Fishing with Krillson (but he wins this round) (with videos)
" All good. Which one would that be? |
|
" Doesn't matter, religious people get to ignore any logical burden of proof claims, and if you make fun of us for it we'll label you a bigot. JabberJaws exists because you can't prove he doesn't. Also, I have a page from an ancient sacred fishing manual that proves everything
Spoiler
 |
|
" Just curious - are you an atheist? Or agnostic? Or are you perhaps "spiritual" but not exactly religious? Hmmm, maybe the forums aren't the best place to ask this - I suppose you could PM me. But as you already know, you are by no means obligated to answer the question. |
|
" I don't like this at all. Already this game has too much people not playing and just trading all day long flipping items and currency. With this it would give them even something to do to get even more currency/gear to spam all day long, increasing the gap between players and traders even more. For me, when I log in, I actually play the game (as most will do here), either trying to get new maps, gear, currency and/or XP. If fishing should do something it should only give players a buff, dps / life / IIR / XPbuff whatever. The second you start giving currency or gear you screw up the game. Even then I still feel fishing doesn't fit in this game, it's boring grinding in a game that is based on grinding itself. Even corrupted area grinding is less boring. And fyi; I loved fishing in WOW, really did. In POE....please don't. Fishing doesn't fit in an ARPG. |
|
" Happy to answer as long as no one yells at me for off topic...
Spoiler
- I am both an atheist and an agnostic. I'm an atheist by definition because I don't believe in any theist constructs that I've seen so far, and I'm agnostic by definition because I can't completely rule out the possibility of there being some kind of God (depending on how a God is defined). Contrary to what many are taught, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, and infact agnosticism is a subtype of atheism (because by definition an agnostic doesn't fully believe in any specific theism, and so is therefore also an atheist).
- I'm strongly against all Abrahamic religions on the basis that I find the concept of Original Sin to be ethically abhorrent, and by extension anyone who believes it to be ethical. There are lots of other issues too, but Original Sin is one that they all have in common, and it's totally messed up. - I'm strongly against any God who claims to be perfect, as one quick glance at the world we live in shows that it is far from perfect. - I'm against any concept of an all loving, omnipotent God for the same reason. If there is a God he is either indifferent to human suffering (and is therefore terrible by any measure of objective morality), or is powerless to prevent it. - The biggest issue I have with modern theology is Divine Command theory; the idea that if God tells you to slaughter Amalekite men, rape their women, and enslave their children then it becomes an intrinsically ethical thing to do. Ethics should be born of rational discourse and logical reasoning. Anyone who follows Divine Command theory is by definition a psychopath. Human empathy doesn't (and can't) enter the equation. - Divine Command theory eliminates the right of anyone who follows it to morally condemn others on the basis of anything other than simply worshipping the wrong God, or misunderstanding the right one. Afterall, under Divine Command theory, if God tells you to blow people up, it becomes a good thing to do. If you believe in a different religion that is based on a God who says not to blow people up, your only argument is that the first group are worshipping the wrong God. If they were worshipping the right God then their actions would be fine. That's why "good religions" are generally on no firmer ethical grounds than "bad religions". - I mentioned Abrahamic religions specifically because all of those points apply to them. I also have issues with other major religions (yes, even the Buddhists), but that would take a whole lot more typing and I have to get back to fishing before bed Anyways, back to the fishing...... Last edited by MonstaMunch#6519 on Nov 20, 2014, 11:09:32 AM
|
|
" And with that statement you admit you still are trolling because the only thing I see is some screenshot made ages ago which easly could have that minigame ui shopped. Show some video proof of this "fishing" and maybe you can get some credibility back. Closed Beta Member.
|
|
" I said it was ancient and it was..... I don't see why you're acting like I owe you something. Idc if you lurn2fish or not bro, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me. |
|
" That's something hardly to be required. The claim is here, the choice whether to believe that claim is right or not is on the receiving side. The proof may strengthen the claim thou. However as I have seen on this thread that even screen shots and videos are not enough proof, I'd personally refrain from any effort to provide a proof and burden the receiving side with the required research. And well if you don't want to invest a time into validation of claims. Then you are certainly not enough interested in that given area and therefore deserve to remain uneducated and in doubts about that. MY CHALLENGES ARE DONE ON HC, IT'S NOT SC GUYS!
|
|
" Ok cool thanks for answering interesting opinions. Some thoughts I had, if you would: I've never heard of the term "Original Sin". So I, of course, go to Wikipedia and: " Now, you are “against” Abrahamic religions based on the belief in this idea/doctrine. Abrahamic religions are Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? If you look further down the wiki page, they say that Islam and Judaism don’t believe in/support this doctrine. Now my questions: 1) What do YOU take “Original Sin” to mean? Or rather, what do you characterize it as? 2) How can you be “against” Abrahamic religions in general based on the concept of “Original Sin” if they don’t all believe in that? 3) What do you mean by “against”? I’ll dissect the rest of your post after I understand this :p
Spoiler
This probably really shouldn’t be in this thread, but I can’t help asking XD
Also, I don’t mean to antagonize you in any way, just discussion :p Also fuck fishing :d. As you know, according to Elreon and Krillson: " Last edited by CabooseDog#7947 on Nov 20, 2014, 11:27:10 AM
|
|
" Keeping my replies in spoilers as we're still totally off topid :D
Spoiler
Original Sin is the idea that shortly after God created man in the garden of Eden, he decided to make a talking snake which he knew (because he claims to be all knowing) would trick Adam into eating the forbidden fruit. Rather than just forgive him like one might expect an all loving God to do, he decided that it meant that all humans from that point on were accountable for this fruit theft, and that we must all be sentenced to an eternity in hell as punishment.
As far as I'm aware, up to that point Judaism and Christianity are unanimous. The God of Islam chose to simply forgive, so that's covered in the next paragraph instead.... They all share the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden. Christianity is the only one of the three that promote it as the basis for their religion, and that's why they are the only ones who actually coin the term Original Sin. However, the basic story is shared, and thanks to Divine Command theory, all of them have to view it as moral, or reject the whole thing outright. When Christians refer to Jesus as the "Saviour" and that he died for our sins, that is the underlying sin they mean. Even if you have never done anything wrong yourself, you are considered a sinner because of Original Sin, and therefore you have to accept Jesus in order to be forgiven for your great great ancestor stealing a piece of fruit because he got tricked by a talking snake that God put there. In Islam they also have the story about Adam and Eve eating the fruit, but their punishment was to be sent to earth. The difference is that while the Christian God chose to comdemn all mankind from that point onward, the Islamic God chose to forgive Adam and Eve. In theory this does mean that Islam doesn't have Original Sin in the sense of all mankind being born as sinners, but it does still mean that they believe in the ethical basis for it. As for Jews, well, the whole thing was originally described in Genesis, so they don't have a lot of wiggle room to get out of it. The only difference is that they don't believe Jesus can save you, so they tend to gloss over that whole aspect of the story. Edit: I should also add that if you've ever wondered why it's so important to practicing Christians to insist on the Biblical account of creation, it's because their entire religion is completely based on it. If you don't believe in the sin, then it makes no sense to believe in the Savior. It's like believing in the prophet without believing in the prophecy Last edited by MonstaMunch#6519 on Nov 20, 2014, 11:52:28 AM
|
|
