Messages

Suggestions anyone?

Make it part of the game.  The character has an "angelic" glow that always surrounds him.

Problem solved.

Seriously... this sounds like you're using alpha channel edges and then pulling the background color out when you're saving (as a GIF I'm guessing?).  You either need to save as a png with Alpha or remove the alpha entirely when saving as a gif.

Scenario 1 - she didn't pull away the instant his lips touched hers and "went along with it a moment" and then gave him her phone number?  That's cheating.

Scenario 2 - if it truely never manifests physically ... it's not cheating.  However, I would wonder about how strong my relationship was if the woman I'm seeing is getting crushes on other men and then starts seeing them (physical or not aside) outside of the office.

While 2 isn't, technically, cheating both scenarios are wrong in my opinion and might indicate the relationship isn't too strong.

I don't know ...

And to be honest, I really don't care

My beliefs are my beliefs.   I may think somebody is wrong if their beliefs don't "jive" with my own, but who am I to say they are wrong?

I think I am guilty of falling into the very same "trap" that I am talking about with my point.  To me, what I'm saying makes total sense ... apparently the rest of you don't share my beliefs.

So, peace/God/nothing be upon you all.

I'm out

Plus, I don't see how it's a bad thing to trivialize other's beliefs. To an atheist, believing in god is not different in any way from believing in mermaids, unicorns or Santa Claus.

Just because you don't happen to agree with somebody else's beliefs does not, in any way, give a person the right to trivialize them.  In my opinion, to do so on the grounds that those you disagree with are ignorant and/or close minded (for believing in something you don't) ironically, makes the one doing the trivialization the very thing they accuse the others of.

Your last paragraph is basically the same as Pascal's Wager. Going with God is not a safe bet at all. See it explained: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Again ... this is just somebody's elses opinion.  Somebody else's belief.  If people want to jump on board with it, so be it, that doesn't mean it's right or wrong as, again, it cannot be proven or disproven until a person takes their final journey.

While it might've shifted towards it (perhaps inevitably), I don't think this thread was originally meant as 'Atheism vs. Religion: which is right". It was originally about expressing your atheism - and I think expressing your faith is a valid offshoot of that. The ' debate' may never be settled, but so what? Unless it devolves to everyone yelling 'You're going to Hell!', 'No we're not, you're just deluded fools!', the discussion itself is interesting enough to me.

Yeah, I agree with the "intent" of this thread ... but anytime a thread says ANYthing against religion (which, intended or not, a thread about Atheism does) it will turn into a religious debate.  That's just the way it goes.

(The most interesting and intelligent posts seem to be on the 'side' of atheists, but then I'm biased )

Haha ... thank you for that.  Totally lends support to my point

Oh ... and just to clarify.  I had never read about Pascal's wager Wagner (thanks Andail - my dyslexia strikes again!).  I was, mostly, making a joke in my statement about a "safe bet".  I more choose to believe in a higher power simply because it makes sense to me.  I've witnessed some things (personally) that make me sure there is a higher power at play.  Conversely, I've witnessed things (personally) that make me doubt.

I considered posting my personal beliefs to this thread ... however, they are mine and I don't really want to try and push them on others.

I, obviously, see the point you're trying to make ... I just don't agree with it.

It's not a mistake to put religion and atheism on the same level.  The debate going on in this thread is about comparing Atheism and Religion.  So, as far as this thread is concerned, they are on the same level.  They are what is being compared/debated.

You're so sure that what you believe is correct that you trivialize other's beliefs.

To a truly religious person, there's no need to find a rational explanation. In the end, it's God's work, end of story.

This statement totally proves my point.  You're extremely generalizing religious people.  My father is a religious person.  He believes in god and I've NEVER once heard him cast off something so casually.  In fact, I've met very few religious people like that.  A belief in a religion doesn't, by default, make somebody ignorant and/or close minded.  There are a LOT of ignorant and/or close minded religious fanatics sure, but there are just as many ignorant and close minded atheists too.

Me personally; I tend to lean more towards science than religion.  However, I think it's a bit odd to think that we humans are the highest form of life out there.  Sure, I don't have any solid, scientific, proof of God's existence ... but it's a tad naive (even foolish) to think that just 'cause I can't prove it, (s)he/it/God doesn't exist.

I don't argue for or against either side of this debate.  Rather I'm stating my opinion that this is a debate that will, 14 pages in, achieve nothing.

I look at it like this:  If, after death, there is "nothing" and you just simply end... then the point/proof will never be given 'cause it's just over after you die so there'd be no "I told you so!" possible.  However, if there is a heaven/hell and believing in a God gets you into Heaven rather than burning in eternal fire and damnation just 'cause I couldn't prove the big guy existed ... well ... it seems a safe bet to go with a God.

We're all gonna find out someday...

I wasn't specifically saying that to you, just to everybody in general.

But the argument you made in your last post does prove the my point quite well.

To you, with your beliefs, what you said makes total sense to you.  That doesn't, no matter how obvious it is to you, make it "correct" and/or "accurate".  It's your belief, not somebody elses.  However, that doesn't mean you're "wrong" and/or "inaccurate" either.

For every conceivable argument an atheist can make against religion, a religious person can counter just as effectively based on their beliefs.  To an atheist, the religious person's arguments seem foolish and naive.  The religious person will think the atheists beliefs are the same.

So all the atheists on this board can make all the claims, state their beliefs, argue their points and the only thing it'll accomplish is making other atheists agree with you.  The religious people aren't going to start denying their god!  Just as, conversely, the religious people can argue their faith till they're blue in the face and all you godless heathens will just call them stupid

Seriously ... there's no winning this debate.  It is, however, a fun debate to take part in.

I don't understand why everybody gets so up in arms over this.

Creed's metaphor is, in my opinion, perfect for this particular debate.

Atheists - you aren't ANY more correct than the religious people are.

Religion People - you aren't ANY more correct than the atheists are.

Atheists - you can't prove (no matter how you try) that [a] God doesn't exist.

Religion People - you can't prove (no matter how strong your faith) that [a] God exists.

It's nothing more than a matter of personal opinion.  One person's personal opinion is no stronger/weaker than anothers.

Everybody stop thinking you're better/right and just agree to disagree.

Hi and welcome ...

Please review the Rules of each board before posting.

Enjoy your stay.

The window (in the door) appears to be a strong light-source ... however, the shadows don't show this at all.  The shadows appear to be coming from the desk-lamp, which appears less bright than the door window.

I'd suggest making the door's window dim[mer] or add another level of shadows that respect that light source!

Though, just personal preference, I'm not a big fan photoshop lighting effects on pixellated backgrounds.  The styles "clash" in my eyes.  I don't hate it, just not my cup of tea

Image > Rotate Canvas > Flip Canvas Horizontal

Is this the only screen in the game?  If so, it's fine ... if not, you need another screenshot posted!

Looks interesting though ...

Somebody's making a re-make of Monkey Island??

No way!!

I was talkind percicely about income tax in USA, which is a fraud.

Tell that to Al Capone...

I've always really admired teachers.

When I was a kid it was 'cause my mother was (still is) a teacher.  When I was old enough to realize how (rediculously) little they get paid for their job my admiration increased even more.

Teachers fight such an up-hill battle everday and it seems it's just getting worse!  I, personally, think it's unacceptable how little they are paid.  And yet ... they still do it.  Trying to make an impact on young minds ... it's really admirable.

In the field I work in salaries are really variable.  I make a lot more living in South Florida working in my field than I ever would have had I stayed in Michigan.  The trade-off is that the cost of living down here is much higher.  I still earn enough to live very comfortably and manage to keep my savings account growing every month (while simulatneously paying into a 401k).

I also have a lot of supplemental income which I do through my own company (outside of my "day job").  I've never put it all together and figured out what my annual take is ... I could guess, but for some reaon I feel uncomfortable putting a number down...

Most people don't believe me when I say this but ... I'd rather love my job and be forced to live in a card-board box (because the job's pay sucked) than make a lot of money doing something I hated.  I just happen to be very fortunate that the work I love doing pays so well.  At the risk of sounding pompous ... I feel very blessed to have achieved what I have.  Granted, I worked my ass off to get here.

[dirk delshire]

Come on ...

dirk delshire read the forum rules before you post anywhere else.  This thread is over a year old for the love of God!!!!

ProgZ - believe me, I'm aware of your points!  They are points I regularly make when discussing this topic in conversation (and in this thread, to some extent) It is all about money ... always has been.  The human need for greed will be our undoing.

I recently read an article about an experiment where they took two Americans and put 100 dollars on the table.  They told person A that he could divide the money up between the two participants in anyway he chooses, and the second person gets to decide if it's fair or if they both get nothing.  So person A divies it up 80/20 (he gets 80 dollars, and person B gets 20).  Person B, rather than accept a FREE 20 dollars said neither of them get it.  He would rather get nothing than see somebody else (somebody he didn't even know) make more than him.  Then ... they took that same 100 dollars to a third world nation (didn't specify which) and did the same experiment.  Still, person A picked 80/20 split.  Person B would get a FREE 20 dollars, which, in that part of the world was about a week's salary ... a FULL week's salary for FREE and he, just like the American, turned it down.  Greed.  Ain't it grand.

My point?  I'm aware of what you're saying ... it's kind of what I was getting at earlier about my "defeatist" attitude ... the big business will continue to do their thing no matter what we do.

[s]

Shbaz - I tip my hat to you and the research you've done on the subject.

As I said before, I am just repeating what I heard on that television program. 

However, they really seemed to think they were right and I'll tell you what ... even if they are "stretching" the truth of what they've achieved and all it accomplishes is getting some venture capital behind the idea and that allows them the money/time to do the research they need to actually achieve what they've claimed then that is not one small step, but one giant leap, in the right direction.

Saying the technology isn't there yet is just not acceptable to me.

When president Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade..." the technology didn't exist (wasn't even close) that would take us there.  Yet, less than 10 years later, we were on the moon.  The world has known for decades (yes plural) that an alternative to gasoline needs to be found ... yet nothing has changed except now we can buy "hybrid" cars that use a little less fuel.  So ... I'm not going to actually quit smoking, I'll just smoke a few less each day.  I'm still killing myself, only now I'm just doing it slower.

It's a terrible, and destructive, mind-set that is nothing more then a path to disaster.

There are alternatives to oil/gasoline.  All it requires to achieve it is to put the man-power behind it.

This has gotten rediculous.

Mster24 - when you've read the rules and are ready to follow them, PM me and we'll talk about re-opening this thread.

And what technology would that be?

It's this new fangled creation called ... Electricity!!!

There is an inventor (and his company) who have created an all new form of automobile (I'm trying to find a link ... I saw this on a show on TV).  The car has no engine ... it runs on a "sled" type chassis.  This makes the car about 10 times lighter.  They are using all composite materials (thus reducing the weight even further).  The car has it's own batteries that are charged not only by the sun, but uses some kind of generator to create electricity that is generated by the very motion of the vehicle's wheels.  The car, essentially, doesn't require fuel.  They claim that the energy consumption/creation is so good that you can plug the car in when you get home and give electricity BACK to the grid ... the power company would pay you to drive your car.

Because I've made it one of my primary objectives over the past four years to learn as much as possible about alternative energies and efficient automotives, I wonder if you could justify #2.  Not that I don't think it's possible to continue without hybrids, but every bit of evidence I can scrape up indicates that its the way to go, if nothing else for brake regeneration.

Any vehicle that requires the burning of gasoline is a step in the wrong direction.

We live in an age where I can get on the computer and, in real-time, talk with video/audio to a person on the other side of the planet ... yet we can't make a vehicle that doesn't burn gas?  That's so completely, unacceptably, disgusting that it actually takes my appetite away.

As much as I would like to not drive a gas-burning car ... I don't have the means to affect that change.  So if those that do [have the means to affect change] want to continue ignoring the need to change and keep on sittin' in the pockets of big oil that's on them.  There's nothing we, normal people, can do about it.  As much as we bitch, moan, present facts, etc ... they're gonna keep on doing what they want 'cause they, essentially, run the planet.  As long as their pockets are fat with money it matters nothing to them what the consequences might be.

The only saving grace I can think of is that the oil supply is running out.  It's, according to some "experts" only about 20 years max until it dries up.  We're heading towards disaster when that happens as it's likely to come to pass that we'll be caught with our pants down when it does.  (since we can't seem to grasp the concept of "be pro-active, not reactive") If you need "proof" of this look what's going on in Dubai.  Those people over there know full well their "Bread and Butter" is running out ... so they're turning an area into a luxury vacation destination so that when the oil dries up, they can maintain their rich life-styles they've become accustomed to.

Meh ... I could rant about this all night.  I'm out.

[edit]

I have sort of a defeatist's attitude toward GLOBAL WARMING (insert dramatic music here).

The world isn't going to stop it's "forward" progress no matter how much scientific evidence is brought forth suggesting we should.  It's human nature, or so it would seem, to destroy things.

Are we going to kill the planet?  No.  It's foolish to think we'll "kill" the planet.  The Earth is gonna keep on floating in the void, as it has for billions of years, no matter how much we pollute the air.

Are we going to make the planet un-inhabbitable (sp?) for human life?  Yeah, probably.  However, I don't think we're causing it.  Geologic records show that the planet follows certain "rhythms" and that it's gone through this before in it's life-cycle.  It'll go through it again no matter how "clean" we humans live.

Having said that, I certainly believe that our "dirty" living isn't helping the issue and is, in all likely-hood, speeding it along faster than it would go on it's own.

Understand, I'm not a scientist ... I am not out in the field researching geologic evidence, blah blah blah.  The research that I have done/seen shows me that the earth goes through heat-up (global warming) and cool-down (ice-age) cycles on it's own.  The last ice-age ended about 10,000 years ago ... I may be wrong here, but I don't think there were soccer moms driving their SUVs back then?  Or dishwashers.

I do my part ... using the special enviro-friendly lightbulbs, never leaving lights/electricity on when I don't have to, recycling everything I can, etc.  I do drive a gas guzzling car ... I would love an alternative but refuse to get a "hybrid" for 2 reasons:

1) the shortest waiting list was 6 months ... I wanted/needed the car, which is why I was car shopping.  Rediculous.
2) hybrids are a huge waste of time/money and are a step in the wrong direction

We put men on the moon 40 YEARS ago ... and we can't make a car that doesn't burn a fossil fuel?  It's so ... stupid.  We have the technology to create vehicles that, through their motion and use, can generate the very power they need to continue functioning.  But ... but ... then we won't have billionaire oil tycoons!!!

It's circular ... human nature to destroy things.

edit

Oh an PS ... everybody stop wingin' about spam and sign up for the damn dishwasher!