008, 10:51:58 AM »

I think this image sums up the thread:

Hahaha, yes! 

84

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 06:02:13 PM »

To be honest, the only fact that God cannot be proved or disproved is enough evidence for me that he exists.

That alone is not a large enough base to logically make such an assumption from. If you by evidence mean that it's enough for you to believe that there is a god, then go ahead, I respect that. If you by evidence mean that it universally (as opposed to personally) makes it evident that there is a god, then the only thing that is actually evident here is that you are incapable of critical thought.

85

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 05:47:11 PM »

No no no, I don't mean I have actual hard facts as proof. No one can possibly have that, I simply stated I had logical proof, you know, if you could prove god, that could be one way to do it.

Okay. I think that you should look up the definition of logical proof, too.

I did not disagree with you just because I thought that you were Christian. Claiming to have any kind of proof of God really does grind my gears, though, no matter what your beliefs are.

As does mine. Alas, I'm sorry to have come off that I had proof. I apologize.

As for the rest of your argument, you are right about the heliocentric ideas where in fact mid 1400's with Aristotle. Darwinism, I wasn't really talking about, I just meant people going against what people were talking about. It was all a general point of assumption. Science has been around for a very long time.

As for the disrespect of others. Yes, I full fadedly hate religion. Its a pointless banter between who's right and who's wrong, again, I think it should all be about the meaning, not the god.

On what facts do you base your statement that "religion bashing" atheists are in majority? I'm sure that if you poke around a little, you'll find that less people than you think believe in God. Some people might even say that they do because that's what's expected of them. I'd say that most atheists probably are not very vocal about it.

Thats actually one of my pet peeves, people who are only in a religion because its expected of them, or they're scared into it.

Ah yes, about the "new' argument, I did mean a new idea in two sense, it is (I believe, the youngest of the religons, besides Pastartfarnism, you can certainly correct me on that, I have no idea) and second, it was sort of a new idea with the new testament, but like I said and believe you said, they just stole from Judaism.

That's kind of like saying that Saab 9-5 is a brand new idea of a car because it has a built-in GPS system. Oh, and yes, Christianity is far from the youngest religion. Among the major religions that are younger we have Islam, for example.

Oh and, agnostic, I've heard to meanings:

Mine, stating the possibility of a god

Or yours:

It doesn't matter weather a deity exists.


Both of which I support, so I really don't mind what you said about that.

... Or you could support the definition made by the man who coined the term, which also happens to be the most widely accepted one, and the one that I presented you. Wordnet puts it like this: "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)".

Agnosticism, in the original sense, is totally in line with my own beliefs, by the way.

Oh and one more thing I'd like to point out: Yes, the forum says I'm 14, I'll be 15 nest Thursday (not that that matters, I'm still very young) my point is, I wasn't trying to prove anything, so my age shouldn't matter.

Of course not, but you did use the word proof where it does not belong at all so it did come off as if you were trying to prove something.

and lastly: (little out of order)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but your idea of proof is really warped. Has it ever passed your mind that by that logic some other fairy tale character might as well have created the world? Perhaps Snow White or the Grinch.

I wasn't implying that the "God" created us(although a world controlled by the Grinch might actually be awesome), just something had to. We could possibly be a far off race of beings higher than us's School science project. We don't know, and we can't possibly know, and I hate people who think they do. So I don't disagree with anything you've said, and believe you have valid points.

There is a difference between implication and meaning, too. You were definitely implying that God created us, but as it turns out it was not what you actually meant.

So hopefully on that "high note" I'll end, who knows whats out there, lets just make whats due with what we have here. Although, if anybody comes to my door and starts delivering pamphlets, I'm sorry, I won't join.

Yes, you certainly did. I'm sorry if I am a bit blunt at times, but I hold very strongly to my beliefs and I have given the subject a lot of thought which makes discussions like these both frustrating and very interesting.

86

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 04:52:14 PM »

Don't you think that a discussion can bear some kind of fruit even if no obvious conclusions are made? In my opinion, you should just skip the thread if you are not interested. You are welcome back to say what you've said so far if it does turn into a flame war.

87

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 04:29:59 PM »

Trying to ruin this discussion by repeatedly posting totally irrelevant messages makes you look like a  , too.

88

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 04:08:55 PM »

Well, obviously you didn't read a few things.

First off. Agnostic: The belief of a possibility, note that word, possibility, of a higher power. In my case I believe in god, or a god, but not the bible or organized church.

Agnosticism is the belief that whether deties exist or not it can not be known for certain. You call yourself agnostic and then in the paragraph immediately after that you claim to have logical proof of the existance of a God. Sure, you can believe in God and still be agnostic, but once you blurt out that you are certain that there is a God you are no longer agnostic by definition.

Secondly, I wasn't try to end the discussion, and I had logical proof. If you read furthur I said "Scientists have found marks or "echoes" of the big bang, thus proving its existence." Meaning to say, the big bang probably happend, and that matter can just appear somewhere without the help of something is almost illogical, weather it be a god or not, you can't just say nothingness can become somethingness by itself. I consider that proof of "God".

I'm sorry to have to say this, but your idea of proof is really warped. Has it ever passed your mind that by that logic some other fairy tale character might as well have created the world? Perhaps Snow White or the Grinch.

When you actually have logical proof of God I am sure that there are a lot of philosophers and scientists who'd like to have a word with you. Believe me when I say that people have tried to find proof of God for ages. Even if you don't understand the point that I was making in my last post, you must at least understand that the answer to such an elaborately explored problem won't likely be revealed by a 14 year old on the Blockland Forums.

How is Christianity not a new idea of god? It wasn't around in B.C. times (note the fact it means "Before Christ") We've only recorded it to Ancient Rome. Thats when Jesus went against the Roman empire, and they technically "stole" Judaism the wrote their own version of it in the new testament. So yes, its a new idea.

Aha, so did you mean "new" as in "only a couple of thousand years old" rather than "new" as in "an original idea"? Because in the sense of "only a couple of thousand years old", that statement has no relevance to the discussion.

Yes yes, I know that scientist have been coming to conclusions far long before the time period I spoke of. But I was referencing to the "Enlightenment" The time when people started to go against the long regarded truth that was science and government. I'm not sure the exact date of the enlightenment, I used 1700's as an example.

Yes, the enlightment was in the 1700s. I agree that this was the time ideas of atheism and science first were spread wide in the west, but the heliocentric world view was established in the 1400s and the fact that the earth is round was predicted (on empircal base) by Aristotle 300 years before christ. Charles Darwins ideas of evolution are from the mid-1800s, and the Big Bang theory is much newer than that, so all your examples are well outside the period of time you speak of.

It's hardly relevant to the discussion, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to get your facts straight.

I didn't say that Atheism was all about religion bashing. This might be my only flaw I agree with you on. I was only meaning the Atheists who did religion bash, which sadly theres a large majority of them who do. I'm sorry I said that, and I have cleared it up for you. I hope. Theres nothing wrong with it, and I myself was an Atheist for a while as well. Then I found my theory, yes it is a theory, I in no way shape or from say it to be fact, the theory of "the big bang and god" so to speak.

In your last message you called your [now] theory of "the big bang and god" logical proof. Do you realize the difference? I'd argue that it is not even a theory, since it there is practically no substance behind the claim. Let's forget that, though, since I already addressed it twice.

On what facts do you base your statement that "religion bashing" atheists are in majority? I'm sure that if you poke around a little, you'll find that less people than you think believe in God. Some people might even say that they do because that's what's expected of them. I'd say that most atheists probably are not very vocal about it.

I didn't end the thing saying that! I'm NOT a Christan! Thats what people yell at me for! Again, you obviously didn't read, and therefore made false statements. I respect everyones beliefs, I just think they do some things wrong. They have it right with global peace and all the ten commandments, I just think that imposing it on other people and waging wars in Gods name is contradiction. Note you thought that I didn't respect others onions cause you thought I was Christan, didn't you. Ha, And I'm disrespectful.

Ah, I did read that part wrong. Sorry about that. But yes, you are at least as disrespectful of the beliefs of people as I am. Trying to impose your own beliefs on other people is part of Christian doctrine (look up "missions"). You obviously don't respect that, and you showed your disrespect for atheism in your first message.

I've made my statement (again) hopefully clearing up what confused you, and what you read wrong, and what I left out. Thats exactly why I left it open for editing. Thank you. If theres anything else to fix, please tell me. I enjoyed your little comments. (Gay bar... ha ha.)

Thanks, I was very satisfied with that brown townogy.

EDIT: After rereading your arguments again, you really did think I was a Christan. And thats why you disagreed with everything I said! Ha, trust me, I would never be caught dead in a religion. All the "isms" are so screwed up right now, I don't think faith is even involved with some people anymore.

Never. Ever. Would I go to church.

I did not disagree with you just because I thought that you were Christian. Claiming to have any kind of proof of God really does grind my gears, though, no matter what your beliefs are.

89

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 19, 2008, 06:25:51 AM »

Wow. How did I miss this topic? Well then, as an agnostic I can very well say I am on the pretty much exact middle here. Allow me to expla- expand.

*Ahem*

I believe in God. There, I said it. And I can logically prove him... or her... or it. Scientists have been using technology for a few years now to examine the deep sub-sections of space. What they have found where little marks or "echoes" of the big bang, thus proving its existence. Now you're probably saying "But how does that prove God?" Simple. How the hell does a little dot of energy just come into existence out of nowhere and blow up to create all matter? Not by coincidence. Thats just silly.

Great, you just ended a debate that has been going on for the last few hundred years. Oh wait, how is that logical proof? Hmm, yes, since we don't know anything about the creation of our universe, let's just assume that it was sparked by some omnipotent being that was made up thousands of years ago. That surely is the only logical explanation.

How well does calling yourself an agnostic and claiming that you have logical proof of the existence God go together, by the way? Look up the definition of the word "agnostic" before you go flailing it around like an erect snake in the restroom of a gay club.

Since the rest of your post is largely based on that farfetched assumption, I am only going to correct some errors.

• Christianity was not a brand new idea of God. It's basically Judaism with Jesus Christ and the Trinity added to spice thing up.
• The word "scientist" emerged in the 19th century, but science, in the sense of drawing conclusions from systematical experiments and study of previous experiments, has been around far longer than since the 1700s, as has the idea of a spherical earth.
• Atheism is not at all about "religion bashing"; it simply means not believing in the existance of any deities. How is not believing in something, that can't be proved, wrong, when there is nothing to even indicate that it even might be true? Atheism was "started", as you call it, when people in general got access to more information and better education, and realized that there were obviously better alternatives for understanding the world than believing in thousand year old doctrines.

You end your message by asking us not to yell at you since you're a Christian, and to respect your choice. I'm not going to yell at you, but I am not going to respect your choice any more than I'd respect the choice of a drunkard. You obviously don't respect the beliefs of other people, yourself, anyway.

90

Drama / Re: The big word: Religion

« on: January 18, 2008, 09:29:16 AM »

Just addressing some old points out of boredom.

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?

Not really. That was basically the first sentence in my Chemistry book last year.

Really? That science is just opinions? I want an exact quote of that sentence and the ISBN number of that chemistry book so I know what not to ever consider buying.

Double post, Then what made FSM, and what made the thing that made FSM. and what made the thing that made the thing that made FSM... Inadvertly God created everything, there is no way you can disprove that.

Then what created God?

Science doesn't explain reality, and scientists have been baffeled over this for many years.

Science describes and explains reality whether it is as we actually percieve it or if it's just inside our heads.

Science also can't tell us what the meaning of life is.

Science makes no attempt at telling us what the meaning of life is. That's entirely untrelated to science since the meaning of life is highly subjective.

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.

Okay, so religion might provide answers to those questions. It does not, however, back those answers up with any tangible evidence or anything that at least indicates that those answers might be true.

By your logic, I can say that I have answers to every unsolved mystery in the world, because technically I do, even if they are all wrong. Take that science! I can make stuff up and you can't disprove it! Ha!

I understand why you can't grasp the concept of a deity but what I don't understand is why you wouldn't want to believe in God. What is wrong with eternal bliss after life?

So I am supposed to believe in something just for the sake of it? Believing in eternal bliss after life isn't going to make it true any more than believing that you will get $1000000 tomorrow is going to make you rich. I did not choose not to believe in God. I just don't because I was taught to think critically.