Messages

Little late to the thread, but just wanted to say that I absolutely loved the last workshop. Great learning experience and made me push myself in ways I hadn't before. Strictly portraits doesn't really interest me too much, but I love all the concepts being discussed here (box art for random AGS games, character design...) I'ma take a back seat in this thread and watch the awesome idea development unfold.

Oh! Oh! I think I know!

Les Diaboliques?

*edit* Oh wait, that's a French director.

• Cup-shaped splashes #1
• Clean splashes #2

I like the dark ones a lot too, but I'm not sure they would match the UI of the program.

Maybe you read the Entertainment Weekly review.  That is one train wreck of a GUI and it looks like a kid drew the horned, orange stick figure.

Bitchin' trailer soundtrack though.

So it's Esseb's turn? Come ooooooon, Esseb!

See? Too easy!

Your turn, jwalt!

This might be too easy, even with sprites blacked out...

King's Quest 4! It's an easter egg!

[Khris]

There's lots of diseases which science can't cure, and many more that it says it can but won't.  Also I am frustrated by the feature creep of rationality.  Small decisions made for rational reasons culminate in a straightjacket of regulation that strangles spontaneity and initiative: I won't gripe on with examples, I'm sure you can think of them.  Kids don't explore/play outside any more because everything is rationally dangerous to some degree, etc.

Wow.
There are many diseases science says it can cure but won't?  Care to name a few of those?
And how does science tell kids not to play outside?
If there's a radioactive cloud coming towards your house, science doesn't tell you to stay indoors, it only tells you why and how you're going to die if you don't.
Science doesn't make moral judgments. It tries to describe and understand reality.
(Actually: according to science, going outside and eating dirt is recommended, because exposure will strengthen the immune system.)
It looks like you are confusing rationality with completely irrational recommendations. Not everything that isn't religious is scientific.
The people who claim that living near power lines makes you sick are not scientists.

If your view of religion is similarly removed from reality, I'd almost feel inclined to defend it. The notion that Hebrews didn't eat pork because of infections if completely ridiculous. They knew nothing of microorganisms.

Khris, I think you're being too hard on Baron. I actually agree to a certain extent with what he's saying. (Not sure what he means about the diseases scientists can cure, but won't though.) I may be wrong, but I think what Baron is getting at is that there are often studies that are published online or in magazines that say doofy things that go against common sense. Things like having 10 extra pounds of body fat will shorten your lifespan by 5 years, or eating such-and-such will reduce your risk of cancer by 5%. However, a lot of this is junk science. When looking at studies like this, it's imperative to consider how the study was performed (control groups, how many people were surveyed, etc...), whether or not it was peer-reviewed, and what company potentially stands to benefit from this study? There are a number of things (like germs) that people have phobias of because the media and junk science have told them these are dangerous and should be avoided. When you actually look at the hard science though, you'll see what Khris has said: Germs strengthen the immune system, it's important for kids to get colds at an early age, etc...

My programming skills are lower than newbie status, so I probably won't enter, but I'm really looking forward to playing everyone's game though and voting! Woo!

Wow, that is one tight shirt.

Atheists, agnostics and non-believers don't have these moral codex and commandments they are told to follow. No god, who tells them what's right or what's wrong.
But if you look at various statistics and polls it's quite clear that they are way more moral than any religious people.

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how one would go about performing a study on which group is more "moral" than the other. 
Do you have any more info about these studies and how they were performed? Maybe some links?

I honestly cannot fucking fathom how most Americans are actually in favor of this. It's like they feel the phrase "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" doesn't get enough use.

I was one of those people who thought "I have nothing to hide. Sure, go through my shit" until read-up a little and watched this:

[embed=560,315]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_Z99qFwsDmU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

I think people just really haven't thought through the ramifications of giving up their personal information to a government who wants to keep and maintain power over it's people.

The Bible at least encourages good moral values. And yes, if I weren't a Mormon I would be a lot more pissy than I am anyway. People are generally ignorant, and mostly they're too ignorant to know or care.

I don't mean to be rude, but I've found a number of bible passages that I can't see as encouraging good moral values in any circumstance. Do you think any of these things are good or moral?

• Num 31:17-18 -- "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
• Isa 13:16 -- "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."
• Luk 14:26 -- "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
• 2Jo 1:10 -- "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:"
• 1Cr 14:34 -- "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law."
• 1Ti 2:12 -- "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Can we at least agree that infanticide, child rape and the oppression of women are not good or moral in any circumstances?

Is slavery in any context actually good?

That really depends. Slavery in America was generally good. That is, the majority of slaves lived better, more productive lives as slaves than the persecution and segregation that followed. Firsthand accounts support this. It's also supported by the number of slaves who willingly stayed with their former "masters" to continue working (because they knew they didn't stand a chance at making a living on their own).

There's also the context in which people are placed into slavery under less humane terms as a form of punishment against them, such as the Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. Because God's covenant people had willfully rebelled against him, they were subjected to some horrible things. This is essentially the same as a parent stepping aside when a rebellious child refuses to listen, even though the parent knows that the outcome will be far worse for the child.

Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I think your view on slavery in America is a little naive at best. If you honestly believe the owning of another human being can sometimes be ok, I don't know if we can find any common ground on what is truly right and wrong. 

-Why would God create people who are unequal?

Because the alternative is everyone being an exact carbon-copy clone of everyone else. The entire purpose of life itself would be frustrated if everyone had the exact same experience (hence the reason that Satan was deemed the loser in the war in heaven).

So God didn't create people equal because it would be too boring for us?

-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?

This is like asking, "if a parent truly loves their children, why would they ever discipline them?" If God is perfect and just, then he is bound to assign punishment to those who willingly choose to rebel against his law. That speaks nothing of whether he loves them. God loves Satan, as even Satan is one of his children. That doesn't mean that God is going to break the justice by which he is bound. At the same time, it also wouldn't be fair or just to hold anyone accountable for knowledge which they never had the opportunity to gain. Those who will be assigned the greatest punishment are those who had the opportunity to accept the truth but willfully rejected it.

I think I understand what you're saying. God and humans are similar to a father and his children. I'm not sure though that the punishment God inflicts holds the same weight as a father punishing his child for doing something bad. It would be like a father beating his child for days on end for getting a "D" on his report card.

Do you honestly think it's right for someone like me (who does not believe in the Christian God but tries to live life as honestly and decently as possible), to spend an eternity in horrible agony because I used the brain and critical thinking God gave me and came to the conclusion there was not enough evidence to believe in Him? Is that truly just?

As to "an eternity of torture", nothing would be worse torture to me than having eternity to come to terms with the fact that I didn't live up to my full potential. Of course, if I hadn't lived a life in accordance with God's law, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable in his presence either. Heck, I don't even feel comfortable going to church on Sundays if I know that I've openly made decisions that go against everything I say I believe. Placing someone outside the presence of God doesn't mean that they are separated from his love (otherwise, even here on this earth we would be separated from his love).

Just a hypothetical scenario... If someone you loved with all your heart in this life did not believe in God, would you truly be happy in Heaven knowing they were burning in hell for all eternity?

-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

Repentance isn't about lip-service. Repentance is a process which generally speaking requires significantly more time than anyone on their deathbed is going to have. Murder is spoken of as being one of the hardest sins to actually be forgiven of, in part because you can't just go and make reparation to the person you've harmed. It wouldn't be just or fair to assume that someone simply saying, "Oh, btw, sorry," would be pardoned of a life of sin.

I think you're right. If God existed, he would absolutely be able to tell if someone was faking it to try to get into Heaven. If he truly has repented, could he though? If so, would that truly be just?

Some of the posts I read here this morning reminded me of this...

[need]

Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others?

This exact logic could be extended to the question, "Why does government need to create laws?" People are generally good, but we are still naturally disposed to certain not-so-good things (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride, etc.). If everyone was perfect and could always be expected to do the right thing, then not only would we have no need for government whatsoever, I will assert that we would even have no need for religion or God. The truth of the matter though is that people are simply not perfect. As human beings we need things like government to keep us in line. Some of us need a book to tell us to be good to each other (because, honestly, my intellectual superiority complex would make it so much easier to just say, "F*** YOU ALL!!!" and be done with it). This particular aspect doesn't necessarily apply to everyone (just as not everyone would go and murder someone if there was no government or law preventing it), but it does apply to some. The secular parallel of government should make this rather transparent.

Thanks for answering my questions, monkey!
If government fills the role of "keeping people in line", why do we need the bible? Do you, truly, need a book to tell you to be nice to people? If you were not a Mormon, would you honestly tell me to fuck off because I'm intellectually inferior to you?

How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

I've pointed out several times that just because a particular commandment was given at one point in the Bible doesn't mean that it was meant to apply globally for everyone. Putting things in their proper context makes what might seem atrocious into reasonably understandable acts. Many commandments (e.g., the Mosaic law) were explicitly revoked, and replaced by a higher law. Some commandments were given as tests, some to subject punishment. Even outside of religious texts, context can be the essential difference. This is especially true when looking at religion though, because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals.

As to whether something is moral because God says it is, this is an interesting matter for debate because morality itself is so loosely defined. An example that springs instantly to mind is Abraham being commanded to kill his son Isaac. From what we know, Isaac had done no great evil to deserve this punishment, but the commandment was given as a test of Abraham's faith. Because Isaac did not deserve to be slain, God provided a lamb. If the lamb had not been presented and Abraham had slain his (apparently) innocent son, would Abraham have acted morally? That's a very existential question, but from my viewpoint a perfect, loving, and just God would not have given this commandment if he was not going to provide an out. So to me, it would have been less morally correct to disobey the commandment, but that also comes from an understanding that Abraham had a close enough relationship with God to understand that it truly was a commandment being given by God.

Is slavery in any context actually good?

because honestly, a fair and just God isn't going to treat unequal people as equals

-Who, specifically, is unequal and undeserving?
-Why would God create people who are unequal?
-If God truly loved every one of us, why would he send some of us to hell, an eternity of torture, for being unequal? Does he really love us if he does?
-If a mass murderer or rapist converts on his deathbed, does he go to heaven? If so, is that truly fair and just?

[<insert colon here>]

My opinion on monkey's statement is that it makes me happy to see somebody finding a path that makes him a better person. I don't really care what that path is.
But because I am a religious person as well, I understand perfectly what he means.

Sorry, I meant...

"I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this <insert colon here>"

Would like to hear your opinion on the below, if possible.

I do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

[expect]

First off, I want to say that I honestly think every single one of the people in this thread are kind, well-intentioned people. I, as an atheist, have met and heard from a lot of shitty, spiteful Christians who revel in the fact that I am "going to burn in hell for all eternity". Similarly, I've met a lot of horrible atheists who go out of their way to step on Christians because they feel Christians are intellectually inferior. I have a lot of confidence in the fact that none of these people are in this thread though.

I choose to follow it because it gives me a sense of direction in my life, and a sense of purpose. I don't expect you (or anyone else for that matter) to just blindly accept what I believe and start following it. I'll share it, talk about it, and even try to have a semi-rational debate where we can both share our point of view. But is it wrong for me to follow my own conviction, especially when my own life's events show that doing so makes me into a better person?

I found monkey's statement interesting, and would honestly like to hear our thread's religious people's opinion on this. the following:

I do think it's possible for religion to make a person better, but there's one thing I'm still baffled about. Why do we need a book to tell us to be good to others? I was raised without religion, yet I still try to go out of my way to be kind and helpful towards others, try not to hate people who are different from me, try to be honest always and not hurt others... I will admit there are good things in The Bible. Jesus says some really great things. Kind of related to what Andail was saying though, if we do get our morals from the bible, which parts do we take? Not everything that Jesus says seems good to follow, and there are parts of The Bible where God endorses very horrendous things. How do we know which parts are still good to follow, and which are outdated, unhelpful or bigoted/sexist/racist?

What if God really does think slavery is ok, and that women are lesser to men? Is he right? Should we follow this? If God says something's moral, is it truly moral and good?

the writing has gotten almost incomprehensible. The pacing has increased to the point where it's difficult to process what is going on. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

I absolutely agree. It's one of the reasons I've had trouble catching up with the last season over the past year or so. I did really like Matt Smith though, and it is sad to see him go.

I agree that a woman Doctor might change the energy of the show, but I can't say I'd be upset if it happened. (I doubt it will though.) Why not a black Doctor? I think that would be a pretty fresh idea, and there were rumors a-buzzing about this before Matt Smith was chosen as well, from what I remember.

Just thought I'd stop by again to lighten the mood...

[embed=425,349]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kppx4bzfAaE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]