Total posts: 3,159
Posted in:
Ongoing
Virtuoso [DP1]
Sign-ups
In the Hopper
PressF4Respect (Just a Regular Game of Mafia, themeless) [TBD]
SupaDudz: Theme Choice: (Big Mouth, South Park, Teen Titans, Total Drama Island)
drafterman (Semi-Open)
Speedrace (You'll Go Crazy MCU)
TUF- Recycled Roles mafia
ILikePie5 - Pick 1: Narcos, Riverdale, Bakugan Battle Brawlers
warren- open setup, likely themeless
Zaradi - Borderlands
On Hold
A-R-O-S-E ~ Player's Choice of Role Madness (Powders Pow-wow -- Batman Bizarreness - GotG Gagglefrick
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The more I think about it, the more it looks like you trying to weave an argument out of nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Post 84 was in response to Ragnar's post, where he asked for the pros and cons of lynching DP1. This post is my personal take on random lynching, and why I believe it's a bad strategy.What are the benefits of random lynching?If we lynch randomly, then the odds of hitting scum will be (at most) 40%.Doesn't seem like a good strategy at all from an analytical perspective.Can you explain why we should random lynch?This directly goes against what Press said in Post 84
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Post 84 was a response to Ragnar, when he asked what the pros and cons of lynching and no-lynching were. The post you are quoting:Well I guess we should lunch Water because he hasn’t gotten a chance to be online during this game.This and post 84 seem like a half a** attempt to lynch Water.
Well I guess we should lunch Water because he hasn’t gotten a chance to be online during this game.
This was in response to the "lynch the last person online" approach that Ragnar was suggesting. The purpose of the post is to point out the obvious flaw of that approach (that is, Water was offline/in school = Lynch Water).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
What are the benefits of random lynching?
If we lynch randomly, then the odds of hitting scum will be (at most) 40%.
Doesn't seem like a good strategy at all from an analytical perspective.
Can you explain why we should random lynch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is this game still going or did we move to Virt's game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Am I missing your poem?
ORO MODE (Post #5)
...or are you outing yourself as a Supadudz alt?
OH NO HES ONTO ME 0_o
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Praise to Siri and her infinite wisdom!
Praise to Siri our tech overlord!!!
HEY ALEXA, PLAY THE SOVIET ANTHEM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Tbh in DP1, there isn’t much to go off of at all. Scum is very unlikely to slip at this point. The main focus of mafia is to narrow down the possible list of scum to a point where we can win via POE. There would also be more clues in later DPs. VTNL seems like the best option atp, but I’m open to a lynch if there is a good reason to.
Created:
Posted in:
Don’t worry, we sacrifice the hearts of our lunch candidates to the gods beforehand to gain their blessing and approval.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Should we lunch or no-lunch this DP?What are the pros and cons of it? I mean besides my calculation that there's only an 18% chance that any random player is scum.
Lunch: Yummy Yummy in our tummies.
No-lunch: Lose weight faster
Serious Answer: If we lynch someone this DP, we reduce the size of the scum pool. Coupled with town confirming people, we could use lynches to find scum via POE. However, if we simply run off of the “scummy play = scum”, we might Lynch many town before we get to scum, especially considering the overall skill and experience level of DART mafia players.
Also regarding the typo... Are we a town of cannibals?
According to iPhone autocorrect, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Well I guess we should lunch Water because he hasn’t gotten a chance to be online during this game.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh wait nvm stupid autocorrect. I didn’t even realize lol.
So so should we LYNCH or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
What does intermittent fasting have to do with whether or not to lynch this DP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I'm his newer and better replacementWheres your DP poems?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
My problem with the bible is that it is riddled with contradictions that go against logic and deductive reasoning.What is your best example?Hopefully you will do better than Stephen who posts fake verses and refuses to defend his claims.
Wait... so you're asking Christen for an example of a contradiction in the bible, yet when I ask you to provide a non-biblical example of God appearing in a specific location (which you have claimed that there are thousands), or to explain this:
[The bible] has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
...you refuse to do so. Why should he provide examples for his claim when you refuse to do the same for yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Prepare for another Type1/Billbatard/Nd200...whatever type of person to become a thing on DART
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I asked:
well in that case I am also bulletproof, but my vest has only a 50% chance of workingWhy didn't you say this in your original claim?
He responded with:
If I am the only one with a "role" on the town that basically town confirms me and claiming a tracker means I was surely the night kill target. Do you have a role? Weren't you also saying everyone was vanilla?
I asked him why he added something onto his claim post hoc (further compounded by "well in that case"). It seemed suspicious, like he was trying way too hard to convince everyone that he was the special non-vanilla town. This was why I asked him the question. He responds by saying, "Well, if I claimed this role, so I am basically town confirmed". Also, he stating that by claiming tracker, he would've been the NK target for the night before? And then he asks me if I have a role, a question literally answered by the fact that I asked if everyone except Lunatic was vanilla. His response didn't answer my question, and seemed like a dodge, hence why I VTL'd him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Popcorn won’t work. Literally everyone is going to claim vanilla town.
Followed by AD going online and saying (six posts later)
So, just after I said "everyone else in town is vanilla", AD claims vanilla.I claim useless vanilla townie
It turned out that that wasn't the case.
So the question is, why did AD claim so quickly?
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, so Sir is town confirmed. If he weren't, he would've hammered by now.
Created:
Posted in:
Supa still hasn't scumslipped by this point.
That's pretty good evidence that he's town.
UNVOTE
Created:
Posted in:
<ORO mode ACTIVATE>
Roses are red
Violets are Blue
OMAE WA MOU SHINDERU
VTL SUPADUDZ
Created:
-->
@drafterman
"metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts"This is gibberish. I discern no meaning or sense from it.
DON’T YOU GET IT?
METAPHYSICA-1 IS THE HOTTEST NEW MIRACLE SUBSTANCE ON THE MARKET THAT CAN BOOST YOUR MIND/INTELLECT POWER
ONLY $9.99!!!
ORDER NOW AND RECEIVE A SECOND BOTTLE, FREE!!!
Created:
-->
@Vader
Standardized tests aren’t part of the conditions in this case. Just unit tests, which the teacher can make as easy as he/she wants
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sure, but why should I think your stances on moral issues are any better than any other, especially those that contradict your views? If there are no absolute, objective, unchanging standards and reference point what makes yours any better than mine or a contrary view?
When it comes to morality, there are no "absolute, objective, unchanging standards" or "reference points", nor are there any "better" or "worse" moral stances. Morals are simply the "dos" and "don'ts" that a person, a group, or a society form and adhere to.
Explain to me how feeling pain is a moral value. It describes what is, not what ought to be.
Humans have empathy. That is, we have the ability to feel what others are feeling and relate to them. When another person is hurt, we wince, because we can imagine what they might be going through. We do this because we know they can feel pain. For example, if an child was born into a household where the parents abused them (locked them into their rooms, deprived them of food, beat them, etc.), the parents would be immoral (to many people) because they would be causing unnecessary pain and suffering to the child. We can feel what the child is going through (of no fault of their own), and since we know the child can feel pain, many people would call the parents immoral. Animals can feel pain as well, so causing unnecessary suffering to them would, with empathy in consideration, be immoral.
Do you think you feel any healthier for your choice? Does it make you more alert or give you clarity of thought?
There is a slight improvement, but the meat cravings hit hard.
Created:
Posted in:
Dang this is actually a good idea. Why aren't tourneys done more often?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
In the main time, people will continue becoming theists by the millions, finding enough closure to reach a decision.
Just to burst your bubble:
Created:
-->
@ethang5
>>>You’re right. There will never be closure on this issue. It’s like trench warfare: completely static, with neither side willing to budge.Budge on what? Logic? This is not a negotiation. Truth is not arrived at by consensus.
That’s not what I meant. Sure, you have your position and I have mine, but at the end of the day, we will both come out with more wisdom and understanding. This is what discussions were meant for. However, what debates about religion often boil down to is a slogging match between theists and atheists. Each side's stances are basically calcified, with no room to expand their mindsets whatsoever. In this sense, we will never have closure, for no one is willing to listen to the other side.
Here was my first post in this thread to Fallaneze.You are letting yourself be fooled by an illusion.For very many people, the question does get settled. But new people are always coming into the system.Closure happens to individuals, not to groups. Your implication is that anything short of total and instantaneous closure is not closure."Very many people find closure and truly know the answer. Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?Neither he, nor anyone else who responded to me addressed my question.Now here you are, equating "closure" to your personal satisfaction of how well your questions are answered.So, again, Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
Reaching one's own "personal closure" isn't finding the "true answer". It's simply finding your own personal opinion on this issue. Opinions aren’t facts, and they certainly can’t be used to find the “truth” (whatever that might be).
Also, since when did I equate “closure” to “my own personal satisfaction with how my questions are answered”?
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
So if a teacher teaches nothing but gives out 100% to everyone in the class to placate the students, would they be the best teacher ever?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat.
My point isn’t to debate the merits and flaws of a vegetarian/vegan diet vs. an omnivorous one. It’s to highlight the fact that people have different stances on moral issues, such as whether or not we should be killing animals for meat.
As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?
According to those arguing for vegetarianism/veganism, animals certainly deserve to be considered with morals in mind. Why? Because they can feel pain and suffering, and causing unnecessary suffering to beings that can feel pain is inherently immoral.
PS. Are you a vegetarian?
I’ve been on and off of vegetarianism for the past few months, but I’ll admit that I’m not planning to be a vegetarian/vegan, at least not yet.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
You jump as soon as a question is answered, never acknowledging that your comments leading to the question were wrong.
Where was I wrong?
This is not an interrogation or me seeking validation from you, and what you find funny is immaterial.
You're right. It’s not an interrogation or “you seeking validation from me”. I’m simply asking you to substantiate the claims you made.
You have asked all your questions and have not been able to show illogic or inconsistency, so now you will make some vague claim that I refuse to substantiate my claims. Yet I answered every question you asked.
I can’t work with vague, generalized claims that you don’t substantiate. If you don’t provide me with any examples to back up your assertions (like how there are thousands of non-biblical instances of Jesus appearing in a certain location), then I can use Hitchens’ Razor to dismiss it entirely.
The topic of the thread and spirituality have been forgotten by you as you meander with never ending questions who’s answers you pretend are positive claims that need to be immediately substantiated, while the original claim prompting your question is ignored and forgotten.
Topic/claim of this thread: There'll never be closure on whether God exists
The original claim of the thread is that the question of “Does God exist?” will never be resolved. My main points haven’t deviated from this. You claim that God exists. That’s a positive claim. I’m asking you how you can prove that God exists, to which you still haven’t done so.
The original claim of the thread is that the question of “Does God exist?” will never be resolved. My main points haven’t deviated from this. You claim that God exists. That’s a positive claim. I’m asking you how you can prove that God exists, to which you still haven’t done so.
You wanted Athias and I to play your little atheist game of being the validator and we being the supplicants seeking your approval.
We didn't. Sorry. This is the real world.
No. I want you to substantiate your claims. Simple as that.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
>>> I find it funny how both you and Athias were adamantly insisting that 3RU7AL substantiate his claims, yet when I ask you two to do the same, you both refuse to do so.We substantiated. We just refused to do it the way you wanted.
Tell me what part of these responses is a substantiation:
>>> If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.I am able; engaging you on the subject is a different matter. I choose to not respond to your supplication. How many times must that be stated?
>>> In other words, it's not an excuse to dodge my point.I'm not dodging your point. I'm choosing to not respond.
>>> If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.
I am able; engaging you on the subject is a different matter. I choose to not respond to your supplication.
But I told you my views. If you think something else is credible, that is your business.
>>> You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.Nonsense. You asked if there were, I said there were. You can look it up, but I am under no obligation to offer it to you. It is not part of my argument and matters not one bit to me.
>>> It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples.Like most liberal atheists, you are confused and thinking I am seeking validation from you, or that you are somehow vetting me. My answer was enough for me. Accept or reject it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
>>> You you stated that God created you. I take this to mean that you believe what Genesis 1:27 states, that man was directly created by God. This, evolution would be a counter to creationism as stated in the bible.It cannot be. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began. Google it and see.
>>> See Urey-Miller Experiment:Miller Urey was a failed experiment. It produced no evidence for abiogenesis and every subsequent experiment to date has failed.
Miller Urey was faulty, and later "corrected" experiments failed. In fact, Miller Urey proved again that life only comes from life. Your knowledge on abiogenesis needs serious updating.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/
Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
If you continued reading, you would have come upon this:
But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.
Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.https://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/letter-science-shows-flaws-in-miller-urey-experiment/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html
There are, however, many problems with their methodology. According to Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:
If you are not the sort of person who will reject science because the scientist is Christian, read this.
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
There is a lot to unravel here, so I will come back to these in a separate post.
>>> So you are making another claim, that God is omnipotent.You keep jumping. My claim was it is logical. Deal with that first. Given the definition of omnipotent, Is it logical for there to be 2 omnipotent entities?
Your argument here looks like this:
P: God is omnipotent.
Q: Therefore, there is only one God.
You need to prove P before you can get to Q.
P: God is omnipotent.
Q: Therefore, there is only one God.
You need to prove P before you can get to Q.
>>> If that were the case, then how would you explain the omnipotence paradox?And the omnipotence paradox is explained by the fact that the world is full of poor thinkers and people with low IQ.
Can you elaborate on this?
>>> You believe that the bible is credible enough that you directly took quotes out of it to answer two of my questions, ergo, you believe that the quotes are true in and of themselves.I believe the quotes are true.
Ok, so you believe the quotes provided in the bible are true.
>>> You stated that it was credible (that the content inside it is true enough to quote directly)No sir. The contents inside it is credible enough to quote directly.
“Are the contents inside the bible credible enough to quote directly?”
“No sir, they are credible enough to quote directly.”
“No sir, they are credible enough to quote directly.”
Is it yes or no?
YOU asked about credibility. Now you want my answer to be about truth.
The bible is talking about how things are the way they are, and how they got there. That entails truth. If a source is trying to describe reality (in this case, the bible) is going to be credible (to be believed), then it should have some way for it to be believed. It should have something supporting it.
You claimed:
[The bible is credible because] it has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
You still have yet to support these claims.
Please stop providing beliefs for me and ignoring things I've said that contradict your provided belief. "In and of themselves" is your substituted lie that ignores my stated reasons for why the bible is credible.
You literally just said you believe the quotes in the bible are true. The reason you stated the bible was credible was because many people believe it. Since the bible describes, in truth, why things are the way they are (according to you), it would be a factual text. In order for factual texts to be credible, they would need to have truth to them. Otherwise the bible is nothing more than a work of fiction.
Legal courts use wetness testimonies everyday to show credibility.
“Wetness testimonies” lol.
The reason why witness testimonies work in court is because they have either been at the scene of the crime, have connections to the parties involved, or are experts (doctors, coroners, etc.). None of these apply to the question of whether or not God exists.
The reason why witness testimonies work in court is because they have either been at the scene of the crime, have connections to the parties involved, or are experts (doctors, coroners, etc.). None of these apply to the question of whether or not God exists.
I answered the question you asked. If you wanted to know why the bible was true, you should have asked that.
Okay, then how is the bible true?
Just because many people believe a source does not make it matter-of-fact.
Lol. Trying to hide the silly semantical game you're playing, so you use the weird term, "matter-of-fact" here. You could not say, "...does not make it true", for that would expose your fakery. Many people believing a source makes it more credible. That is a fact your word play cannot defeat.
I’ve already addressed this earlier in this post.
>>> How much experience do you have in having discussions with me? Very little.Everyone likes to think they are unique, but you are pretty run-the-mill. I can almost predict your questions and responses. Do you know how many times I've had to educate some yokel about the debunked Miller/Urey experiments?
Are you and Athias the same person? You and PGA2.0? You and EtrnlVw?
Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions.
When did I ever say they were? We were talking about the differences between Atheism and Agnosticism, and that’s what the website I linked was talking about as well. The title of the website is completely irrelevant to this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
QFs are a good way to have fun in between the dry, stationary periods of the long games
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Everything in this thread is a post my bruddah
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ok you never answered my question.
VTL LUNATIC
Created: