Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Please correct my grammar mistakes if there is any
Absolutely. That should be "if there are any."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
pie where u at, put an end to this tomfoolery against me
I think you could do that yourself just by being more active.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The real question is why you would want us to figure out your identity. However, I doubt you could answer that without giving it away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I don't see any reason for you to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Granted, but they only won because they cheated.
I wish I had a dimensional portal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Alex Jones is the definition of an unreliable source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I saw that coming from a mile away. Make a wish!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Granted, but now you can only communicate through memes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I know. The point I was making is that you seem to do things like that as town more often than as mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think they do. His role is uselessness, and visitors are useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yes, but it did take you a bit to realize your mistake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Not yet. The DP has one been going for a day. We need more posts to analyze.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
I need you active, man. You're one of the few players in this game who puts serious effort and analysis into it.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, I'm here. Finally. For the moment. Here are some reads.
Speed: Mostly fluff. I don't know what that means, but it isn't useful. Null.
Intelligence: As he did in his first game, he's taking things too literally. Normally, I'd say that an inexperienced player playing like that would likely be town because they would be playing better with a scum partner to coach them. But with this crowd, I don't know if there would really be any coaching going on, so he's null.
Supa: He's misreading role claims and wasting time arguing about them without noticing his mistake. Classic town Supa. Lean town.
Bullish: He showed up briefly to vote without explanation. While that doesn't seem too unusual for him, the total inactivity otherwise is concerning. Lean scum, slightly.
Skittlez: Random claim, random votes, fluff - It doesn't feel like he's taking the game seriously. While that's anti-town, it's probably not scummy. Lean town.
Oromagi: As usual, there's very little to analyze. Null.
Pie: He's got a boring role and is largely inactive. Null.
Croc: He's playing to his usual meta of general inactivity. There isn't much to analyze. Null.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
There's a key different between calling someone scum and someone having a scummy role/behavior. That does not imply scum, but it is a read. The fact that Intelligence doesn't understand a basic mafia concept is so impossible that I think it's scummy
What motive would scum have for failing to understand a basic mafia concept?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Granted, but you are in a universe where everyone is an atheist, so no one believes that you even exist.
I wish that I had a transporter from Star Trek.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Granted, but his wish is in Elvish, so you can neither read it not translate it, making it impossible to corrupt.
I wish I could shapeshift.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Suppose I am scum, which I am not, then who'd be my partner?
I don't know.
I don't see my style playing like anyone here, so what is it?
I don't know what this question is asking.
Supa is more likely. Supa claimed 3 people as scum at one point, then only cleared Pie once I mentioned that he could be scum.
I don't see how that means Supa is scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Not in the US. It isn't illegal to not vaccinate your children. It's just risky and foolish.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm leaning town on intelligence. I think that, were he scum, his scum partner would be trying to get him to play more logically rather than going off who said they were town or the meme of Speed being scum.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll be more active in the evenings. I'm really busy right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Um...ok. Not sure what that was. By the way, IT'S SIR!!!! IT'S SIR!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Vader
I think Supa will do a good job with that.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I would say that is extremely overrated. Quite honestly, in terms of movie-making, it's one of the worst I've seen. What little plot there is is continually interrupted by ten minute shots of props moving really slowly, high-pitch, ear-piercing squeals that go on for at least 60 seconds, bizarre colored lines that supposedly represent a wormhole (or something), really loud breathing, and on and on. The actors had every ounce of emotion sucked out of them. The murderous computer was the best character, in addition to being the only worthwhile part of the film, in my opinion. Yes, the special effects were good. Stunning visuals aren't enough to make a good movie. Without having read the book, the plot was all but incomprehensible.
That being said, the movie wasn't entirely bad. The visuals were genuinely stunning. At least, some of them were. The men in ape suits and the random colored lines left much to be desired. The spaceships were cool and surprisingly realistic. The idea of a rogue AI was good. However, without good characters and with the one good story idea relegated to a subplot that took up maybe a quarter or a third of the movie, it was just painfully boring. It's considered a classic, but it's more like an emperor with no clothes. If I wanted realistic visuals, music, and a few interesting ideas surrounded by an overwhelming mass of boredom, I'd watch a lecture given in a monotone with classical music playing in the background. That would me significantly more interesting.
Ok, yes, I'm a "hater" so far as this movie is concerned. But, really? A movie that is 75% watching props and special effects move to background music and 25% painfully slow action in which the only interesting character is a homicidal computer? I don't understand why anyone likes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Those statistical abilities are impressive. However, you are now stuck for all eternity with a bunch of senior citizens who unthinkingly accept anecdotal evidence (unless it disagrees with their set-in-stone opinions) and unthinkingly reject statistical evidence.
That was pretty lame. I wish my jokes were actually funny.
Created:
Posted in:
Just so you all know, I may not be as active this game as I was last game. I'll do my best, but I won't make any promises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't think there's any uniform PM structure. If my PM is any indication, Mharman didn't put much effort into writing them.
Created:
Posted in:
Hello. I didn't realize we were starting today, and I've been really busy today, so I didn't bother to check until now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Freemasons give millions of dollars to charity. Why do you think they do that. When i question freemasonry. One of the first things i get yelled back at is they give so much to charityJeffery epstien has donated million dollars to charityBut the most glaring exaggeration appeared on Wikipedia. A user name apparently connected to Mr. Epstein edited the page for the foundation and put its annual outlay at $200 million a year — just under the amount the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg contributed to charity in 2018.Why do you think ellen donates millions of dollars
They give to charity because they either are charitable or simply wish to appear charitable. There's nothing remotely suspicious about this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Name one healthy person who has chosen to have less kids because they are healthy.
I don't need to name any specific person. The declining birth rate that occurs as countries develop is sufficient proof.
That does not explain that mass decrease in population in place's like america.
It explains exactly that. America's birthrate is decreasing.
Biill gates said that the population decrease in every country he vaccinated.
No. He was pointing to historical trends of a declining birthrate across multiple countries as they developed. Bill Gates had very little involvement in that.
Secondly, I do not know how you guys can beleive such a lie.
We believe it because it is strongly supported by declining birth rates that occur as countries develop. Since birth rates are entirely dependent on the choices of the people having kids, except in China, it is impossible for vaccines to be the cause.
This is like we are not doing cannabilism.we only make our taste receptors out of aborted babies kind of logic.
Agreed on the cannibalism part. Just as there is no evidence that vaccines are causing population decrease, there is also no evidence of widespread cannibalism. As for the part about aborted babies, I'm afraid that I can't decipher what you're trying to say.
Young Tribal Girls Tested With HPV VaccinesThe Economic Times India published their report August 2014. They stated that in 2009, tests had been carried out on 16,000 tribal school children in Andhra Pradesh, India, using the human papiloma virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil.According to the report written by KP Narayana Kumar, within a month of receiving the vaccine, many of the children fell ill and by 2010, five of them had died
Vactruth is an extremely unreliable source.
Why do you think that sites like these are correct and the entire rest of the world, including the entire scientific community, is wrong?
Zero eviddence has been shown that healthy people have less children.
The evidence was in the video you linked in the OP.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
This sounds similar to Zeno's paradox. If you throw an object at my head before it can reach my head it must travel half the distance to my head. It must then travel from the halfway point to my head but first it must travel half of that distance. Because it must always travel half the distance between any given point and my head and because any distance can be halved the object can never reach me. The object will however in real life eventually collide with my noggin.
There is a distinct difference between my argument and Zeno's paradox. In Zeno's paradox, there is a finite distance that is divided infinitely. Translating that to time, Zeno's paradox would be dividing a finite amount of time infinitely. If the universe had existed forever, then there would be an infinite amount of time, not a finite amount of time. Your analogy is invalid, so my argument still stands.
Let us say that the universe had existed forever. That does not prevent us from being at any particular point on its infinite timeline including this one.
It doesn't prevent us from being on a point on the timeline. However, it does prevent time from ever reaching that point, which is why the universe existing forever is a logical impossibility.
Let us for the sake of argument however say that it did have a beginning. That does not in and of itself necessitate a cause.
I disagree. Something cannot come from nothing. It's logically impossible. If you want to argue that something can come from nothing, the burden of proof is on you to show how.
And even if we accepted that there was a cause nothing is saying that this cause was a thinking acting agent(s).
Causing the universe is an action, so it does have to be an acting agent. Furthermore, it has to choose to cause the universe, or else the universe would never be caused. Thus, it must be thinking as well.
Even if it was some thinking acting agent(s) nothing is saying that the thinking acting agent(s) could be recognized at some god(s).
I'm not sure whether you mean that it couldn't be recognized as a God or that it couldn't be recognized as the God described by any known religion. If the former, a thinking, acting, powerful, knowledgeable, timeless, supernatural entity is basically the definition of a god. If the latter, see below.
Even if it was some god(s) there is nothing saying that it was your preferred god. If I am prepared to grant far more than your argument actually warrants we arrive at best at deism not christianity.
Agreed, but you didn't ask me to provide an argument for my preferred God. You asked me to provide evidence that a god(s) is real "to say nothing of your particular flavor of theism".
Something else also occurs to me. If god had existed for an infinite amount of time and if your argument holds water then an infinite amount of time would have to pass before he made the universe and so an infinite amount of time before the present day therefore believing in god in no way solves this seeming logical problem.
That one's easy. Since the God I'm arguing for must necessarily have caused time as well, this God must be timeless, i.e. time doesn't apply to him. Thus, there are no problems with an infinite amount of time so far as God is concerned.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The circled R is a "Registered Symbol" and not a copyright symbol. There is a difference.
Ok. How do you make it?
Barring your misconception, what about the main topic?
Revelation 20:9b-15
But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (emphasis mine)
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (emphasis mine)
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Since our best mathematics break down before the planc time I have no choice but to reject your first premise as unsupportable. Indeed the laws of physics may simply not apply.
On the contrary, I can support my first premise without appealing to laws of physics that may or may not apply. The universe cannot have existed forever for basic logical reasons (which I probably should have started with in the first place, but it's too late now). Suppose the universe had no beginning. That would mean that there is an infinite amount of time that had occurred before the present day. No matter how far back along the timeline you went, you would never reach the beginning. Conversely, if you went forward along the timeline, an infinite amount of time would have to pass before you reached the present day. So if the universe had existed forever, it would never have reached the present day. It's a logical impossibility. If you take the universe out of the equation, it still applies. Time itself cannot have existed forever. Since something cannot come from nothing, there must be a cause for time and the universe. It would have to have all the attributes I listed earlier, in addition to being timeless. As a result of being timeless, the cause itself would not need a cause because there never was anything before it. Thus, we have a timeless, extremely powerful, extremely knowledgeable, personal entity that is beyond nature. In other words, God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
If vaccines were good they would increase the population not decrease it.Bill said in every country the more they vaccinate the more the population decrease. Children, not surviving childhood only happen in a handful of countries. What of the other country's that are depopulated from vaccine's.
Not so. The reason populations level off is because people are choosing to have fewer children, not because of any harm from vaccines. Vaccines make people healthier by preventing many of the diseases that have plagued mankind for millennia. As the video explained, healthier populations choose to have fewer children. It has nothing to do with vaccines not being good.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
How have you determined that any god(s) are or could be real to say nothing of your particular flavor of theism?
I think the best evidence is simply the existence of the universe. Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the universe cannot have existed forever.
"In this case the second law of thermodynamics (in the simplified form presented here) says that no matter what process takes place inside the container, its entropy must increase or remain the same in the limit of a reversible process. Similarly, if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature."
If the universe had existed forever, it would already have suffered a "heat death." Thus, it must have had a beginning. However, it cannot simply have popped into existence into nowhere. Wikipedia says this about the conservation of mass:
"The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system's mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed. Therefore, the quantity of mass is conserved over time.
The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form."
The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form."
It would break natural laws for mass (or energy) to be created out of nowhere. Thus, if the universe cannot have existed forever, and it cannot have been created by natural means, there is no natural explanation for its existence. The reason for the universe's existence must then be beyond nature; that is, it would have to be something that is not bound by the laws of nature. It would also have to be extremely powerful in order to cause the universe, and extremely knowledgeable to cause something so complex. Finally, it would have to be personal in order to choose to make the universe. Put together, the cause of the universe was an extremely powerful, extremely knowledgeable, personal entity that is beyond nature. In other words, the cause of the universe must be God(s).
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Assuming some god(s) exist, which you have not demonstrated, how have you determined what any god(s) do or do not know?
By determining which God is real and seeing what He tells us about Himself.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well, his posts did get in the Hall of Fame. That's a pretty good reason to copyright his catchphrase.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
How can you prove God is?
Indeed, that is the question. Would you be interested in debating it?
Also, there are evidence against bible as well.
There are a lot of things people have said is evidence against the Bible. I don't think it is, but that is another question. It is also a question that is way more time-consuming than the first question you asked in that post.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why? Yes. I can simply say I am the best ever person ever.
Sure, you can say it, but would it be true? Are you perfect?
However, I at least need some supporting evidence because my life isn’t inside a historical fiction book series.
I agree. Supporting evidence is absolutely necessary when you're deciding what to believe.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Believe what you will and do what you want, but I ain’t following a book series who can’t even give me evidence for stuff.
Well, the book itself isn't the evidence. I believe there is a lot of evidence that supports the Bible. That's a different and way more time-consuming discussion, though.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The argument is circular and it leads nowhere. Why is the Bible reliable? Because it said so.
That wasn't what I said. The Bible is not reliable because it says so. I've seen people make that argument, and I cringe inwardly every time I see it. The reason I said it was an authoritative source is because of the context of our discussion. We're talking about whether the God of the Bible is just. In that specific context, the Bible is a good source.
Created: