DiabloFans

Quote from Denius1704

I consider myself a very logical person, but at the same time i am human as well. The need to believe in something is one of the strongest psychological needs.

I don't thik belief has anything to do with it. But I would assert that the social community provided by many religions are something that makes up a foundation of many societies.

Quote from Denius1704

Now as for the proof that you want so badly. As i said it is about perspectives. From the example with the egg that you said that:

I think you're confused. I don't need to proof the absence of god. I'm not pursuant to that end. All I need to do is insist we have no evidence for god.

Quote from Denius1704

This is an assumption. In-fact i've read from modern physicists that the matter and energy could have both appeared and exploded all by natural forces that we understand.

No. That is the assumption. Natural forces do not happen by themselves, even scientists still adhere to causality on macro level and when it happens on quantum level they just start working with probabilities, because as even Hawking has said, they might be missing a factor which would explain the way certain elements behave (ok side tracking here). So all in all, at the end even they can't really explain why the Universe would have exploded and they can just "assume". Well i as a determinist don't assume, i give that unknown factor a property: Intent.

All I need ask you here is: where does that evidence god or first cause? I'm well aware that quantum mechanics is based on probabilities and that Hawking, like any other scientist or mathematician, cannot speak about absolute certitude. They aren't attempting to explain the universe in absolute terms because they do not have to. They can assume and infer because they are not making absolute claims. Regardless of how we label factors in the probabilities of the universe we are not coming any closer to the truth of things which we do not have evidence for.

Quote from Denius1704

You see the thing is that we can keep going back and forth with every type of theory and belief. The annoying part is that (and i'm sorry if it's offensive) atheists are too scared to believe in anything so instead they choose to believe in nothing EXCEPT the facts, which as i stated in my previous post, tend to change with the times. I have gone through all the possible stages of belief, i have been baptized as a christian, then i had my doubts and went through a stage where god did not exist and finally i am where i am, and it is a good place. I have no big questions, i have no doubts, i have no fears. At the same time i also accept that in the case where i might be wrong, i wouldn't care once i'm dead, because well... i wouldn't even know i existed.

You see, this is the most dangerous kind of pseudo-argument. You are offering a juxtaposition of theory and belief as though the two things represented similar levels of understanding. They do not. A theory has to withstand scruitiny by the scientific community. A theory must stand up to evidence, testing, observation, etc. A belief has no such standard. A belief can be changed or it can be absolute and dogmatic. A belief has no rhyme or reason except that one person holds it. Once you take this dangerous position, you are immidiately tellng these great physicists that their work is no more valuable than the ramblings of a preacher at an evangelical church. This could not be further from the truth.

If you actually had no fear, no big questions, no doubts, then you would have absolutely no reason to believe in any such god that might or might no exist. The very concept of god that is being prescribed here is one that fills in our scientific gaps and uncertainties. All I am insisting here, is that no such concept is required. We have not established, at any point, that there is a need for such a thing.

Quote from Denius1704

Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either

First of all it is not "infinite regression", it is in fact quite finite and it goes back to the First Bang. That egg could not explode by itself

This is an assumption. In-fact i've read from modern physicists that the matter and energy could have both appeared and exploded all by natural forces that we understand. I cannot say that is how it happened for sure and I cannot rule out some god igniting the fire by hand, but to assert as you have that this condition of "first bang," is a proof of creation concept, that's just not correct. We know better than that.

Quote from Denius1704

As for the proof lying with the Theists, that is not true either. They are not the ones that want the proof, they rely on belief and faith and that is enough for them. It is the Atheists that are not ok with that and hence they demand the proof, but the thing is that they simply cannot prove that God does not exist. Those 50 proofs that someone posted in the begining are just funny, and they don't really prove anything. Don't try to disprove the christian or muslim God, try and disprove a Creator, a First Cause, something that had intent.

This, as i've been trying to point out with another poster, is a fallacy. Belief and faith are not discriminatory, they are credulous and should apply to a great many things. However, when one observes what a religious person puts their faith in, it turns out that only very specific things make that list. Almost everything else in the unvierse falls under the same rules that rationalists would use to judge what is and is not proved to be true to real. I don't think i've wasted any time disproving a particular sect rather than simply point out (as with you) that arguments we are certain of a god are false. Nothing demands that god exist. That isn't to say a god doesn't, but there is no reason to assume one does either. The universe works without god.

Quote from Denius1704

As a side note i am still to this day puzzled about the amount of energy the atheists spend trying to disprove this and this religion or trying to get in the way of this and this religion. Yes i know that ignorance bothers them and they want to show the world that hard facts and empirical evidence are the gods of our Universe, but then again, ignorance comes in many shapes and forms and religion is faaaaaar from the worse. Religion has given us a lot of things (not all of them good i admit), because of which civilization is what it is today.

I explained why I am effected by religion a few pages back. But curiosity is a big part of it too. Learning about the universe includes learning why other people (part of our universe) act as they do and choose the beliefs that they have. I haven't taken the time to say that religion gives us more good or evil because in terms of the OP, I don't feel the need to make that assertion.

Quote from Pit Stains

Believers don't need "proof" they need "faith"

Don't need proof.

Guess you missed this!

Quote from proletaria

And you cannot prove that there are not faries. It is impossible to prove a negative in general.

Should we also then have faith in faries? What is unique about this non-evidential entity "god," that commands our illogical respect and faith instead of faries?

I would assume you are an atheist in regard to faries. Why then, are you willing to extend faith to god when it is equally lacking in evidence? What is it about this myth that makes it more valuable than the equally grandios myths of the egyptian pantheon, the greek pantheon, the myriad other works of unverifiable fiction that we enjoy in literature today?

Why can we not simply accept that there is not a plausible reason to view any of these things outside of their literary value?

We don't need proof for faries either.

Quote from maela

Interesting point... the test of most religions however is the ability to continue through time, culture shifts and takeovers. We don't see many religions springing up in recent history... the ones that do, flame brightly then fade quickly - condemned to fiction. However the major religions have stood the test of time and continue to flourish.

In that case, the most true religion would be the one that could most effectively wipe-out the competition. I believe that gives the title over Islam at the moment. Needless to say, how popular a myth is as a story does not say anything about how much truth is held within. Beowulf is one of the oldest texts to survive in the west. I don't think that it's survival says anything about the reality of grendel, his mother, mist-beasts, dragons, or warriors with god-like powers.

Quote from maela

Do I believe in Zeus, Thor or Ra? Nope, why, because those religions have not stood the questions and test of time that other religions have - thus they must have been incorrect. If we take christianity as an example it has progressed through many societies and cultures and even though it doesn't have satisfactory scientific answers to some of people's questions it is still here and hass stood through a number of tests that religions that have been relegated to mythology haven't.

Had you been born in the greek countryside at the time, you very well could have believed in Zeus. Why are you dismissing this fact? Christianity has been around a few thousand years. The polytheistic religons were around for thousands of years prior to that. Which one people believed in had nothing to do with the correctness of their dogma, it had to do with which religion held the reigns of power and favor. You're ignoring the fact that hindu theology has been longer-lasting, more accepting, and more peaceful than christianity, judeism, or islam. Do you believe that makes hinduism and it's great polytheistic stories true?

I would say that they are all equally rightly branded as mythological literature. It is quite clear that the adapatability of religion explains not their truth, but of their man-made origin, and of those men's desire to remain in power by virtue of and unseeable and unknowable omnsicient entity or entities.

Quote from maela

If christianity were to be disproven then I would expect it to be considered mythology... however I don't think that is likely or could happen.

Christianity is not disproven by mythology, it is contradicted by facts. You cannot disprove one myth with another, because they are fact-less tracts of pure fiction. Where do you set about asserting truth of one myth so the other is not also true?

An argument between a christian and a muslim would be as follows:

Christian: Christianity is correct because the bible says x.
Muslim: Islam is correct because the Qur'an says x.

How do you convince the other to recind the point when they have no objective viewpoint and champion their mythology as the only truth (for no reason and without evidence)?

The answer is simple: neither religion is backed by evidence. Both are wrong to one another. Holding such "beliefs," are helpful to nobody except those who want to demonize the other in order to consolidate power for themselves.

Quote from Daemaro

Hitler wasn't Christian by the way. He masqueraded as one, much like I'd guess a lot of politicians do, it's easier that way to get into power for some reason.

Hitler had his hand in all sorts of occult stuff, he'd bow to any God or science as long as it gave him more power. He included himself in things like the Ahnenerbe and was rumored though I don't think ever proven to have been part of Thule Society and the Vril Society.

This is a fair critique, and it's obvious Hitler dabbled in all manner of cults, but one cannot divorce Hitler from the church. Neither can one divorce the strident anti-semitism of europe from it's origin in the catholic church. So potent, in-fact that even protestant dissidents maintained their anti-jewish rhetoric.

Quote from Sabvre

FFS Proletaria... stop being so hostile. I understand you are on your quest to make yourself look like the genius that refuted religion but you need to calm down. I did not say hell exists because of people like Hitler. You weren't even part of the last 2 replies... those were both to Necrodrac in continuation of a conversation that was occuring on like page 6.

I gave you the facts, sorry if that is upsetting to you, but I have no resorted to ad hominem at any point. So your assertion that I am being hostile is not valid either. You're attempting to position me in some kind of intellecual ivory tower I guess, but that doesn't further your argument. You most certainly did beg that question and I, rightly, pointed out it was unfounded.

Quote from maela

Anyway... Altruism - looking after people who are not related to you in a way that benefits them but does nothing for you or reduces your survival in some way.

Not really. Early on in our evolution, i'm willing to bet altruism was applied at the tribal level (at best) to ensure the transmission of our genes (because our genese are passed on not just by ourselves, but our biologically similar family/ethnicity members). The reason it is now extended to people who do not benefit your genes' survival is the gradual extension of the tribe concept in our culture. We're no longer fiercely loyal to just our immidiate or extended family, but to our cities, our countries, or our regions (some people are even the entire human race). These aren't altruistic traits that demand an divine intervention, they are a cultural evolution of altruism which was an evolutionary (socially expressed) trait in and of itself.

The point being: there is a strictly evolutionary manner to describing the occurence of altruism and it does not force the question of gods existence on it's own terms.

Quote from PakstraX

O squiggly line in my eye fluid
I see you there
Lurking on the periphery of my vision
But when I try to look at you
You scurry away
Are you shy squiggly line?
Why only when I ignore you
Do you return of the centre of my eye?
O Squiggly line
It's all right, you are forgiven

Hahahah +1. I hope someone else got that refrence too.

After some reflection to my invitation for a thread about the merits of religious supersitions (thank you Umpa!), it occured to me that a catchy title would do me no good if it set about from the wrong side of the coin. This is a mistake many debating atheists and anti-theists make and one that almost always sees them waste undue time explaining his own position. With that in mind, I spout not the renunciation of Yaweh or Allah (or Zeus, Ra, Seth, Zaroaster, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Ananzi, etc.) from my title, but request that those living in the certitude of such a being explain why they suppose their God(s) to exist. As an atheist, I make no such claim to knowledge.

I freely admit that my knowledge has limits in the physical world as well as to the realm of what scientists can currently experiment and observe. I fully acknowledge that there will be new ideas, new postulaions, and even new religions long after my life has ended. I expect many would argue that science is dispensed with, having admitted these limitations, but to that I must push the question: what makes anything else more plausible? What makes a many-millenia old work of creative non-fiction (or historical fiction, take your pick) any more a useful tool to seek truth?

I must be careful to caveat on several points, again, in the hopes that we will have as little grandstanding and unnecessary derailing from the central issue:

1. Atheists do not maintain there is no god, they maintain there has never been convincing evidence for a god. While this distinction seems flippant, it is not. The former is a claim that would make atheists no more rational than a strident theist.

2. Atheists do not (all) contend that religious texts are entirely useless, morally bankrupt, or request their destruction. Many of us, myself included, oblige the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, etc. as works of literature worth reading. They may be windows into iron/bronze age society, common literary experiences that enrich the reader just as much as The Illiad, works of Shakespear, or (perhaps more modern context) a classic film series like The Godfather.

3. What then, seperates the agnostic from the Atheist? Good question. There is some debate on this, but my take is this: Agnostics just don't care about the question and Atheists have pursued the question and found all answers wanting. If you are a professed agnostic and find a problem with my diffirentiation, please let me know how you see yourself. I am quite interested in this dichotomy.

4. "The universe," is not proof of the existence of a god or gods. Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either. Appeals to authority on the matter of quantum physics proving a deist position would be interesting to hear (though i've yet to hear a good one).

---------------------------

With that out of the way I would like to make the small request that posters identify (at least in their first post) themselves as Theist, Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. This is not to typecast or mock anyone I view as holding an indefensible position, but rather to help me (and anyone else who wants to contribute) understand the context of what is being said by way of position.

---------------------------

In deference to our gracious moderation team I will also request that ad hominem and useless trolling be kept at a cordial level. I'm well aware that most of these discussions don't "convert," or "englighten," anyone and that the prospect of this thread charging into the flaming abyss of crap are high: therefor, let us do our best to maintain a civil discourse.

So: Prove to me your God exists!

Quote from SpinPool

Quote from proletaria

Quote from SpinPool

a woman in my life with whom I can start a family.

This is not a thing single men say.

It's hard being young and not properly understanding the world. But you will, too, one day.

Assuming you are just out of undergrad; making you about twenty-three, years old (give or take). I'm about three times your age.

What was all that about understanding the world again?

Quote from Jamoose

If you havent already, check this awesome game out:
Super Mario Bros. Crossover

*Shake fist*

Must resist the urge to play while students... here. Argh.

Quote from Lt. Venom

I have an evil plan of epic proportions in the works.

Hint: It has something to do with my signature.

I see no reference to the Koch brothers.

My last post appears to have been moderated (presumably because the vagueness of the post led a mod to think I was trolling), so I'll elaborate here.

There's a fundamental philosophical exercise for proving that anything exists. The litmus test, if you will, is to turn the "Prove X exists" around on the person asking the initial question.

The classic example is "Prove that this chair exists." It's ostensibly a test of perceived reality vs. actual reality. The response that proves the existence of the chair, in the most simple and obvious fashion, is to ask "What chair?" The person who challenged with the initial proof is now stuck. They either have to say "That one" and admit that they truly believe that the chair exists within their perceived reality, even when the it is fully possible that the person whom they asked does not believe that any chair exists, OR the person who posed the initial question has to admit that they issued a proof challenge for something that they literally cannot perceive in any way.

The postulate offered by the OP, then, is explicitly "Prove to me that God exists."

So here's the philosophical challenge: "What God?"

I ask that, in the vein of the current discussion (which I really enjoy, by the way), please seriously consider your answer and try to specify what you're talking about before jumping to any statement of "I don't know what God is." There's more to this whole train of thought, but I need to know what you're really describing as the God you want us to prove before we move forward with the discussion from this philosophical direction.

I've been loosely following this tread for the past few days, and beyond some overly personal remarks, which in themselves are often brought about by this topic, overall I find it very interesting. As long as this topic can be discussed maturely, it yields some good food for thought. While my perspective and opinions haven't changed, I've pondered each and every point made, and so came to this post in which I'll try to simplify what I feel is a complex question.

This isn't directed towards anyone in particular, but instead to anyone who believes in a higher being of one sort or another. Again, I in no way mean to push anyones buttons, but dancing around the topic doesn't do any good for clarity, so in my posts I may come across frank.

Many a time in this thread people who believe in a higher being are offended by comparing God to mystical figures such as fairies for example. I'd like to try to clarify why comparisons like this are made so often.

A common statement a non-believer will make is there is no proof in God. The word "proof" seems to have a broader meaning to some, so this word itself has to be looked at and broken down rationally. Many times in this thread the word "proof" has been attacked, saying nothing can be proven, not even scientifically; this is correct if you're speaking ultimately. This has been braking the clarity of the statement, "There is no proof of God". So instead, I'd like to reward it to, "There is no evidence of God". I feel this reflects the statement better.

I can say with confidence that Diablo III will not come out tomorrow, because there is a lot of evidence that points to it. Evidence is how we understand the world, and maybe the word "proof" reflects something that we as a race have trouble understanding, since it tends to change context under certain topics. Science has also been attacked in a similar way, saying it doesn't prove anything ultimately. Again, this may very well be true. Scientific laws get proven wrong all the time, and Scientists rejoice (kind of). Being proven wrong means that's just another step towards being truly right, if there is such a thing. The thing is though, speaking rationally, Science works. You can predict things to a very high percentage using it. Science stands on the shoulders of rational thinking. Even new ground breaking concepts are built on math and ration. Without this process we wouldn't have computers, food, or anything for that matter. Without logic, we would have nothing. Abstract thoughts have their use surely, and lead to a great amount of progress. The thing is though, those thoughts are always met with logics in order to produce the end result.

So speaking of evidence, beyond unusable personal accounts of God, there is no evidence for one to rationalize. I just want to state I'm not speaking of a humanized God, I know for a lot of you this isn't how you view the concept. There is a whole other fine line in that concept where this topic can get fuzzy. If you say God is everything (or at least the unknown), than you're just replacing the concept of nature with the word God, and adding some emotional attachment to it. That's a whole other area of this topic though.

Back to the point, there is just as much rational evidence of God as there is of anything else with an equal lack of evidence. There are numerous accounts of Bigfoot, all of which from unreliable accounts, which the same thing can be said for God. If I may try and read a common response to this, many who believe in God will say either, -I don't need proof, I've had experiences, or have felt it to be true-, or -God is an incomprehensible concept-. Both may be true, but they can't be used in debate. If you go to court and say, "Your Honor, I swear I didn't do it" the judge is going to ask you to show evidence. If you use those type of statements in this topic you are essentially saying the same thing.

Cautiously, I ask for a concise answer to why with no evidence, so many choose to believe in God, but not Bigfoot or things of the like.

a jewish zombie that comes back to life after a few days, and symbolicly makes u eat his flesh and drink his blood?!?!?



oh yeah i can see how people believe in that...

O squiggly line in my eye fluid
I see you there
Lurking on the periphery of my vision
But when I try to look at you
You scurry away
Are you shy squiggly line?
Why only when I ignore you
Do you return of the centre of my eye?
O Squiggly line
It's all right, you are forgiven

Quote from _Salvation

Seriously. 90% of the time, it's the same guy delivering my food. I usually answer the door shirtless because..fuck shirts. The guy was like "you must do sit ups and pushups a lot, yeah?", and I'm like "uhh..yeah, sure". Today, he's like "I got you the large sized cloeslaw instead of the small size, because you always order it and like it and all, for no extra charge", and I'm like "thanks bro". It's really creeping me out. I might be overthinking it (I mean, I AM extraordinarily sexy and all that), but still, wtf?

u weight 135 bro he probably drooling over your tight lil ass LAWL

I recall a thread about this a while back that I gave my response in.. Ah here it is

Quote from Winged

Since I minor in nutrition, and have been a personal trainer in the past, I fear my response might not be what you want to hear :P. Trust me though I'll be following my own advice on this.

So just like a professional athlete, the weeks before release I'll be sure to perfect my sleeping cycle to my needs. In this case you'll want to be able to stay up for a little longer than normal for a few days in order to game more, so you'll want to drink lots of water each day during the weeks prior, and slowly take 1-3 hours off your sleep hours each night until you feel you've reached your maximum asleep to awake limit. This takes a few weeks to figure out, and you don't want to try and stay up 16 hours a day right off the bat, you'll just crash. You want to figure out your balance; how many hours you can stay awake each day for a week without crashing. I find I need 6 hours of sleep a night to maintain a steady schedule.

For the super hardcore (And jobless ;)) gamers, you could try the Uberman, or other cycled styles.

<input type='button' class='bbc_spoiler_show' value='Show = morestuff' />

For more info on this style just Google it!

As for food, I'll be eating very healthy the weeks before (As you always should as a hardcore gamer!). The day before release, I'll eat a very heavy, complex carb loaded meal for Dinner, just as athletes do before a big event. Doing so loads your body with stored energy for the day after, which can be used both mentally, and physically. For Breakfast I'll eat a egg/vegetable omelet, with orange juice and a side of fruit. For the other 5 meals I'll eat according to how I'm feeling energy wise. If I'm feeling good, I'll eat a very small meal, like a cup of yogurt. If I'm feeling drained, I'll eat some more carbs mixed with a white meat to boost my energy level.

Sodas, candies, packaged snacks, and sweets of any kind are your worst enemy with the intention of hardcore gaming. Have you ever eaten crappy all day then tried to game for a few hours? Your eyes strain after an hour or two, your mind feels foggy, your reaction time may be off, and you might even get cramps in your hands or neck. Not to mentioned you'll likely crash and start falling asleep. Many people blame this on gaming for too long, or being tired. These things may be a factor, but more often than not it's your diet, hydration level, and health level. I've playing games both console and PC for 14 hours + with little to no problems, and even slept fine right after.

If you eat right, drink a lot of water, and keep fit your gaming will go way up. Both in gameplay, and how long you can game at a single time without feeling fatigued. Hope this helps!

Update

2 more pics

Cannot agree more for it to be what it is. But what it is is the HC arena kills 50 percent of this small community's population everyday in every match-up. So let's say level 20 will build an enough equipped complication of what makes a Diablo character fun to play, and fun to kill (in harcore's mindset)

Let the players get exactly what they're coming for sounds perfect but might just leave the hardcore player's community in eternal ruins. Naked people throwing rocks at each other.

First of all, a gap between levels 30-60 where "nothing changes except incremental increases in power," exists either way. All you're doing is choosing WHICH skills feel incrementally powerful. This fixes nothing.
Current System: You unlock final skills at level 30, and you just note that they get stronger until level 60.
Your System: You unlock final skills at level 30, and you just note that they get stronger until level 60.

Second of all, we have a problem here. At level 30, you can afford maybe that one powerful level 30 skill, and almost nothing else. So what you're doing is creating vacuums at each major level benchmark as far as skills go. A clearer way to say that might be to say "at level X, you can only use one strong skill and all your previous skills are nerfed by pure merit of not having enough points to devote." You can only exist as a "whole" character at level 60. That's a problem, since you won't hit 60 until you're near the end of Hell difficulty.
Current System: You progressively feel more useful until level 30 and then you proceed to feel stronger until level 60.
Your System: You progressively unlock skills until level 30, but if you get a level 30 skill at level 30, you will not be able to use all your other skills effectively, meaning you have to rely on that one strong skill, or admit the fact that you can't use that level 30 skill until you're maybe level 40-45, making that level 30 skill into really a level 40-45 skill, which will frustrate the pace of character development.

Third, it seems that you want these same points to also apply to our passives/attributes. This means that people must further dedicate fewer points to low-level skills. Why apply points to magic missile when you've got that one big skill and you can just toss points into the traits that complement that big skill perfectly?
Current System: Allows the use of low-level skills, high level skills, and passives; all in one big sexy bundle.
Your System: Affords people the use of skills OR the use of passives, which will result in people psychologically erring toward high-level skills and complementary passives.

In conclusion, if this is truly an attempt at recovering customization in some way, I'm afraid to say that this is not the solution. In my personal opinion, there's no problem present, and the current system doesn't even NEED a solution. But opinions aside, the reality is that every system I've seen or read about that involves skill points in ANY WAY AT ALL will inevitably result in what some people call "optimal" builds, which almost always revolve around one or two high level skills, and a few complementary skills or passives thrown in as an afterthought. Oh, those other things might be used plenty, sure, but not in any significantly meaningful way. They just fill the cracks of a build that is really built on that one big skill.
Current System: Forces growth on all six skills present, so the only "optimal" way to play is to choose 6 that you can actually use. Customization high.
Your System, or any other skill-point based system: "Optimal" immediately falls on that skill that has the highest amount of points dumped into it. Customization limited to number of skills worth optimizing.

Sorry, brother, but my vote is "nay."