Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1546

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

  1. Posted

    This is a ridiculous statement based on personal bias...do you have any data to prove that on average religious people are less intelligent than atheists? Just because a person has a belief you do not agree with does not make them less intelligent - in your opinion, they are more "gullible", but that does not direct reflect on intelligence per se, more on character.

    There are loads of studies showing that the more educated people are (and hence the higher IQ) the less likely they are to be religious. You've got that the wrong way round, a little. The more intelligent, the less likely to believe religion's lies.

  2. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Some of these replys are ridiculously complex the game has to fit on a computer and calibrating voice commands are too complex and haveing a microphone bundled with the game will cause its price to rise

    Wrong: there are already utilities that translate speech to commands in a third party program; nobody said bundling a mic with the game was necessary and a cheap mic is, what, a couple of pounds.

    Quote[/b] ] radio thing is pretty realistic in an infantry squad every man gets a small personal communication radio in case they are not in view

    No, they do not. Its been suggested, some forces get them, but not every soldier has them right now and they definitely did not in 1985 (OFP) or when OFP2 is set.

  3. Posted

    Well it was an MP game. It was more a poor implementation of the script than a badly designed mission, though. The original worked fine without the script, and the positioning of the shilkas was paramount because the aim of the mission was to find and extract a crashed chopper, so you had to destroy the shilkas on the way.

    Hooray! Someone else who knows the greatness of The Kogi Kaishakunin smile_o.gif

  9. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]They are not interested in proving it. They're just saying its their belief. You are the one attacking it, claiming it to be false. So since your theory has the initiative (i.e the theory that the sausage people do not exist), it's up to you to prove it.

    No, wrong. Their belief, if they want it to be accepted, they have to prove it. Saying 'prove it' isn't attacking it. Look this up too.

    Quote[/b] ]Good boy. Now you are getting it.

    And do you believe in invisible pink unicorns, gravity fairies, etc? Do you? Good boy.

    Quote[/b] ]So you do dispute Einstein's beliefs of a God that organized the universe. And you do consider him being stupid.

    Nope. Re-read my post.

    I'm fed up repeating the same thing again and again.

    Quote[/b] ]And exactly what would that be? You know who the biggest supporter of the Big Bang theory is? The Catholic church.

    The catholic church only admitted it was wrong to persecute Galileo and that the world did in fact go round the sun, not the other way around, a couple of decades ago.

    The biggest supporter? Pfffft.

    Quote[/b] ]"How do I decide which color is better, blue or red?"
    insufficent data - define term 'better'
    Quote[/b] ]"How much is 0/0?"
    Invalid question; impossible.
    Quote[/b] ]Determine the truth of the following statement :

    "This statement is false."

    paradox.

    Answered.

    Please tell me how you would attempt to answer these questions without using rational thinking, by the way.

  10. Posted

    OK, noone apart from extremely religious people are that stupid.

    Ok so obviously I haven't been getting through to you, next comment like that and you'll be post restricted.

    Look, the fact is that you will accept some things as stupid because they 'obviously are' - the King's glass anus, for example. But something else which is equally stupid you won't because... why? Because thats what someone believes? Why is that so special? The king believed his arse was made of glass! He really, truly, believed that! But its still a stupid belief!

  11. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Who created god?  Why?  Why did god create the world?  Which god?  Why that god and not another god?

    God has always existed.

    Why does it matter that God created the world?

    The Christian God.

    Because there's only one God.

    See, if you just sat down and read the Bible you'd know these things.

    I have read it.  It provided a sum total of zero answers.  As have thousands of other people.  In fact, apparently what makes most people stop being so religious is actually reading the bible.

    Quote[/b] ] some very old tired arguements I've debated hundreds of times before which are like speaking to a brick wall so I'll just leave just now with the remark 'Try looking these questions up on some online source, www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

    www.infidels.org, or something.'

    Quote[/b] ]If you never heard of Jesus I don't believe he would send you to hell.
    Well, your bible says I would actually go to hell, and a lot of christian sects agree with that.  Again, more things that are interpreted VERY differently by different groups.
    Quote[/b] ]It depends on what you believe.  If you believe in reincarnation and more than one god, buddhism is for you.

    Are you not reading this?  Could I be any clearer?

    Quote[/b] ]matter of fact, all religions claim the others are wrong, how can you tell which is right?  Most people simply go with the religion they were brought up with.
    HOW can that be a guide to what is right?
    Quote[/b] ]LOL!  You ever read revelations? rock.gif

    Yes.  Very ambiguous.

    Quote[/b] ]You obviously haven't read the Bible.

    It is precisely because I *HAVE* read the bible that I would not like god, should he exist.  Its a case story of a murdering, babykilling, psychopathic, xenophobic (favoured race, remember), sexist, carnivorous evil evil evil entity.

  12. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]That it is a waste of time is an entirely subjective judgement. To a religious believer religion is certainly not a 'complete waste of time'

    And to the crazy man, the Invisible sausage people and his quest to test everyone by mincing them up are not a waste of time.  I don't care how much they like it, the fact is that it doesn't help anyone, especially themselves, it squanders resources (on a recent aid trip to Malawi, I noticed far more money going into building churches than building hospitals - and thats one of the tenth poorest countries in the world), it hinders scientific progress immensely, it encourages overpopulation, and far more.  It *is* a collosal waste of time, whether they like it or not.
    Quote[/b] ]

    and as Denoir has ably demonstrated there are plenty of intelligent believers.

    AFAIK denoir isn't a believer.  Not that there aren't otherwise intelligent believers out there.  Not many, though.
    Quote[/b] ]In fact your total contempt for religion comes across as rather selfish. Has it occured to you that religion may for some people anwser all (or most of) the questions that they most urgently want answered and that science often scarcely attempts to answer?

    Well no, because it doesn't answer these questions at all; it just submits more questions.  A simple assertion with nothing to back it up isn't a good answer.
    Quote[/b] ]

    The fact that you care not for these questions (let alone the answers) is in no way a religious persons fault.

    I care not for lies, nor for half truths, and especially not for 'answers' which are nothing of the kind.  
    Quote[/b] ]Oh wonderful. Well im sure that will convince everyone (except stupid useless people).

    I'm not claiming that as an answer, I'm saying that its an invalid question.  If you want answers to questions like that, try rational philosophy.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Also as to religions 'problem causing' perhaps i should mention that people are perfectly capable of acting despicably after getting carried away by (usually faulty) scientific theories and acting divisively, prejudicially and hatefully.

    People are capable of killing each other without using nukes,  Does that mean nukes are ok?  Just because there are other, (lesser) sources of conflict doesn't mean religion isn't one.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Marxism is not a religious movement but rather tends to promote atheism and yet has been responsible for foul dictatorships and tens of millions of deaths,

    Did I say religion was the sole cause of conflict? No.  So take down that ridiculous straw man.
    Quote[/b] ] and then what of good old Darwin fan Adolph and his 'survival of the fascist' ?

    thats just a lie.  

    1) Hitler said on many occasions that he considered himself a christian

    2) he essentially made a new religion from half cut scandinavian myths which he twisted in to other christian beliefs, and then blamed the jews, gypsies, communists etc for all of germany's problems.

    3) In a similar way to how he twisted Xian and nordic myths, he twisted Darwin's ideas.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Do you think people will never again get carried to extreme behaviour by scientific theories? I doubt it.

    yet to see an example of a scientific theory causing something like this.  Science is Amoral.  There is no code of ethics, bad or good, inherent within it.  It can be used for bad or for good, but that has nothing to do with science; it is morally neutral.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Yet im not calling for an end to science and a reversion to peaceful subsistence cave dwelling.

    Supporting religion = that.
    Quote[/b] ]

    No. No you cant.

    (see now im getting the hang of 'thrumboising-answering a question whilst adding as little additional knowledge as possible..)

    Funny, because I started doing that when people made assertions with nothing to back them up.  Give me some evidence, I'll give some back.  Make a stupid assertion with no evidence and I'll simply reply with the same.  I'm typing enough here without having to constantly restate the same thing again and again until it sinks in anyway.
    Quote[/b] ]

    How does one even judge when a problem has been 'solved'? In many many instances this is not clear and there is no one 'right' solution.

    Anything that works is a solution of some kind.  There may be better solutions - thats the whole point of science (here's me repeating myself again).

    And no, religion doesn't work.

    Quote[/b] ]

    You also seem to think there is an absolute division between religion and philosophy. There is no such absolute division. In fact can you name a religion that does not contain a philosophy (comprising for instance a system of values for living)?

    Another thing I've already said: just because religion steals things from philosophy, doesn't mean that you need religion to have philosophy.  I know religion often incorporates philosophy into it.
    Quote[/b] ]

    I certainly concede that organised religion has often been

    very unhelpful to the advancement of human kind. The problem though tends to be not 'religion' but, just as with science, its organised use by society for particular ends.

    Any problems we can eliminate help.  And since we wouldn't be losing anything, why not try it?  The world already tried all being religious with no science, and that was a steaming disaster, so why not try things the other way round?

  13. Posted

    Rather than wait for you to deal with the explanation for God that I offered on the previous page, I'll just go ahead and offer you an insight on faith:

    Oh yes, your 'explanation.'

    I'm sorry, I thought you were just explaining why some people felt the need to make things up.

    The fact that people like making things up to make themselves feel better has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not thats true.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Anyone can walk the 5-meter length of a 20 cm wide beam sitting on the flat ground. The chances of falling off are very small.

    Question: Why is it so much more difficult when the beam connects 2 skyscrapers 100 meters above the ground?

    Answer: The consequences of falling are very different.

    No, its not any harder, people are just scared. The actual task isn't any harder. People with no fear of heights can do both equally easily (apart from the wind which would actually make it harder)
    Quote[/b] ]

    And even though the chances of falling should be equally remote in each case, they aren't. The chances of falling off the high beam are much greater because the dire consequences of falling will affect your ability to walk and steady yourself. It's much easier to get to the other end of the beam if there is a safety net. In fact, the net doesn't even have to exist. It's enough just to believe that it exists.

    Rubbish. Nobody is that stupid to believe theres a net they can't see when they are risking their life.

    *thinks*

    OK, noone apart from extremely religious people are that stupid.

    Quote[/b] ]

    This is where faith and religion step in. Life can be compared to traversing the 20 cm wide beam, except that for each of us that beam is a different distance from the ground. For you, me and many others the beam may be on the ground. We don't need to believe that a net exists to get across safely. But it's not like that for everyone.

    I disagree. Religion doesn't make the net. A more apt analogy would be making people think that falling off the beam wouldn't actually hurt them, while not making the actual passage any easier.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Regarding your comment above, I agree that the safety net may be a "delusion. I also agree that they "affect people." However, I very strongly disagree with your opinion that "they should not be taken seriously."

    A real safety net is not a delusion and it does affect people. An invisible safety net that doesn't catch you (since we've already established that gods cannot be detected) is the same as no net at all.

    Thank you, your post made some of my points a lot easier to make.

  14. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]

    No it's not possible. I can come up with any model that is not detectable through measurement and while I won't be able to prove that it exists, you won't be able to prove that it doesn't exist.

    Hooray. Now we only have to get you to realise that the burden of proof lies with the people making the assertion. In other words, its not up to me or anyone else to prove that invisible sausage people do exist, its up to those who believe they do, to prove it. And until they do, there is *NO REASON* for anyone to take anything they say seriously. You cannot have a double standard here. If the christian god can exist without proof, so can gravity fairies, invisible pink unicorns, etc etc.

    Please, check out the burden of proof. You will learn, which is good.

    Quote[/b] ]

    No, no, don't try to wiggle your way out of this. We are talking about an abstract god, a general higher power. You claim that should something like that exist then should be detectable through measurement.

    I'm not trying to wiggle out of it. A god like that *should* be measurable in some form, unless it does nothing but watch. Which is IMO what they think happens; it just watches.
    Quote[/b] ]

    Read the definitions again. I'll take Christianity as an example here:

    Quote[/b] ]1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena

    Statement: God created the world in seven days.

    Phenomena: The creation of the world.

    Problem= they don't explain facts nor phenomena.
    Quote[/b] ]
    Quote[/b] ]2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

    Principle: Thou shalt not steal

    Purpose: Guidance of action and it assists judgement

    Problem = thats an order, not a guide, not an assistant to judgement.
    Quote[/b] ]
    Quote[/b] ]3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

    Assumption: God created man

    Limited information: Man exists.

    I suppose it counts under that category. But thats not the way its used as a scientific term; thats a laymans term

    Quote[/b] ]

    Yes. I want you to highlight any discovery that has been made since Newton that would eliminate the possibility of a higher power.

    Lets try this: anything that led to new understanding of how the universe actually works, as opposed to 'god did it'.
    Quote[/b] ]You can solve any problem with rationality.

    Ok, solve these two questions for me by scientific method:

    "Which color is better, blue or red?"

    "What did Goethe mean when he said "Passions are vices or virtues to their highest powers." ?"

    P R O B L E M != question

  15. Posted

    .

    You insulted me repeatedly over the course of your post. I think you are silly to believe in something for which there is no evidence and which would be the most evil creature imaginable if it did.

    Quote[/b] ]Just because I think that there could be a higher power, that there is more to this world than what we see, hear, smell, or feel doesn't make me less smarter than you are

    Yes, it does. Sorry, the truth hurts. There is no difference in believing in invisible sausage people vs a giant fairy in the sky.

  16. Posted

    Might be different for different countries or times, but our bandoliers have lots of little pouches, closed by poppers, which each hold 3 x 10 round stripper clips.  With a speedloader you can load a mag with 30 rounds in about 4 -10 seconds.

    Stripper clip is a little metal rail that resembles the connectors on a scalextrix set between tracks.  *edit* - cant make ascii pics work right, it thinks I'm trying to do code or something.

  17. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]I am not the only one with these interpretations. All christians would give you the same answers.

    L O L

    That must be why there is only one branch of christianity then, not thousands of different ones, all squabbling over different interpretations.

    Quote[/b] ]Having this discussion with you is frustrating due to your narrow mindness, insulting attitude, and your lack of knowledge on the subject. You purposely leave out all the good that Jesus did, trying to defame christianity and christians.

    Allegedly did.

    Having discussions with christians is frustrating because they don't listen to anyone else and think that their own individual interpretation is 'obviously right' when its only one of thousands.

    You again ignored many of the points. I'm fed up of your inability to debate.

  21. Posted

    All of them exactly describe religion.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then. I can't see any connection at all though. Fact/ evidence vs 'stuff an old guy made up to suit his own purposes'

    Quote[/b] ]Why all this irrational hate towards religion? Were abused by a priest as a child or something? rock.gif

    Because its a complete waste of time and causes a lot more problems than it 'solves,' causes division, hatred and prejudice and is intrumental in creating a lot of problems.

    Quote[/b] ]You are right about Hawking, I was thinking of Penrose, his buddy. You are wrong about Einstein. He was a follower of Judaism.

    Not according to Einstein he isn't.
    Quote[/b] ]

    But that's irrelevant, he did believe in a higher power manifested through what he refered to as "God" - something that you are trying to dismiss as a lack of intelligence.

    He believed in an impersonal force ordering the universe which he referred to as god in a similar way as Hawking refers to 'the mind of god'. Regardless, if you read my passage I atrributed religion, especially organised religion, as a symptom of lack of intelligence, not belief in a higher power.
    Quote[/b] ]Really, what data might that be?

    300 years of scientific development? You want me to list it all?
    Quote[/b] ]

    crazy_o.gif Again, basic concepts of science seem to elude you. Science has its limited domain and beyond that it is useless.

    Ok, let me illustrate this by example. How would science answer this question:

    "When is the sacrifice of one for the benefit of the many acceptable?"

    Again, basic words of my post seem to elude you. Are you trying to obsfucate? rational thought - solution of any problem.
    Quote[/b] ]I'll give you a hint: it can't. It's not in its domain.
    You can solve any problem with rationality.

  22. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]Just about every theory in cosmology where most theories have been known to be far more complex than ever expected. Furthermore simplicity is subjective and the universe does not always have the same ideas about simplicity as we do.

    That doesn't have any bearing on Occam's Razor. 'Do not multiply entities unnecessarily.' IE use the simplest theory that fits the facts. That doesn't mean that if you get new facts you can't change the theory you use/ test.

    Quote[/b] ]Yet you are advocating that the current theories we have are giving the absolutely correct views of the universe and that additions to current theories are impossible to include other base principles such as the existance of a god

    No. No, I am not. I don't know where you got that idea but its completely wrong. I've said on numerous occasions that we don't know everything nor are we anywhere near knowing everything, and that theories must be changed to fit the facts.

    What I *have said*, is that those facts do not and will not include magical fairies in the sky without any sort of evidence of them. Should such evidence turn up, then it will; but the likelyhood of that is rather less than everyone on the planet simultaneously turning into ice skating mongooses and dancing the bolero. Until there is any sort of evidence for these delusions that affect people, they should not be taken seriously.

    Quote[/b] ]Your views on religion are extremely simplistic. The answer is very simple: The sausage people theory would be observable and measurable. The measurements would disprove the theory. That's not possible for a general concept of "god".

    I'm glad you have finally admitted this. Now, what if the sausage people were invisible and undetectable? (according to the person's beliefs)

    Is it still possible to use measurements to prove they don't exist? Or do you have to use something else to determine their existance?

    I had to simplify things to write it all down.

    Quote[/b] ]more ad hominems not based in reality

    Yes, Einstein was a clever man. He wasn't a jew in anything but the racial sense though.

    A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death

    The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it

    We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

  25. Posted

    I was playing a MP mission on a Lan that had been updated to use that 'auto view distance' script (sorry, forget who made it sad_o.gif ) -it checks everyones PC at the start of the mission and sets the viewdistance to the lowest PCs specs.

    Problem was, we both had uber PCs, it set the distance to 1500, and the AI driven insertion chopper was shot down by a shilka 1500 metres away, when with the 900m limit it doesn't even see you.

×