• 1

    posted a message on Religion Vs. Science
    Quote from AnathemicOne
    Wel if you want to be literal about it, there is no natural science I recall in any holy books (correct me if I'm wrong) but there's is philosophical science.

    I mean any science. Hell, the fact that the Earth is round would be a nice thing to put in the Bible, but it specifically says the Earth is flat.

    Please, if there is any scientific evidence of any field (Aside from theological "science") then please share it.

    Quote from Jamoose
    The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are bodies producing their own light like the sun and have limited life (Are consumed).

    Stars are not burning. They are large bodies of gas that create photons via fusion. Fire is the only thing that could be compared to them by bronze age desert people. (If any middle easterners read this, I apologize for insulting your ancestors.)

    Quote from -Mephisto
    God, Mephisto I find your lack of common sense disturbing.

    <3
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 1

    posted a message on Religion Vs. Science
    Quote from Equinox
    I'm not sure Jesus said such things, actually. The Bible did, but not necessarily Jesus, that's why it's important to separate the general Bible and the people in it...

    Well, considering the Bible is the basis of the Christian belief, and all we know of Jesus comes from the Bible, I think it's a safe bet to say that Jesus is quite connected to the Bible.

    Quote from Equinox
    Dunno, I've been apathetic, atheistic, and now I'm back to being quasi religious; I was never properly religious, never part of any church or anything. If you can't understand something it's your problem alone and has nothing to do with you being religious. You're just ignorant, and you intend to stay ignorant - you're not any better than the religious folk, just on the other side of the fence.

    And exactly what do I not understand? It was a different time in the Bible when children were beat, women were not allowed to talk, and men were told to leave everything they own if they wanted to follow Jesus? Of course I don't understand, and I don't want to understand why people believe that, or how they believe that. But you are mistaken if you think I don't understand what the Bible is saying. Perhaps you should crack it open, you might just change your view point.


    Quote from Equinox
    No, you don't understand. The scientists can find what causes the SNF sure (if that's not the bottom). But when they come to the bottom of it, there will be nothing, it will just be, no explanation. At the bottom of it, there are two little tiny indestructible things, and they attract, period.

    Ahh, so once we find out the explanation as to why the Strong Nuclear Force attracts them, the explanation we found won't exist? Clarify please?

    Quote from Equinox
    This is not a thread on America. This is not a thread on Christianity.
    You only mentioned major religions, too, but you're offending all religions when you attack religion, including mine, which has no name, and including deism, pantheism, and others. When you say "bring some Buddhists here" you're basically saying all other non-major non-named religions do not exist or something.
    I don't often see you say "Christianity". Because you can't. Because that's not what people you're talking to are discussing. We're discussing RELIGION here.

    This is not a thread on America, this is a thread on a forum based primarily in America. I have only seen people arguing for the Abrahamic Religions, of which I argue back. If a Druid, a Wiccan, a Shinto, a Baha'i, etc want's to argue their religions, I would be glad to discuss it with them. If you want to argue on behalf of Baha'i, please do. However, be forewarned that I haven't a problem with most religions, as most religions do not shove their view on others.

    And yes, I am discussing religion. I can only talk about one religion at a time. If you like, we can change which religion we are talking about, but it is only one religion, as they are all so different and thus cannot logically be placed under an umbrella term and be argue'ed against. For example, explain how you can argue against both Buddhism and Christianity, when they are miles apart?

    Quote from Umpa65
    How is it splitting hairs when the thread title says Religion? It's a very valid point and I would find it quite refreshing to see an atheist bash a different religion once and a while.

    It is splitting hairs because religion A and religion B have nothing in common, and thus it would be illogical to clump them together. It's like clumping Nascar and Football, because they are both sports, even though they have nothing to do with each other.

    Oh, and we don't bash. If you want bashing, you are at the wrong place.
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 1

    posted a message on Medieval game without a knight?
    Quote from Frostbite5
    What I tried to explain in my post is that Diablo has had a Camelot factor all along, so it's not weird to feel like something is missing when it's gone.

    And what I explained is that the only game in the Diablo series to even remotely touch a simbalence of an idea of a "Camelot" factor is Diablo 2. Hell, most knights in Diablo 2 were evil creatures.

    Quote from Frostbite5
    As for a barbarian in full plates, no, that doesn't feel knightly, to the same extent that a chicken in full plates wouldn't feel knightly. I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.

    The armors also draw heavily from Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest, Lord of the Rings, Legend of Drizzt, shall I go on? And you are right, a D2/D3 Barbarian or a D1 Warrior is not a D2 Paladin. (Thank gods!)


    Quote from Frostbite5
    As for the archer, I don't mean a melee knight who uses a bow. I'm more thinking about a noble kind of archer, more or less like the one in Diablo 1. This maybe combined with some auras, defensive skills or any other kind of interesting "skill tree" (as far as we still have those... maybe I better say "skill group"), would fill up several gaps in the characters so far. I son't see why people want an evil or dark character, the Witch Doctor already covers for the necromancer there.

    First, the Necromancer was anything BUT evil. So you can stop right there. It agitates me to no end when people like you know so little about Diablo that even a light player like myself has to correct you. The necromancer was probably the most righteous of the whole group in D2, aside from possibly the Druid or the Barbarian.

    Next, let's take your route real quick. Noblility. In Midevial Europe, which you are obviously using as a refrence considering there is no proof that Camelot ever existed, bows were considered to be dishonorable for Knights. There were no "Noble Archers". There were archer elements in militaries, and there were hunters wielding bows, but there were never any "Camelot-like archer" bullcrap.

    I don't understand this fascination you kids have with the Diablo 2 Paladin... My only guess is that you want your magic hammers in D3.
    Posted in: Unannounced Class
  • 1

    posted a message on DiabloFans Needs Your Help
    And for anybody going to Blizzcon, if you should accidentally turn your cellphone on and accidentally hit the camcorder function on your cell phone, accidentally of course, and then accidentally upload it to youtube and post it on here, I think the mods/admin will accidentally miss it.

    If you catch my drift. ;)
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 1

    posted a message on DiabloFan's Minecraft Server
    No, I'm not talking about the free weekend when Notch killed his servers. I'm talking about the multiplayer-only version.

    Edit: No, nevermind. The Multiplayer-only version is an in-browser version that connects to public servers. :/
    Posted in: Clans [NA] [PC]
  • 1

    posted a message on DiabloFan's Minecraft Server
    If I am not mistaken, there is a free multiplayer-only version that Notch put out.

    Granted, I am often mistaken.

    Next friday, when I get paid, I'll join the server.

    (Love that little game!)
    Posted in: Clans [NA] [PC]
  • 1

    posted a message on Tweet for 2012?
    Frankly, it sounds like he is just putting that 2012 out there just in case they are not finished by 2011. Sounds like he's just covering Blizzard's ass in case they don't make it all the way.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 2

    posted a message on Ultimate Random Chat Thread [URT] v4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xrQ2LeNE4A

    I <3 days off...


    Has anyone played Kohan or Kohan 2?
    Posted in: Off-Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Lurking No More!
    Welcome to the forums. :D

    Cold, Fire, or Light Sorc?
    Posted in: Introduction
  • 1

    posted a message on I'm missing a dark class bad
    -Sorc MFed 1000X better than a necro.

    +Sorc MF'ed better then all the classes. The sorceress was the premier MF class. So, by your definition the Sorc is better then the Paladin, Amazon, Assassin, etc as well.


    -Assassin and Pally PK/PvP 1000X better than a necro.

    +That is your opinion. Yes, the Paladin is OP in PvP, but in the proper hands any class can defeat any class, and in the not-so-proper hands, any class can be defeated by any class. So this point is mute.


    -Javazons and Hammerdins solo Hell and bosses 100000X better than a necro.

    +Actually the Javazon has problems in Hell due to Light Immunes, whereas the Necromancer's bone skills are just like the Hammerdin's hammers, IE they have no immunes. Now, if your refering to the weapons that remove immunities, then you must be saying that all classes are equal. Otherwise the Paladin is on equal footing as the Necromancer.


    -Ive heard of Hammerdins soloing Ubers, not necros..

    +Actually Smitadens are better then Hammerdins in Ubers. And there are builds for Necromancers for defeating Ubers, just like there are builds for Sorceresses, Amazons, Druids, Barbarians, and Assassins. So this point is mute.


    -Oh yeah, game lagging, Necro really does it 1000 X better than everyone else. I do admit.

    +Summonmancers are not Bonemancers. Summonmancers are not Poisonmancers. And again, bonemancers cause just as much lag as Hammerdins.


    Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Hammerdins, or any class for that matter. But it's silly to use stereotypes to dismiss a class.
    Posted in: Unannounced Class
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.