All users will need to merge their Diablofans account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Nov 20th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    I noticed your urge to be a B52 Bomber...
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    Hyrule is currently in the Eastern Time Zone. The time in Kakariko Village is 9:31 P.M..

    I am so glad the Great Deku Tree let us have internet finally...
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on The Astronomical Discussion Thread
    Hi! My name is LinkX. It's nice to meet you, Demokin. :D

    Quote from TheDemokin

    It's quite ironic to see the discussions about astronomical probabilities for other 'intelligent' life out there. If you think about it, in reality the way the common perception of other life forms is right now:
    1) he's gotta be white
    2) he's gotta be 9 feet tall
    3) he's gotta be american
    4) he's gotta be named Jimmy
    5) he's gotta have 2 legs
    etc
    If there is no such 'intelligent lifeform' out there then there IS no other life out there...

    Only place where white, 9 foot tall bipedal American Aliens named Jimmy are discussed is in the prestigious universities of Holywood and 4chan. >.>

    Quote from TheDemokin
    I personally find that truly amusing to read from one post to another to another. Earth like planets, the probabilities, the specific range from the sun, the specific star, doesn't that sound like those points above? There has been multiple life-forms even here on earth that defy all of those requirements, microbial life surviving in ice, complex organisms surviving at the bottom of the ocean at the vents without sunlight and hundreds of times higher pressure.

    It's funny because NASA already realized what you are saying about a decade ago and started looking at things like Jupiter's Moons for possible life....

    Quote from TheDemokin
    I think human kind needs to get off the high horse at this point and realize that 'intelligent' life is not defined by humans, i am sorry, but which part of humans exactly, is intelligent? The race that spent thousands of years killing each other while racing towards the inevitable galactic end of the sun and the planet? What is it exactly that can truly be used as a definition of 'intelligent life' that is applicable to humans? Quite frankly, if you wish to speak about intelligent life being present on this planet - surely, but it does NOT come in form or shape of humans by any means, self preservation after all is a sign of intelligence isn't it?

    What we view as intelligent would be defined by us. Another species elsewhere may not deem us as intelligent, but that is their definition. It's the same as what I call a biscuit and what a British person calls a biscuit are two different things. ;)

    Quote from TheDemokin
    Vast majority of people commonly expect our 'intelligent' life form to be superior and to find microbial or bacterial life out there and have a huge celebration about that. A possibility, however there is an infinitely larger possibility of finding a truly intelligent species out there, an even more exciting possibility is that we are being watched, in fact we were placed here by another race, perhaps the entire human kind was 'designed' by another race.
    When considering such events we have to keep in mind the fact that space and distance is only one issue. There is that issue of time. Please do consider the fact that on the galactic history, the entire human kind with it's entire evolution from the microbes is nothing but an invisible dot. Yes, our galaxy has an age, so we cannot expect an older race than the age of the galaxy, but our galaxy is one of the INFINITE amounts of galaxies out there, galaxies that are infinitely older than ours. The real probabilities of other intelligent life out there existing and having an extremely advanced civilization and science that is possibly 1 billion years old? If the human kind was able to evolve to this extent in the pathetic few thousand of years, what would that civilization would have evolved to in a billion years? It is an exponential growth isn't it?

    Now, when you say a few thousand years, you mean between 150,000 and 250,000 years, right? As for the possibility of a species more intelligent then us reaching out, we will not contact them, they will be the ones to contact us.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    Right now, we are entering the age of cosmic exploration, we as a species are measly, young and stupid in that scale. We have no understanding of how the universe works or the forces involved, we can only speculate with our earthly based physics as to what there could be, we are like an infant that is trying to get on his feet and is incapable of walking yet.

    We have a very good understanding of the four forces that control everything in the universe. It's also a testament to the Universe that the Standard Model works on Earth just as it does everywhere else in the Universe. If it didn't we wouldn't know that another galaxy was headed towards the Milky Way Galaxy, or that other galaxies in the past have already hit us.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    While you may refer to the scientific research as the basis for many assumptions - we all still have to remember the fact that scientific method is flawed to begin with. Science assumes something right until proven otherwise. Surely it has been tested 1'000'000'000 times for certain ideas, but what is the guarantee that it will still hold true on 1'000'000'001st time? There is no such guarantee. Many laws governing our modern science are based on that exact assumption - that it will hold true in every case. Every case is only, possibly, functional on planet earth, simply because the moment we step out of this limit many things begin to become anomalies that lie outside the defined values of science.

    The first thing that a Scientist learns is that his/her sight, sound, and touch lie, and lie badly. We have instruments designed to give us a better understanding that would simply not be possible otherwise. As for assuming it is right until proven otherwise, the moment you say something in the Scientific world, everybody attempts to prove you are wrong. Remember, nobody got famous for agreeing, only for disproving.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    Science or scientific approach in general, are incapable of dealing with anomalous artifacts or anomalies that defy the laws predicted by science. Heck, lets not venture that far, but something that close to each and everyone of us - the perception. Our minds are socially conditioned to strictly follow the 'guidelines' of what is real and what is not. When our eyes, see something that doesn't fit into the conventional wisdom of reality - our minds quickly dismiss the information only retaining whatever fits into being 'sane'. How well, truly, does one expect science to perform under all these limitations?

    When Science finds things that defy a law, it takes to the task of figuring out what is wrong with the law.

    As for our eyes, I just said that Scientists are trained to not trust their eyes, not on the micro-level nor on the macro-level.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    We accept many things in that sense as concrete law. How do findings such as neutrinos change the world? They shatter the defined 'laws' and create new ones, given the probability that the final data on neutrinos research holds true - that would shatter our long held assumption that nothing travels faster than light. Think about the implications of that on the universe as we know. Yes today we assume that traveling from one star to another is going to take 'light years', so tomorrow it's gonna be 'half a neutrino year'?

    No... Just...no...

    Quote from TheDemokin
    The infinitely vast universe? Each of those swirly things visible in the image is not a star, it's not a solar system... it's a GALAXY, much like our own milky way, hosting vast amounts of stars and an even larger amount of planets around each. What we, as human kind, have mapped so far in the universe is nothing bigger than a square inch of terrain on planet earth as a comparison. Other galaxies have not yet been mapped, the millions of stars in each have not yet been named. I do not recall where exactly, but have you seen that image of billions of tiny dots that appear to form sort of 'vessels'? That is the latest compilation of what the universe looks like, with each tiny dot being a galaxy hosting billions of stars. That, in no sense, or way appears to be finite.

    The fact that you have an image of the entire universe means that, by definition, it is a finite universe. You...just proved yourself wrong...

    Quote from TheDemokin
    Expecting our wonderful E=mc2 to hold true in every little bit of that space is truly ludicrous.

    Why?

    Quote from TheDemokin
    The human curiosity fueling our quest for knowledge and venturing into vast reaches of space in attempts to 'understand' the bigger picture is rather entertaining given the fact that we know just about nothing about ourselves or our origins or our own history. Certainly history has been re-defined and re-written hundreds of times, and every time there is a drastic change in what we believe or assume to be hold true. Evolution that has been accepted as 'true' has not yet been proven, in fact it's being proven wrong as time goes, Darwin himself said that the 'missing link' needs to be found in the next few years to prove the theory, it has not yet been found, and the famous Lucy is not the missing link...
    Human civilization was commonly accepted to be about 8'000 years old, yet recent discoveries in Eastern Europe of advanced civilization dating back 32'000 years is not only shattering, but completely annihilating everything that has been 'assumed' about our history so far.
    Given today's 'advanced' technology we would still have trouble moving around 100+ ton rocks, let alone fitting them perfectly to build a megalithic structures that are dated as ancient at 10'000 years.

    Apparently Darwin also said that Jesus is the son of god, as did Einstein./sarcasm

    But on a serious note, the universe was commonly accepted as 8,000 years old because the BIble said so. We have moved past mythology and understand that humans have been around for 150,000 to 250,000 years. That is a fact. Period.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    It is the human need for 'laws' governing our knowledge that truly hinders our progress. We just absolutely have to have something to rely on, something to believe in, we are completely incapable of looking at anything and studying it without looking for a pattern, which creates order, which creates a 'law'. Yet this very concept has been flawed from the very start, as there is absolutely nothing that follows 'laws' 100% of the time. Be it political, country or traffic laws, be it laws of physics or anything else, there will always be outlying anomalous events or artifacts that not only do not fit into the 'law' but rather completely shatter or disprove it. Yet, as weak humans, we instead of changing the law simply dismiss that artifact or event, file it in the shelf, forget it about and preferably not speak about it, for fear of being labeled 'insane'.

    Laws are built around facts that we have found, like the Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Refraction or the Law of Electromagnetism or etc. These are facts. They have been proven time and time again to work. If you want to disprove them, get a Ph.D., study and understand them, and then disprove them. Otherwise hush.

    Quote from TheDemokin

    My personal opinion of bible is quite irrelevant, holding the fact that any of such books have been translated over a dozen times, with each translation greatly varying. Not only varying but even opposing one another, in one translation you are allowed to do A, in the next translation you are not. Relying on such 'information' or 'knowledge' or whatever you wish to call it would be extremely irrational.
    In my personal view - religion is no different from science. Yes they are both based on drastically different angles, but both follow the exact same principle of giving one something to believe in as a basis for having an 'explanation' to anything else that happens. Apple falls off a tree, religion would say that was caused by A, science would say that was caused by B. Different reasons, yet exact same principle.

    Your views that you have been saying have sounded very Biblical to be honest. I can understand why he was curious.

    As for Science and Religion being the same, that's akin to saying that an apple is the same as a television... I don't know how else to explain that... I wish I could explain it better, but I can't explain it better then that. It's that simple....

    Quote from TheDemokin
    I do not wish to engage in a lengthy discussion about scientific methods here, it has been an accepted fact that scientific method is heavily flawed in many senses, not only the ones i've mentioned. As for pursuing a carrier in the field - it is not my calling, i do have a calling for building businesses, which is something i do rather well, irrelevantly of how well i do it - i enjoy doing it to the greatest extent and that satisfies me well enough.

    It's been accepted as fact that the Scientific Method is heavily flawed? Got any citations? (No, priests and religious fanatics don't count.)

    Quote from TheDemokin
    I do not find myself being caught up in semantics of 'right' or 'law', i think i quite clearly expressed my deep disbelief in laws to begin with, and the term 'right' has yet to be defined in such a way that it would be meaningful to more than a single individual, that is just too heavily dependent on circumstance, point of view, action, reaction, etc.

    The universe doesn't really care if you believe Gravity exists, the Law of Gravity will continue to work and keep your ass safely on the Earth.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    I am not expecting fundamental laws of physics to be drastically different in other places in the universe, no they are the same everywhere, the issue is - we have not yet discovered or understood such a law that would not only explain what we are seeing out there, but would also ensure that there is no outlying anomalies that cannot be explained by such a law.

    When/If we find such anomalies, we then turn and figure out why Science says otherwise. Are we looking at them wrong, or are our equations wrong? Then we fix shit. That's how Science works.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    You are stating that the universe is finite, in the physical sense of it, so what is the weight or the size of it?

    I don't know the weight or size of the President of the United States, and I doubt you do either, would you say that he is infinite?

    Quote from TheDemokin
    The science has been driven by anomalous outlying artifacts / events, true and false. What did society do to Galileo? Einstein? Newton? Do i have to name a dozen more? Do you even begin to realize that aside from these names that we all know, there are hundreds of names we do not know, not because they didn't come up with something brilliant, but because they didn't possess the strength of character to endure the ridicule and humiliation from that very 'scientific community' upon them. Given a million scientists, perhaps 10 will be willing to sacrifice their entire life, marriage, happiness, and spell an end to their family tree for 'science'.

    Society did jack diddly squat.

    Religion, on the other hand, fucked Galileo up. Newton was a Christian so he was safe. Einstein lived in a time where he could believe in a Spinozan God (not an actual god, fyi) and not be killed by the church.


    Quote from TheDemokin
    You are clearly stating that science thrives on anomalous events and that they drive progress, but historically is has been shown to be the opposite, lets not travel back to 16th century, lets look at today's 'modern' world - how many thousands of archaeological artifacts are being stashed away right now because they do not fit in 'history' as it is accepted today?There is no research being done on them at all, because anyone that proposes to do so does not get funding.How many physics facts, ideas and theories have been sitting around for decades now in archives because no one touches them? Stephen Hawking recently shown with clear logical and mathematical deduction that god did not create universe, who exactly knows that aside from a few 'fanatics' around the globe? What has that changed?

    Citations or you are just making wild speculation.

    Quote from TheDemokin
    In our monetary society, research can only occur when there is funding. Without any funding no scientist would be able to produce any strong research that would be supported and accepted by the scientific community. Funding does not appear out of the blue sky, quite contrary it is provided by the society, both directly and indirectly. Therefore it is quite safe to conclude that science does not progress, but rather is paid to give certain results in a certain direction. Billions of dollars have been spent on research on how to make bigger boobs, redder lips, stronger condoms, whitening creams and lotions, shampoos that kill dandruff even in rusty skulls of soccer players, etc.

    Apply for the right grants and find the people that want what you want and you got funding. It's not as political as you make it out to be.
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    Quote from Nacho_ijp
    really? you're taunting me dude :P

    Quiet, dinner!

    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    Quote from JaundiceBunny
    There are so many beautiful red heads...link

    Yes?

    Quote from JaundiceBunny
    (No not you LinkX -_- ).

    Aww...

    Quote from FreddyBenson
    haha, wanna know wht my plan is to fool my missus?

    No.

    Quote from FreddyBenson
    i shall tell you anyway

    Evil...

    Quote from FreddyBenson
    my prank will be good and she will laugh im very sure about it

    im kinda excited and scared lol

    You gonna die, son.



    I think I won the most useless post award with this...
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    Quote from Daemaro

    90% of girls on the internet are men, the other 10% are FBI agents. :P

    Lies. 80% are men, 10% are FBI agents, and 10% are catholic priests trying to connect with little boys.

    This is the truth.


    I'm going to hell.
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Post Your Favorite Cakes and Their Recipes
    This should be deserts instead of just cakes. >.>
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Do Not allow New Members to start topics
    Quote from Audiocord
    Ah, another one of these topics.

    See what I did there? Even the snobby elitists who make repeat topics about how there are too many repeat topics need to whine I guess.

    Ahh, another internet idiot that thinks he knows everybody.

    See what I did there?

    Quote from Audiocord
    No, the problem everyone has is that they are angry that these :"new": guys are winning beta keys they want. They should have a better chance - and if not a better chance, then they should have won already. I bet every person who is grumpy about new posters and repeat threads would magically calm down if suddenly granted a key. This is why I roll my eyes every time someone gets all up in arms because the belief that their post count = how much more valuable they are. Reminds me of those GearScore snobs in WoW.

    You know, I laughed at this.

    I got the beta, and I still don't want 5,000 threads of the same thing. You can get your beta key by posting in a thread somebody else makes. (Or, here's an idea, post because you like the community instead of "Omg, liek I luv diablo! Betakeypls!"

    Additionally (And you can ask my guild), I have never, ever used Gearscore. It limits your ability to play and your guild's ability to play. Back in Wotlk when I was running a guild, I even banned it. Too much e-peen. Kinda like you.

    Quote from Audiocord
    :::Edit:::: ... PS, I'm one of those <20 post guys who got a beta key from dfans. :) . Why? Because instead of fighting and complaining about who was/wasn't getting keys, I just posted because I liked to be here.

    And I'm one of those >6k post guys who got a beta key from dfans and still doesn't like idiots cluttering up the forums. Why? Because idiots are cluttering up the forums, trying to whore themselves out for a key to a beta.


    And, just so we are clear:


    The Proposed plan of action would not keep key whores from getting keys. That is NOT the purpose of the idea. The purpose of the idea is to keep the site from having 5,000 threads of the same damn topic. You and every other key whore can still whore yourselves out to get your keys.



    Calling us snobs without even understanding what we are suggesting...


    DISCLAIMNER: NOTHING IN THIS POST IS INTENDED TO BE OFFENSIVE. IF ANYONE IS OFFENDED BY THIS POST, THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST EXTENDS HIS DEEPEST APOLOGIES TO THE OFFENDED PERSON OR GROUP.
    Posted in: Site Suggestions and Questions
  • 1

    posted a message on Prove to me that your God exists.
    Looks like I went and pissed everyone off. Again. :fret: *Sigh*

    Quote from Umpa
    I'm sorry but what you say about your desires and what you actually say generally is very contradictory. There's nothing objective at all about your stance.

    My stance has come from an objective look at the world. I don't think I said my stance was objective? (Maybe I did? My memory becomes worse and worse every day...) Anyway, my stance is anything but objective. That being said, if there was empirical evidence of the existence of the god of the Bible, Quran, TaNaKh, or Bagavad Gita, then I would convert to that religion immediately. The chances of that evidence ever showing up, though, are very very slim from what I can tell. But if it does, I'll be the first to say that I was wrong.

    Quote from Umpa
    I think "a thirst for information" would be more appropriate than "a thirst for knowledge". It almost sounds like you went from one extreme to another. This may not be true, but the way you mock the religion presents this image of you(at least to me) that says you're a person with such an extreme view that you have zero respect for the Christian religion specifically. Which doesn't look like an objective stance at all. It looks more like you just picked a different side to be on, so you mock the other side.

    I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the difference in information and knowledge?

    And Christianity is not alone. I have similar views of Islam as well. I am currently studying Judaism and Hinduism. If either of them make sense and agree with the world, then I will convert. If they are in opposition to the world, then I will laugh at them. This is the only way I can deal with absurd claims.

    Quote from Umpa
    I guess a good analogy would be a football player and a geek. You're more reminiscent of the football player who mocks the geek for not being macho like him. As opposed to the football player who knows what it's like to be on the other side. They're both football players, but one has this distinct and delusional sense of identity.

    Actually, reverse the roles. Religion is the football player, and I am the geek. The difference is that Atheists (the geeks) are finally starting to go to the gyms and bulk up.

    Quote from Umpa
    Personally, I was pretty religious as a well as a child. Being raised Jehovah's Witness I went door to door proselytizing. However as I grew older I became more aware of what I could and could not ever truly know. The existence of god being one of them. If it was to be on a spectrum, I am still closer to to the religious side. I know I can't know anything. But I can have good information from science. And I can have good inquisition from philosophy. From there I decided that I believe in consciousness. Ergo, I believe in the soul. Which in turn still leads me to believe in an afterlife of some sort of fashion.

    Well, Richard Dawkins has a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolutely believe in any deity, and 7 is absolutely no belief in any deity. He puts himself at 6.5, but I do disagree with him. I'm closer actually to 6. While I think there is no deity, and I am almost 100% certain there is no deity, I cannot know for certain, and the uncertainty is enough to keep me wondering. Does that make sense?

    Quote from Umpa
    But. I know I can't know any of that. And, if none of that is true, that's ok. I'll have a wonderful eternal rest. I don't really know where I'm going with this honestly...I just don't understand all the animosity. People will be people. Of course they will willingly believe something they have no true knowledge of. That's no reason to pick on them. As a whole, we're not very intelligent.

    I don't think I am picking on anybody?

    Quote from GladHeHasBeta

    i condemn christianity as a whole for the same reasons i condemn black people as a whole

    93% that ive met are fucked up, its just easier to hate them as a whole.

    why do stereotypes exist? because they are TRUTHHHHHH.......................... most of the time

    That's...not cool...

    Go somewhere else and talk about that, because that's not right. There are very good people that are Christian, just as there are very good people that are black.

    Very, very uncool dude.
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4


    I take it Diablo 3 hasn't been released yet, eh?
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.