Messages

Oh my god, I can't believe the amount of stupid I have to read here.

Guess you just have re-read your own posts? Seriously you can believe me, you're not the only one with that sentence in your mind.

It simply works

That's what I already said in my first posts in this thread. I don't see anyone here descrediting science. Some people simply don't share your believe that only the scientific view of the world is good/right/whatever...

Ok, so I said everything I have to say.

Akatosh, it's still a circular argument. You can't proof the logic of a certain system with it's own logic. By saying the big bonus of scientific theories is that they're "not just made up" you're only saying that scientific theories use scientific rules. Even if you put high trust in science you should be aware that it's comforting safety only is found (to illustrate that with a picture) inside the house - not in it's foundation.

Can anyone tell me how I get the ags_theora-Plugin to play a video?
I need the video playing in the background in a special area of the screen. I can't use an animation or PlayVideo().
I tried to copy the code from this thread but it doesn't work. I have the plugin placed in the right folder and it's active, the vid I want to play is in the "compiled"- folder. Please give me a hint where to place which piece of code.

Guitar hero: what is the essence of the bible? And EDIT:- christian faith- while your at it, please.

Apart from some side stories it goes something like this:
God creates man - man turns against God - divison between God and man (=sin, death) - God wants to be with man - 10 commandments show: man keeps turning against God -  God sends son - Jesus Christ: death, resurrection > sin and death are overcome - all it needs now is faith in Christ - if man wants to be with God his turning away is forgiven - man still is not how he should be but if he's receiving forgiveness for that he can be with God anyway-  judgement day (yet to come):  finally no division anymore for those who are justified, eternal divison for others.

Or even shorter: Man is totally lost - Christ saves man. That's what the Bible's about.

Khris, no offense, but if you can't show some respect I'll simply ignore you.

You're asking about the order things came into existance. Be aware that what you're reading in Gen. is no scientific article. Also notice that the Hebrew thinking is hugely different from our Greek thinking. That's why you can't simply apply your logic to the text. What I will give you are some thoughts of mine, you'll find more suggestions in theological literature.

The main focus in Gen. 1 is on describing Gods act of creation. The text is structured by the mentioning of specific days. There's an obvious logic to that order, what we have here is creation, not contingency.
Gen. 2  has another focus. Whith the creation of Adam the text moves to Eden. There's not even a single word about the world outside. On the first look, except the making of Adam in the beginning the order remains the same as in Gen. 1. You might find the suggestion that maybe in this detail Gen. 2 is more accurate than Gen. 1. But take a closer look to find there's no mentioning of light, fish... There's generally missing a whole lot of the things of Gen. 1 in here. I don't think Gen. 2 want's to give any "order" because important to Gen. 2 is mainly the relationship between God and man/ man and woman.
So if you focus on what might seem to be a logic contradiction you'll miss the point. I think both texts are talking about the same thing but from a different point of view and with emphasis on different things. Both say that everything was created intentionally by God. Both say that man and woman complement each other and belong together. Both see the relationship God and man share...

Can you provide evidence that there's more to reality than matter and energy? Or is this just your belief?

Khris, do you have some experience in the scientific field? What you're demanding is not possible by definition.

Such phenomenon as mysterious healing exists in many cultures all over the earth. Just because we don't have scientific proof of it (and this something we can never have) that doesn't mean it's not real.

Is there another form of proof -as opposed to scientific proof- to back up this extraordinary claim? Or do we again have to take this on faith?

There's no scientific explanation for the extraordinary. E.g. a friend of mine was about having a tumor removed. When she got to surgery the docs couldn't find any tumor. All of a sudden it was gone - noone could give her a medical explanation. The interpretation of such an event totally depends on your worldview. Maybe the diagnosis was wrong in the first place or maybe under certain conditions we don't know yet tumors dissolve in an instance or maybe they didn't check right and the tumor is still in her body. Or you can say it was God. You even can think both is right.

And if I told you that I believe in an invisible naked midget who's living on my balcony, would you treat that belief with the same respect you demand for yours? And why not?

Because you don't believe that. So there's no reason for taking you seriously on that. But why would you think your actual believe wouldn't be treated with respect? I really don't get your problem here.

Regardless of what I offered you as proof that I love person X, you could always dismiss it as not convincing.
If, on the other hand, you were to, say, pray to your god for hitting a tree with lightning and it happened, three times in a row, I'd readily accept it as proof and convert on the spot.

No, no, no! It always had to be coincidence, a trick, whatever... Science at least does not allow you the explanation "God".

The ten commandments, being good to other people, all men are like brothers and sisters etc. are things that you can discover for yourself, without ever realising that they were writen in a book.

I'm sorry, nice thoughts but not the essence of neither christian faith nor the bible.

Guitar hero: Thanks. God does not give proof of his existence. Same as the Almighty Universal Unicorn...

That's why YOU, believers, YOU, who feel so attacked when somebody questions your faith, should apply that think Jesus said ("Do to the others what you want the others do to you") and accept that "God" is not the only answer. For me, the answer is the Almighty Universal Unicorn... If you don't accept my Faith, I will feel legitimated for not accepting yours.

"I don't accept your faith if you don't accept mine!" - how stupid is that! If you really believe that accepting one anothers faith is right you should just live by that - even if others don't accept yours.
But of course you're free to believe whatever you want. At what point did you have the feeling that your personal faith was "attacked"? And why do I get the feeling that you don't even believe in unicorns either?
I think we all know that there are many answers. Sometimes it helps to find the right questions before seeking an answer.

We're still talking about scientific proof, right? Why is that even important? There's no such proof for love either.

In the very first chapter of the bible, God creates all the animals, then man and woman (at the same time, it seems).
In the next chapter, he creates man, then a woman out of his rib, then all the animals.
So in what order did it actually happen? And why did at least one account get the order wrong? We're talking about the inspired word of god here, describing how the universe came into existence, right?

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to be able to deliver a satisfying answer here; I'm merely curious how you're gonna weasel out of this one and I'm going to base my decision whether discussing with you is worth my time on that.

That sounds so arrogant! Maybe I'll get back on that later but I don't really have the time now. In the meanwhile this psot might give at least some thoughts on the third of your questions.

@Guitar_hero,
I'm interested to know what you think of Jim's faith healing and other beliefs that he's laid out here.  Are you in agreement?

As I stated before, a totally naturalistic/materialistic worldview does not do juctice the reality we live in. Such phenomenon as mysterious healing exists in many cultures all over the earth. Just because we don't have scientific proof of it (and this something we can never have) that doesn't mean it's not real. Concerning Jim - how should I know? But I keep thinkig: a license??

@Guitar's statement: "Wrong axioms take to wrong conclussions". Okay... I was trying to find an evidence of the existence of God... I thought that maybe a God inspired book, flawless, could be a good evidence. I think we agree here Bible is not that.

Yes, we agree. But the Bible tells of a god who leaves all his glory and power behind to become a helpless human baby. Jesus had never any big success, he spent his time with poor, unimportant and sinful people and finally, despised by his people and abandoned by his friends suffered the death penalty like a criminal. That's the God of the Bible, that's how the allmighty creator of the universe shows himself to humanity. I think this imperfect, despised book does fit him very well.

So, what do we do? Go on looking for evidences? [...] Some of them tell me that there is no need to look at the things around bike to believe in God... The way He makes them feel, how joyfull they are when then think on Him is proof enough.

My reply: "The same way Aria Giovanni makes me feel".

I think what you're saying about feelings is right. If not God himself proves his existence to you (on a relational level, not a scientific one) you can never be sure. And that leaves us with absolutely nothing: No proof, no evidence.

Wise advise on how to deal with 'the bible":

1. Don't read the bible, ever! Just put the little pieces of knowledge you have in your memory together to get your very own "biblical text". This is a profound basis for arguing about how this book makes no sense at all.

2. Take presumptions for facts. Believe everything anybody tells you about the bible, as long as it fits your image that it's been written by a bunch of brainamputated monkeys on dope. The most absurd interpretation of the text is always the best one to go with.

3. Assume you already know everything about the bible there is to know. You will not be surprised to hear that the primary objective in a conversation should always be to not getting a potentially wrong view corrected. There is no truth, there only is your truth.

4. If you're not very familiar with the bible that's no problem. Just make sure to let everyone know how much of a "believer" you are (whatever it is you believe). Remember, you have all the answer to all questions, you just need to think hard enough.

Just to be clear, were you talking to Jim here?

I was talking to Jim as much as I was talking to you and everyone else.

guitar_hero:
I've just read the first two books, and they flat out contradict each other on several issues. Please explain what I must have gotten wrong.

I don't think I need to anything much to Misj's last post. It's a good reminder for us all. KhrisMUC, if you have a specific question about something you find contradtictory feel free to ask.

If "God" created humans, things "purely" related to "God" should be perfect, don't you think so?

Wrong axioms lead to wrong conclusions.

Wise advise on how to deal with 'the bible":

1. Don't read the bible, ever! Just put the little pieces of knowledge you have in your memory together to get your very own "biblical text". This is a profound basis for arguing about how this book makes no sense at all.

2. Take presumptions for facts. Believe everything anybody tells you about the bible, as long as it fits your image that it's been written by a bunch of brainamputated monkeys on dope. The most absurd interpretation of the text is always the best one to go with.

3. Assume you already know everything about the bible there is to know. You will not be surprised to hear that the primary objective in a conversation should always be to not getting a potentially wrong view corrected. There is no truth, there only is your truth.

4. If you're not very familiar with the bible that's no problem. Just make sure to let everyone know how much of a "believer" you are (whatever it is you believe). Remember, you have all the answer to all questions, you just need to think hard enough.

Wait, you are saying that there was no ethical code telling what the Ten Commandments tell before they were given to Moses?

False. They were... And some of them were much rich and extense than the ten commandments...

That's  why we need a God? To give us something we managed to get without his help? man... The more I know about that "God", the more convinced I am that he is a truly incompetent.

How much did you people deal with the stuff you're posting about? Don't take this personally, and I'm not referring to you only, Nacho. But there are some rather strange ideas of what the bible might actually tell and what's complete nonsense.

The ten commandments are gods will on how people should be living together, right. But they are no moral codex. At least their intent never was to make the hebrews to better people. This wouldn't have worked anyway. Not because they were hebrew or not that high developed or too dumb, but because they were human and humans can either be friends of god (then they are called good) or enemies (in that case they're called evil). Following a rule doesn't make one a friend of god. (I think that that rule goes for most relationships). The ten commandments show how we as humans are thinking and acting against gods will, against himself. One might try to keep them all (seriously though, who wants that?) but will it find impossible. Now faith is not about learnig how to follow the rules and becoming "good" enough to go to heaven. Faith is about receiving forgiveness and learning how to trust god again, to be friends. Maybe that answers the question about who should be called a 'believer', too.

And Mr. Matti: No. I don't think you have thought that through.

guitar_hero:
When you started posting here, talking about how you're a strong critic of theology, I'd never have guessed that you're a biblical literalist who thinks it's ok, even good(!) to stone homosexuals to death.

As you don't know me, please be careful with your judging over what I would do or not do, think or not think.
Again, if god wanted someone to be stoned to dead, this would be good. It's obviuosly not something you like to hear, that's ok, but I don't find this thought hard to understand. I don't get where you're connection to literalism comes from. That's a totally different subject.

And about World War II: We've come a long way since two thousand years ago. Like Akatosh said, some crazy evil people managed to screw up stuff badly for a whole lot of other people occasionally, but as a whole, things are way better than even a few hundred years ago, when people where tortured and burnt at the stake by pious fucks just for having red hair.

Those were the euphoric thoughts of the enlightenment. Then the big war came. You have to imagine what that meant to the people and how their whole thinking got shattered. Did we learn anything from that?

Please also note that the most violent and underdeveloped countries are also the most religious ones.

I don't know if that's true, but frankly, I couldn't care less. Not for the people, though. I just don't see how one could draw any conclusions from that.

Your attitude that it's best to give up judgment and independence to follow a leader who decides what's good and bad is precisely what turns average people into Nazi goons, suicide bombers or militia who slaughter their own families.
If that's really what you call "good", you're simply a sociopath by pretty much everyone's definition.

So you do agree it depends on the leader if giving up judgement and independence is a good idea? Of course, you better had a good leader - be that god, society or yourself.

If you look at what we have achieved, I think we all deserve a pat on the back. (Sure, there have been some... less-than-pleasant occurences, but we more or less fixed them. We've come a long way from the grunting cave people who worshipped sky-grandpas because they had no explanation for thunder.)

And that way leads right into a brighter future, hm? Seriously, are you kidding me?? Just take a look at a newspaper or turn on the news on TV. Or maybe just look carefully at your own actions. Most people would even do something they know is evil. Oh, and did I mention world war II? So much on "moral sense".

Wow, that's a really fucked up way of deciding what's good and what's evil. Congratulations, you've negated tens of thousands of years of evolution of our moral sense.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of god (which is, well, the current situation), I prefer to consider good what makes people feel happy and bad what makes people fell shitty, thanks.

And how come that people even ask "How can a good god do evil things?" Because that implies that they have a different view of what's evil and what isn't.

Yeah, I think you got my point! It's a totally different concept, isn't it! The bible makes so much sense (at least, to me that is ): It's just that "I can decide what's good and evil on my own"-attitude that in the story of Adam and Eve gets between them and their maker. They weren't created with that attitude but somehow they got to this point. In the core it is so not about moral. If good=god (and his will), and evil=opposition to that, it's the relationship between god and human that is concerned. So by turning from god to themselve,s Adam and Eve turned in their relationship with god from friend to enemy.

If your god tells me to never, ever question and just mindlessly obey him, I'll stick with some alternative, thank you very much.

I would not agree on that word "mindlessly" - but yes. And if god really did not have bad things in mind for those he created that would be no propblem, right? The only question is, is god trustworthy (or: is common sense/ humanity/myself... more trustworthy)? That's what faith is about. Believing in god is all about trusting god over anything else. Which on the other hand means to give up own judgement and independency.

You believers seem to waste a lot of energy defending God, don't you? A supernatural perfect Being should be good enough for not needing any kind of defense from its tiny, weak and humble creations... Unless it's the tiny creations who created the supernatural Being, of course!

Funny how people act like anyone could actually judge god. But if god is really god he's to decide what's good and what's not. So by definition he is good and everything against him is evil. That easy. We tend to think we could tell good from evil all by ourselves and ask "How can a good god do evil things?" He can't. There's no law above god telling what's good and what's not. If he does it, it's good. When we see ourselves in a postition to judge (or defend) god this only proves us being evil. Even his laywers often do forget about this.

All experimental science must assume a purely naturalistic world (and usually does so without thinking about it). Otherwise it wouldn't work. Even the most staunch believers don't include the possibility of a divine intervention into their lab work. They readily admit this.

It's only convenient to work that way. But who decided what is "natural" and what isn't? It's just a definition. And it's another more ore less random decision to base not only our scientific work, but even our political system and whole society on that definition. Who tells us that's right? As Misj' said, you can't proof a hypothesis from within the hypothesis.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad. It's a good basis for learning about biological processes and for building computers. But a just naturalistic view of the world is not enough. It's not appropiate (and it definitely is not how we live our daily lives). Either we let go of science as the ultimate source of truth and rather see it for what it is, a tool. Or we need to develop an idea of what a "new" science could look like, and that one surely is not bound to the actual definition of the natural and supernatural.

However, the existence of a god does not chance anything for the true sciences; since science concerns the mechanisms. A cell won't work differently if it was created or not. Everything that we measure about the world works the way it does independent of how it came into existence.

Actually what we can study are not "the mechanisms". A "mechanism" is an abstract construct we build by putting together our pieces of observations with some other data, defined by a set of what we call "scientific" rules. (Another time: more or less random rules. Practical for all kinds of things but they're not a given and can't say anything about truth.)

There's no dilemma here. "God exists" and "no god exists" aren't equally valid concepts. The latter one is the default position while the first one is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence (which still isn't there).

Technically, those are equally valid concepts. But you're right, "no God" is some kind of default position for science since by definition it's based on reason and logic alone. But science has to question even it's premises (because that's it's concept) and so theoretically it can go even beyond the "no god" statement. If not so, it would admit it's failure. Therefore if "god exists" can be stated in a reasonable way it's only legitimate to do theology in a scientific context with this premise, in the same time theologians still work on the contradictory basis (as if God were not a given).

KhrisMUC and Misj', I've been reading some of your posts (sorry to the others ) and I'm beginning to really like this thread. I'm a theology student (protestant) so as you can imagine to me this is very interesting. KhrisMUC, I can totally understand why you wouldn't consider theology to be science. I'm a huge critic of theology myself.
What theology tries to do is to explain/express the christian faith in a way everybody (and this is important: not depending on his/her believes!) can rationally understand. Therefore we use scientific methods and work together with other disciplines such as archeology, philology... Academic discussions are based on reasonable arguments. Theology is science in the full sense of the word. Still it's not like biology or even mathematics. Theology faces the same problems as all humane disciplines. And believe me, arguing with "probabilities" is a struggle when you're dealing with... I'd like to call it "supernatural elements". But I don't agree that it's the premise "god exists" which is the real problem (because "no god exists" is a premise as well, so what we have here is a dilemma). And btw. theology works with the methodic doubt (etsi deus non daretur: "as if God were not a given").

I think the big question is, what is science? Or, what do we want it to be? Do we just need it to get results we can work with? Or is it about truth? I feel like those two shouldn't get mixed up. If we want the latter we're facing really big problems. I mean, what is the appropriate approach to "reality"? Just logic and reason? I don't think so, but that's what makes it so complex.

I tried PlayVideo() but it stops the game. I need the game to continue while it's playing the vid. I don't want to make a cutscene, I want to have the vid playing in the left half of the game window but the player should still be able to interact with the scene in the right half of the game window. Any ideas?

OT: Oh, I'm sorry! Since I'm a Beginner I thought this would be rather basic so I posted here, but of course you're right. The Plugin Thread would have been a better choice for putting this. Can a Mod change that, please?

Hi folks!

I've got a problem setting up the ags_theora-Plugin. I copied the code from this thread: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=34910.0 and tried to make it work in my game but I can't get no video to appear. I have the plugin placed in the right folder and it's active, the vid I want to play is in the "compiled" - folder. The size of the vid does not fill the whole background but that should be ok.

I wonder if anyone could give me a walkthrough for working with the plugin. I'm not quite sure how to tell the game the coordinates for the vid either but first step would be playing the vid at all. Thanks!