Sky Warden

- Windows sucks, and people that claim "it just works" is utter bullshit. A linux system can be the same way if you bought it from the store!

It actually works, so accepting Windows because it just works isn't utter bullshit. It's just you who has forgotten the purpose of technology, which is to make things work. One could at least try to pay respect to a product which is created with actual efforts.

Bloody fanboys...

Gender equality is a stupid concept. Debate me if you want.
Technology experts who constantly discriminate, talk, or brag about hardware specifications, consoles, operating systems, or programming languages are just annoying noobs (or just plain stupid).
Katana is an overrated weapon made of over-forged cheap ores.

 The post requirement is in place due to the fact that many of the threads in Life Advice are sensitive. This minimum post count helps to void off trolls who only join to post offensive and hurtful comments in peoples advice threads.

 

The minimum count is only 5 posts, not like its that difficult to make 5 decent posts.

That will do. The last time I checked the requirement was like 40 posts.

Does it still have a minimum post requirement, though? That would be pretty stupid.

The point of bringing that up was because I believe you misunderstood what he was saying - he wasn't calling all religions inherently good, he was saying that religions are usually created with just intentions. For the most part, religion's affect on the real world has to do with the user. Just as wrongs can be committed in the name of God, so can good deeds. The idea that a religion is in itself evil is wrong, as it is a matter of personal interpretation.

Almost correct, but I was saying that originally religions are made by good people. I believe Jesus was a good man, and so was Buddha and prophet Muhammad. That's why I respect them. It's just that some people either misunderstood their noble teachings, or just used them as a mask to do what they want. For example, some dudes might want to conquer another land for riches, and made up some stuff like, "It's to spread the God's will."

I've explained in length about it, and what I meant with him not listening to reasons is that he kept throwing arguments which I had actually answered. For example, the whole thing about figurative language and metaphor.

My problem here is that some people despise religions and think that those who believe in it are dumb because, "lol lern science n88b." I will counter that advice with, "Learn how to read literature."

 That was way out of left field. Are you trying to pick fights now?

He doesn't understand religions or even figurative language and metaphor. Just leave him be. He doesn't want to listen to reasons, after all.

 with the added benefit of not rustling anyone's jimmies.

I will recommend them this book.

You seem to miss my p o s t s.

Doesn't matter. I'm used to people like this. Well, perhaps I also missed your posts which contributed to the debate, because I only saw one which is debate-worthy. That is, if you made any other, of course.

I see your religious beliefs, whatever they may be (and, frankly, I don't care) has indeed made you such a wonderful person. I need no religion to live a good life. Instead I live by these two guidelines:

1. Attempt to know more about the universe today than you did yesterday
2. Try not to be a cunt

You may find just these two notions will get you far in life instead of using reductionist reasoning and aggressive stances in your arguments while and to confuse people with what you seemingly think is complex language (which just isn't working). You're obviously either a troll or an arsehole; either way, I have no more time to waste on you. Now begone.

I'm trolling or anything. At first, I just stated about how I don't like intelligent atheists despise religions, and then one of them came out and started and argument with me. I've stated most of my points, but they just keep coming and they don't even seem to even read my posts. They keep making the same arguments over and over, which I've actually answered. I'm just too tired to explain to them again, because I believe they can read and make a valid point.

I'm sorry but this is just making me cringe. You speak of how religions are good and it's only men who do bad deeds. Upon @Dddrgn pointing out that some of these deeds are indeed endorsed by religions, you try turning that around to your argument by saying that men edited the religious texts to say such a thing so that they could further their personal desires. There is a problem with this, however, as all religions were invented by man. Everything religious was created by people's imagination. You seem to think religions spontaneously erupt from nowhere, that they are initially superb and perfect until man comes along and rewrites it.

 

You preach logic but I only see @Dddrgn and using it here.

Oh really? I'm sorry. I'm not a master of logic, so let's use the most basic ones for now.

There's men. There are good men and bad men. Okay, get it? Then let's continue.

Good people (Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, etc) made religions were made to guide morality. Can you interpret those words? If you can, let's continue.

Bad men do bad things, using religions as their mask. That. Get it?

Now, give me a good reason why should I despise religions, which are good things, instead of dumbfucks, who did all the shits?

From reading your other posts, I've come to a conclusion that you're just one of those guys who completely miss the point of religions, don't understand about era or figurative language, and despise people just because they were born centuries before your more-scientifically-advanced-grandpa-who-got-his-knowledge-from-the-tireless-work-of-less-scientifically-advanced-people told you about the moon. Sorry, that's a bit more complicated sentence, but it's valid. I hope you can read it.

I gotta state the obvious here: Islam is a noun.  It is the name of a religion.  In this regard, it is a label.  It is also the first person, present tense verb form of the Arabic phrase "I submit" (اسلام).  If you're going to get into semantics, please do so appropriately.

Yeah, because it's been treated as a name for more than a thousand years. Where do you think that name came from? It's from the word Salam, which means somewhere around peace, goodness, safety. The way of Islam simply means the way of peace, goodness, or safety. That's the real thing. It's just that people have been using it as a label for so many years that it ended as what it is now.

There's a thing about Islam is about submission to God instead of the way of peace, but submission here means following the God's orders, which is to bring peace and well-being, which is basically the same thing as the other root.

Happy?

I honestly feel like we are getting too far off the original topic of the thread, so I'll leave this response and we can either stop or move to PM's.

Yes. I'm aware that trying to make sense with people on the Internet is useless. I've explained religions successfully to many people in a period of time, and some just couldn't understand my explanation. Seems like you can't understand my explanation as well. It's either me who just don't explain well enough or it's just you who close your mind and prefer to keep your hatred.

Yes, quoting a dictionary made by those who don't even understand Islam. So smart. Let me guess. Oxford dictionary? Personally I believe what I've studied and understood myself more than what people just simply tell me.

Yes, that's my point. Islam isn't a label. It's an adjective. People who follows the guides are safe because it teaches people to live safely. What are you arguing against? It proves that you didn't open your mind to my posts and you just tried to disagree with me without even trying to understand what I'm telling you.

Again, read.

I've said what's needed. If you still disagree with me, read my posts again with an open mind. I don't know what kind of grudge you have with fake religious people, but it's always good to let go, give mercy, and continue with your life. That's what Buddhism taught me.

You don't seem to understand what really is important. Yes, people acting in a mature, proper manner and having morals that benefit others is good. Not all religions have those. What's important is that millions of people around the earth believe in things that are not only impossible, but are complete fairy tails. This is childish and has caused horrendous things. The crusades, suicide bombing, shootings, denying people abortions, shaming of homosexuals/transexuals, murder, etc. If I went into an Islamic country, I could be killed for being an atheist. Tell me how that's moral. The important thing is, this gives people an excuse to behave in just about any way they want. This is a huge issue.

People blame America when it's only the government who are doing bad things. People blame the religion when people who don't even understand a shit about it do bad things. People misunderstand their religions and kill people with it as their mask. It's the people. They don't follow their humanity, which is the metaphorical God. It's people.

Learn the difference. Learn what object does what. Men kill because of their worldly desires. Violence is tempting, I'm telling you. Religions obviously forbid violence, but they mask themselves with it. It's not because of religions, but men.

I told you there are so many misunderstanding in religions. Why? Because people are too dumb to understand written text. Let's take the Islam against Atheist case for an example. There's no command to kill people whose religion status isn't Islam, because Islam isn't a status, but an adjective. It means safe. Muslim means people who are safe. Islam means a way of safety, because that's what the religion is all about. To guide people to avoid harm, like by forbidding alcoholic drinks. Non-Muslim means people who don't live safely. I will say a Christian who follows his religion's teaching and do good things is Muslim because he's safe from harm. Even a good Atheist is safe from harm. It's even mentioned in the Qur'an that God doesn't care about social status and see people by their heart.

About the Old Testament, have you ever wondered if it's ever been edited by someone? I heard the Bible is edited by many people and there are more than 40 versions of it now. While Jesus might be a very kind man, how could you be so sure if the other authors were good as well?

Now, why do you disrespect religion that much?

Buddhism is very much about morals and achieving enlightenment, but religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, ancient egyptian religions, etc. are not simply moral guidelines. Looking at them as moral guidelines is foolish

How would you think that way? Have you even ever learned them? I highly doubt you have, because of the way you said religion is just a form of escape from confusion. Have met many people like you. Those who see useless things much more than the important ones, like what matters and what doesn't.

If people in the past couldn't observe the space from the moon and think that someone lived up there, so what? What's the big deal? They meant good with their religions. They wanted to guide people to live safely, and peacefully. Just that. You're just cocky because you happen to live in an era where technology and science is more advanced. You're can't differ what matters and what doesn't, and see what the issue is, despite of how advanced education is in your era.

Islam didn't make sense to me at first, but after learning Buddhism, I found out that most of the things I thought literal were just metaphors. There's no difference between religions. Prophet Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha shared their religions to guide people, and that's what matters.

Aside from the whole thing about interpreting words literally, there are also a lot of other misunderstandings. I find people misinterpreting the Qur'an in a seriously high level. They don't understand which is a guide, which is a historical record, etc. They even misunderstand what religions are. Not many people don't misunderstand Buddha's teachings because it's told in a simple language. It's not written with figurative language and metaphors. That's the only difference. They're basically teaching the same things.

I've met many religious Christians who are kind and helpful to others. I've met many religious Muslims who are polite, and respectful. I've met religious Buddhists or Hindu who are cheerful and caring. That's what matters. That's what religions were made for.

You're basically mocking people who share a great wisdom just because they dress in a very old-fashioned clothes. You don't listen to their words. You're too busy insulting their dress.

The thing is... God isn't figurative in Holy Books. He's literal. There ARE parables and figurative things marked in Holy Books such as the Bible, but the majority of it is recorded as literal history. The Bible literally tells that God created the earth, that he has power over our lives, and that we should act a certain way in order to honor it. The stories in it are supposed to be one hundred percent true, historical fact, they are not metaphorical stories. 

Is it ever mentioned that God is a literal guy floating up in the space in the books you've read? I've never read any statement which is close to that in mine.

Untrue. If the stories in the Bible and other religious books were presented as metaphors and were not meant to be taken seriously, they would be marked as such - they are not. They are marked as the true word of whatever God they promote. We look at figurative language and metaphors in books that are NOT presented as whole truth and do attempt to understand them, or at least people who are interested in that do, but that stuff is not presented as the true word the way Holy Books are. Also, there are stories throughout religious books that if you try to take them literally as intended, ARE impossible and ARE ridiculous.

Ah, it's that kind of statements again. Well, can't help it.

First of all, what did you expect? Them printing, "This book contains the use of figurative language, metaphors, and similes. Please read this artistic book with care," on the book cover? After all, you're only seeing the building from one side of a wall. Let's make an example.

"Lust is harmful," is said to be true words of God. Lust is harmful. It's true. Then, what do you think God is? Some sort of invisible being living up in the sky? Has it ever crossed in your mind that what they mean with God here is a figurative expression? Could it be an expression of that ultimate force in our heart that makes us feel which is right and wrong? Could it be something that we call humanity? It's divine. It's pure. It's holy. What is hell? It's described in a such dreadful way. Could it be the feeling of intense guilt we get from doing wrong things?

I guess you interpret, "True words of God," as literal words said by some kind of supernatural being. You even misunderstand that part, so stop thinking that religions are stupid.

People are forgetting the main purpose of religions. They're there to guide your moral. That's all. They're not trying to fill your head with fantasies like you think they are. All the metaphors were used to give you a better view about it, because you can't describe abstract things like feelings. People also loved art, and they respected the idea of goodness they were following, so it's very normal to them to write it in a such beautiful way.

When you see something that doesn't make sense, try to understand it again. It's very likely that you just don't get it.

Nice one. It feels new to me. Not cliched.

9/10

Not sure why, but I loved that.

9.5/10

It's the expression, dude. You should see the ending video in the anime.

I find it interesting about how atheist people think they're smarter than religious people. When you meet a figurative language and metaphors in novel books, you think it's artistic and try to understand the real meaning behind it, but when you meet a figurative language and metaphors in religion books, you take them literally and label it as "nonsense." What a smart people.

Thank God it's not a dubstep.

8.5/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Wfpc8e67I

I think you already know my forums name.

.gif unrelated:

Don't know you.

It was a whim of rascal61 to gain populatrity, and we have neither the manpower nor the time to complete it in a timely manner.

It's either that, or the manpower she had tried to get just stayed idle without doing a thing because they assigned just to gain some popularity. You're the one in the team. You tell me. That is, if you actually paid attention to the team and project, of course.

Yep, it's true.

 

Rascal has left Tartarus Productions and is now being replaced by someone inside the board of directors. I don't think I can tell you the name, though.

I don't care about your project. I was only saying something about my friend Rascal.

why did she leave? she seemed very passionate about this thing last i talked to her, which admittedly was a while ago,

She got diagnosed with something that she can't continue working on this project. Neither will she go to these forums anymore. She asked me to tell you people this herself.

I wonder how long it will take you to realize that the project leader has left the forums. I won't blame her. I'd have done the same if I were being dragged around by people who don't seem to care on how much work I'm doing like that.

1. What is the difference between plagiarizing a character from another media, or being inspired and basing your character off that character? Do you have to outright say it? I'm asking because there are characters like King Sombra, who is clearly based of King Sauron from LotR, and it's just something that's been on my mind.

Inspired:

"Wow. The idea of being trapped in a virtual MMORPG is very interesting! Sadly, this anime is very horribly-written and turned out very badly. Oh! I know what interesting conflicts that might happen if some people were trapped in a virtual MMORPG like the ones in that anime."

I'm talking about an anime called Log Horizon. It's set in a theme similar to Sword Art Online (trapped in an MMORPG), and seems to be inspired by it and my favourite MMORPG, Ragnarok Online, at some points. What doesn't make it a plagiarism is that it has original conflicts, story line, etc. Watch the two and you will get it.

Plagiarism:

"Geez. This series is cool, but I wouldn't have set it that way. I will make my own series with similar character, setting, and stuff, making it run exactly on how I want them to."

Example (an extreme one):

Already see the differences? In the first example, a new and fresh idea is triggered by another story. In plagiarism, you're merely rewriting an already existing story with your own twists, usually to get readers or just to fulfill your own fantasy. You rewrite the story of Romeo and Juliet (a couple with different social statuses and both of them end up *spoiler* dead, bla bla bla) but with a modern high school as its setting (because I think it's so original and fresh), or something along that line. That's plagiarism, as well as those ponified story. None of the essential elements changed. Only this time it's in Equestria, with some extra hoof-and-hay minor conflicts.

2. How do you effectively introduce a villain? Everyone loves a good villain, but what I'm specifically asking is, what leaves a good impression of "Oh, this guy's dangerous," or "This guy's awesome!" I was trying to introduce the villain in a fiction I am writing, but it's difficult to do, because his introduction doesn't fit what I have in store for the character in the future.

Well, duh. Show your readers, obviously.

You can't expect to introduce them by, "Hi, I'm Voldemort. I'm an awesome wizard who can do some tricks and kill you with a swing of my wand. I'm very dangerous, I'm telling you, so you must fear me. Thanks, guys." We got the idea that this Voldy is the villain as soon as one of the characters told another character about whom he killed, or showed their fear to the Dark Lord by not daring to say his name, etc. At this moment, we already have the idea that Voldy is the villain. I mean, killing is clearly an evil thing, but we haven't got the idea about how dangerous, cruel, and scary he is, or why, so J.K. Rowling, as a kind author that she is, showed us that by making Harry to have that horrifying duel where Cedric dropped dead.

You don't need to think about the way your villain shows up first, like, "Should he show up with an evil black coat or a skull walking-stick?" Show us why one is evil, or why should we believe that one is evil. Audiences tend to believe what's shown on the stage (ex: a man brutally chewing a baby), so that's where you play the tricks and illusion.

Sorry for the shitty quality

Bioshock Infinite poster.

Okay, it has been a long time since the last time I posted a picture. Here you go:

WARNING: Not for the faint-hearted.

The worst thing is that the thread title is completely irrelevant from the picture. Or perhaps I just don't get it.

Nah. Anatomy is good, in my opinion. Wings, head, legs. Yes. They're great. Expression is on-character. Eh... I'm not good at criticising visual art. I guess it's just your style, but it would be nicer if you can make the lines smoother. Looks somewhat messy if you zoom in to it.