Reilly

it's weird seeing 07 battles..

#1

fun

How's it going.

tenacious pride

the activity on this forum says it all.

Oh I think you have your own mind, it's just been manipulated through the prospects of social cohesion and it's benefits. I'm sure it calms a lot of your fears and anxieties, such as death, the afterlife, etc. You can have faith in things other than God you know - the universe with the potentiality for nearly anything and the gift of consciousness are much more liberating of concepts than a rigid set of rules and detest for your own flesh.

But i don't get defensive about it tbh, i really don't care. People have their own views in their life and i respect how they should spend their life. There is a very very crazy way i look at life which i'm too stubborn to share with the rest. Only God can judge me. I don't care how many times you can tell me there is no God, because there's no actual proof that God does not exist. There is no way, no way whatsoever that science will have actual proof how the universe was created, therefore Religion will stand strong. In addition, there will always be Religion vs Science debates, because there's 1 thing that science cannot and will never proof of how the universe began. So until Jesus or Mohammed(peace be upon him) show up on earth, Religion vs Science will forever exist in this world. Till the end, death, we will finally see ourselves. I'll give you a little lesson in logic: 1) You are asking us to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. What you expect of us is completely impossible, the sentence itself has no meaning that corresponds with reality. We can not prove that God does not exist, it is simply impossible because... 2) You are making a positive claim. You are the one that is claiming the existence of something, therefore you are logically obligated to prove that claim. A negative claim would be saying God does not exist, but that does not need to be proved, that is assumed. We don't simply assume anything that could possibly exist as a being does so in actuality; for example, do you believe there are millions of tiny little men walking around your room at night and ******** on your floor? I wouldn't expect you to disprove that either. 3) You're way off topic. The actual question is are they compatible. yes i know i went off topic. i went to history not science. Let's start with science. Science is ******* great, it has helped us live longer, cure cancer and soo many other good shitt.but it has also it has ****** us up as well(mass destruction, weapons,missile,nuclear bombs) When you start to read a book, you start from page 1 right? We'll assume when the universe began is Page 1 of a book, and it's blank.. ( there is no proof how universe began <-- can we leave that at here) I agree that we don't know where the universe began. Still, we can speculate and form theories based on the evidence we provided. This is why I don't believe the two are compatible; one is rigid, fixed and outdated while the other is constantly changing as new evidence presents itself.

But i don't get defensive about it tbh, i really don't care. People have their own views in their life and i respect how they should spend their life. There is a very very crazy way i look at life which i'm too stubborn to share with the rest. Only God can judge me. I don't care how many times you can tell me there is no God, because there's no actual proof that God does not exist. There is no way, no way whatsoever that science will have actual proof how the universe was created, therefore Religion will stand strong. In addition, there will always be Religion vs Science debates, because there's 1 thing that science cannot and will never proof of how the universe began. So until Jesus or Mohammed(peace be upon him) show up on earth, Religion vs Science will forever exist in this world. Till the end, death, we will finally see ourselves. I'll give you a little lesson in logic: 1) You are asking us to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. What you expect of us is completely impossible, the sentence itself has no meaning that corresponds with reality. We can not prove that God does not exist, it is simply impossible because... 2) You are making a positive claim. You are the one that is claiming the existence of something, therefore you are logically obligated to prove that claim. A negative claim would be saying God does not exist, but that does not need to be proved, that is assumed. We don't simply assume anything that could possibly exist as a being does so in actuality; for example, do you believe there are millions of tiny little men walking around your room at night and ******** on your floor? I wouldn't expect you to disprove that either. 3) You're way off topic. The actual question is are they compatible.

1) You acknowledging that scientific theories are constantly changing in order to accommodate new knowledge is a prime example of how science has no invested interest in maintaining any form of hierarchical structure. The same cannot be said for religion - Religion is structured in a rigid, unchanging way in order to maintain a institution of inequality. 2) No, I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea. Yes, I do believe in Genghis Khang. This is because there is hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence indicating the mass genocide of a population did happen. This includes the remains of thousands of individuals, documented cases of the massacres that have taken place - Including documented first hand accounts. In actuality this didn't occur that long ago; less than a thousand years. If you want to adopt a Greek-skeptic-position then keep in mind it also applies to your own, infallible, bible. Now, I would like to counter your question - What evidence do you have that suggests the red-sea was by Moses? 3) Which do I believe is more believable as a theory? Well, in the past 100 years there have been a plethora of mass genocides happening. Of course the most notable being Hitler. It just so happens I've never heard of a man having the ability to part massive bodies of water at will, however.. 4) Copying and pasting physics articles that are highly debated amongst the physics community does not prove anything. I never once claimed to know the origins of this universe, nor how we came to be. That is the difference between science and religion - Religion claims to know, science is humble enough to admit we do not know everything. We're searching for the answers. Oh mate, you still haven't answered my question. Did Genghis Khan existed? How can you possibly tell me he existed when there is no visual proof of him. Documented pieces? The Bible/Qu'ran is a legitimate document proof. Do you know why you think Genghis Khan existed? It's because you BELIEVE he existed, but you have fcck visual proof he ever existed. Do you know now? That's how religion is. We BELIEVE there is a God. Just like how you believe there was a man name Genghis Khan because some dude with a Ph.D wrote a History book, like fcck was he there? Did he see genghis Khan? And no, those bodies aren't proof. It's been thousands years ago since Genghis Khan, they could be anyobdy living from all that time that due of natural causes. They had no vaccination back then did they? And back the life was real short. Avrg life span was around 40s? and document names? I'll start now.. Chin Chan Chou repeat x1000 Chi Yang Ming repeat x1000.. No fcking visual proof whatsoever of these thousands of man who died from the sword of Genghis Khan. Just names, and some bones that could of been ANYBODY who wasn't even killed from Genghis Khan. You're a sheep. From school/college/work, your whole life. That's all we will ever be. Sheep. Because we will never ever get out there and learn this **** ourselves instead we search up shlt that we don't even know if it existed, we just believe it did, hope that it did and it wasn't all a lie. The past will always be just a belief, if we have no visual proof of it. it's fcking crazy how i observe the world from smoking too much GANJA. shrooms mollies, all that shitt... Yes he existed you god damn pleb. If you need visual sense-data experience for everything deemed as true knowledge then how can you possibly believe that God exists? It seems as though your refutations aren't coherent with your actual belief system. Being a radical epistemological skeptic and having an impossibly high standard of justification to reach is self-defeating. If we can't know anything, then why bother trying? There is plenty of evidence indicating the existence of Genghis Khang, you're just too attached to your own beliefs to acknowledge that. No matter what evidence I present you have a firm psychological attachment to your religion. Pretty ironic calling me the sheep lol. And are you kidding me? I just ripped a bowl as I was writing this kid. You can't be much older than 17 I'm guessing.

1) You acknowledging that scientific theories are constantly changing in order to accommodate new knowledge is a prime example of how science has no invested interest in maintaining any form of hierarchical structure. The same cannot be said for religion - Religion is structured in a rigid, unchanging way in order to maintain a institution of inequality. 2) No, I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea. Yes, I do believe in Genghis Khang. This is because there is hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence indicating the mass genocide of a population did happen. This includes the remains of thousands of individuals, documented cases of the massacres that have taken place - Including documented first hand accounts. In actuality this didn't occur that long ago; less than a thousand years. If you want to adopt a Greek-skeptic-position then keep in mind it also applies to your own, infallible, bible. Now, I would like to counter your question - What evidence do you have that suggests the red-sea was parted by Moses? 3) Which do I believe is more credible and justifiable as a theory? Well, in the past 100 years there have been a plethora of mass genocides happening. Of course the most notable being Hitler. It just so happens I've never heard of a man having the ability to part massive bodies of water at will, however.. 4) Copying and pasting physics articles that are highly debated amongst the physics community does not prove anything. I never once claimed to know the origins of this universe, nor how we came to be. That is the difference between science and religion - Religion claims to know, science is humble enough to admit we do not know everything. We're searching for the answers.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards. Hmm, in my opinion hundreds of 50v50s determine #1 matched over a couple of 100v100 fullouts :P Ok. Now let's keep in mind that you completely disregarded my actual reason for believing Tlp shouldn't be #1 in anything; the fact that they never successfully got into the F2P scene. Let's also keep in mind that this topic takes into consideration the historical background of clanning because of the 'all-time' clause. I don't deny they're a good clan, but taking into account their over-all position through out the years I wouldn't consider the them the #1 matched clan of all time, nor a viable threat in F2P. dont know how being awful at f2p reflects in the p2p matched rating :s but okay I dont really feel like arguing more. I know what you mean and I guess I agree. When I say of all-time I'm not really taking into consideration matched preps and things like that however, but I feel ya.

Ya, I'm expecting most of the responses to be along those lines lol, I don't mind though. Hopefully at least one intelligent theist will challenge my claims.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards. Hmm, in my opinion hundreds of 50v50s determine #1 matched over a couple of 100v100 fullouts :P Ok. Now let's keep in mind that you completely disregarded my actual reason for believing Tlp shouldn't be #1 in anything; the fact that they never successfully got into the F2P scene. Let's also keep in mind that this topic takes into consideration the historical background of clanning because of the 'all-time' clause. I don't deny they're a good clan, but taking into account their over-all position through out the years I wouldn't consider the them the #1 matched clan of all time, nor a viable threat in F2P.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards.

There are only 4 clans that should even be considered noteworthy on this topic: Mm, Foe, Fi and Eop. No other clans have accomplished half of what they have taking all things into consideration. Cp and Tlp were never able to successfully become multi-dimensional clans and E's potential was never actualized.

Premise of argument: They are incompatible and religiosity in it's most basic sense poisons the world. Definitions (As I perceive each to be): - Religion: An organized collective of doctrines, insights and beliefs formed by humans in order to comprehend the structure's of reality. Taught through scripture and adamant in it's teachings; dogmatic. - Science: A subject of study, designed to understand the workings of reality - more specifically the material world. Uses empirical methods of inquiry in attempting to understand our universe. Taught through trial-and-error while continually falsifying, adapting and critiquing contemporary theories in order to better comprehend ourselves and our world. I will try to simplify my proposition as much as possible. Basically, what I suggest is that science and religion are NOT compatible as many theists suggest. Though I perceive many problems with religion (blind faith, the dissolution of personal responsibility in defining our lives as competent moral beings, etc) the largest problem I suggest is this: 1) By virtue of nature, religion is dogmatic. It presumes to fully understand reality and the mechanical workings of the universe with no falsifiable evidence. It is blind faith. It cannot be tested, verified or critiqued because the notion of God as an ultimately powerful being implies that he already understands everything and has a plan for our world. This plan, of course, was given to humans through scripture. 2) Science, by virtue of nature, is the opposite. It is constantly changing and adapting to new knowledge that is introduced. It does not believe itself to fully understand and have the ability to adequately explain the workings of our universe. HOWEVER, it is always open to new knowledge and is NOT dogmatic. It is ever-changing as new information is processed and we learn more. It is inquiry, it is skepticism, it is understanding and it is knowledge. 3) The two are simply incompatible and religion is a disease that leads to inevitably evil consequences. It is intolerant, racist, homophobic and worst of all has absolutely no evidence to validate any claims made. Science, on the other hand, is neutral and opposed to developing theories to fit it's own preconceived world-view, it actually forms it's views based on the evidence provided. Religion has invested interests in holding back mankind, and should be eradicated from any civil society. Discuss and post your thoughts; feel free to disagree but at least state why.

I'm relatively rich on this server, but it's not that great. The econ. on it is ****** and they need a server reset because the wealthy players manipulate the econ. through staking and merching. The pkings mediocre and I don't like the fact they added their own weapons (ie Limes).

That's a shame considering their history, but they died the day Dave was replaced with Walli

- Rs introduced and replaces Rsc. - June '05. Initiate released. June '06. Defenders released. <- Now a huge shitfest in the PC about whether or not 20 defence was pure lol. - Dec 07. Wild removed, Bh introduced. Blah blah blah PC is dead blah blah blah. - Bh crater removed, replaced with the PCL. PCL persists until wild is reintroduced and revamped. - Turm/Curses added to the game. <- 30 defence is now pure loooool. - RS3 now about to be released, people still bitchin'. Clans die, people leave, **** happens. It's been said 1000 times already, jagex literally does not give a **** lol. They're a corporation who's sole purpose is to make money before anything else, and as long as people play the game they don't need to listen to their customers. Nothings changed, we've been debating the same **** since Rs2 was released, just roll with the punches and have fun while you can, no need to 'riot' or protest the release of Rs3. The pure community has adapted, thrived and survived much, much worse^.

:down:

I haven't actually looked into the server much, but if it's comparable to other private servers I'm assuming training will be fast and easy, so it would be a possibility to have multiple accounts (ie A pure they pk on and one of those faggy 30 defence maxed accounts). Hopefully the general consensus of what it means to be pure will become what it once was.

My clan doesn't change the validity of these facts. Numbers don't lie :thumbsup: You can misconstrue facts to form an invalid conclusion ;). ie. That Frenzy isn't a **** cwa no-name clan that won't die and will proceed to make a significant impact on the community. Where the hell do you get off saying tlp is **** LOL. Be that as it may, I never once stated Frenzy's current role in the pure community. You simply inferred that by us having the best averages we thought very highly of ourselves. When did I infer that, please, show me. You obviously do think highly of yourselves if you think me saying facts can be misconstrued translates into 'we have the best averages and think highly of ourselves'. Go suck each others cocks on your own forums.

My clan doesn't change the validity of these facts. Numbers don't lie :thumbsup: You can misconstrue facts to form an invalid conclusion ;). ie. That Frenzy isn't a **** cwa no-name clan that won't die and will proceed to make a significant impact on the community. Where the hell do you get off saying tlp is **** LOL.

'Clan: Frenzy'