random evil guy

so is this mod out yet or what?

apparantly, this is already, or soon to be, released. how is that possible; it seems i was playing the original just a few months ago... http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/battle...rth2/index.html

don't know if that's true, but americans are a bit frowned upon here in europe....

aamodt is a great guy. met him a few years ago at a bar at the airport. he was having a beer. he is a terrific athlete, but at the same time he isn't afraid to 'live life' a bit. he won his first olympic gold in 92! truly one of the great athletes of all time.

Well, he was just 13/100 secs behind the Norwegian Kjetil Andre Aamodt... 13/100 wtf screw that. It's still a great performance! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> aamodt is the best. his 20th medal in the olympics or world championship. which is a record.

you know what is funny: latvia 3 - usa 2 after the 2nd period.

syriana - 9,5/10. loved it. good night good luck - 7,5/10. very good, but a bit slow and don't understand why it was filmed in black&white... kiss kiss, bang bang - 8/10. surprisingly good. funny, well written and solid actors.

i couldn't care less if a few muslims were offended by this, but at the same time, i find it quite hypocritical that it was a christian newspaper that published these drawings here in norway. i wonder how they would have reacted to similar drawings of, say jesus...

what difference does it make as either a) you refuse to read my evidence or b) you are incapable of reading and understanding my evidence. in either case, you've never offered anything backs your position in any argument i've participated in (the last time you posted some links they actually supported my position, hehe), so i'm not sure why you harp that bandwagon as often as you do. my "anecdotal" evidence is actually a response to alanschu's anecdotal evidence. his claim is that it breaks down certain barriers, offered without proof. the fact that there is even ONE case counter to that claim is positive affirmation of my position. in other words, you're plain wrong. 1. how am i wrong? are you saying your argument was not a 'personal experience' and hence anecdotal evidence? 2. what *is* my position here?

why is this a surprise? canada is a parliamentary democracy with multiple parties, no? this is a not an uncommon situation in a lot of parliamentary democracies...

affirmative action? you're joking, right? it's a mess. a travesty. it doesn't work at all. the people pushed into positions or schools they aren't qualified to be in get more money, but do terribly. i've watched it happen, professionally and as a student. anecdotal evidence and, hence, useless. can you provide some evidence for your claim, other than your own 'experience'...? something a bit more objective. btw, what do you mean by working? what is the goal of affirmative action and how has it failed...?

it is 40% and the law is 'gender neutral'. it works both ways. i'm not sure what i think about it. the 'old mens club' most of the boards have become is a bit of a problem, but not sure this law is the best solution...

That's what you said originally. Following pure logic (I hope we understand each other here) absense of evidence is not a proof. Therefore you cannot say "false" here. Now to the "irrelevant" bit here. If anyting is not directly applicable/not observable/doesn't fit current scientific dogma/"unreasonable", it is not absolute. Religion is not relevant if it is put in the context that you put it in. The problem is you don't try to switch context. Bingo. So you can't know, and ultimately assume. Hence my ramblings about various contexts. With that said religion is "irrelevant in the context of modern science and empirical thought", but not just just plain "irrelevant". You can think as rational as you want, but it never hurts to keep an open mind and know that you may, in fact, be wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...but this only applies to what we can observe. for example, evolution is a fact. it is a phenomon we can observe. or gravity, for that matter. however, the scientific theories describing these phenomenons will never be considered to be 100% proven. btw, i feel i need to clarify in what context i'm using the term 'false' here. i'm not saying that there are no god, period. i'm only saying, based on the evidence, or in this case lack of it, the claim is rejected and hence irrelevant. no one can prove there are no leprechauns, but it is pretty safe to say they don't exist. why should religion be held to different standards than the rest of the world? in every other aspect of life, a claim is considered *false* until it is supported by evidence. as i said earlier, i'm a only a strong atheist christian, islamic, hindu etc theology. in general, i'm a weak atheist. from wikipedia:

so logic, reason and facts are now arrogant? interesting... btw, you're using a straw man argument now. science is never absolute, but what you can't observe is irrelevant and fantasy. if there is no proof supporting a claim, it is irrelevant.

well, it's just that there aren't even the slightest hint god exists. if the question was still in up in the air with some observations suggesting there might be a supreme being somewhere, and some observations suggesting otherwise. i could understand faith. however, when there is absolutely nothing that supports this claim, i can't comprehend it.

Why anything that is not observable is irrelevant/false? Physicists accepted Theory of Relativity, though when it was published there was no means to test and observe its effect. Since I mentioned this, great discoveries were initially based on the assumption that something unproven exists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually, it wasn't. it was highly controversial and it wasn't completely unfounded as it was derived mathimaticly and through rational analysis. not only that, already in 1919 did arthur eddington confirm much of einstein's theory. so, no. the two situatons aren't similar at all... everything that can't be observed is irrelevant because there is no reason to belive it exists. sure, great discoveries are initially based on that assumption, but they are worthless without evidence supporting the claim. the lack of expected evidence of a god/gods is the best evidence against the existence of god. look at it this way: there is asket game between the san antonio spurs and a bunch of 8 year old kids. who do you 'think' will win? sure, it is *possible* the kids might win, but it is very, very unlikely. the probability is negligible. it is basically the same with the existence of god. there is absolutely no evidence supporting the claim, so why on earth should one believe there is a god? not even a hint of 'its' existence. in addition, you have other arguments as well. the more philosophic 'the problem of evil vs. an omnipotent and 'good' god'. as well as the more specific argument that deals with biblical errors...

The way of thinking is certainly interesting, however, is not the only way to think, while you say it is. Unproven is not false. It is not true either. By your logic everything that we don't know is false. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, anything we can't observe either directly or indirectly is irrelevant/false. for example, we can observe the effects of gravity, even though we can't observe it directly. as for the classic 'love argument', it has been pretty much explained by science. it is just the release of certain chemicals, such as endorphins, in the brain.

...and you can't assert the non-existence of leprechauns. i already explained this to you. the claim is rejected unless there is evidence supporting it. simple as that.

you're wrong, because all humans are clueless when it comes to what happens after we're dead. no one knows, ergo those who claim they do, are ignorant. How does that statement make him wrong? Existence of God is not a fact, but so is non-existence. P.S. I still want to hear from you regarding my previous post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> because the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. the existance of something is not neutral; it either is or not. the 'default position' is non-existance. if you can prove the existance, then it exists. in this case, the claim is: there exist god(s). however, there is no proof or even evidence to support this claim. so, the claim is rejected. this is a logical fallacy. sometimes refered to as 'shifting the burden of proof' or argumentum ad ignorantiam. the fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. in comes the leprechaun argument. can you prove that leprechauns don't exist?

Just goes to show you that ignorance is a two-way street. Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they? First of all, if you make generalizations like that, the only thing you'll do is make yourself look stupid. Secondly, many religious texts contain positive philosphies which many have lived by for centuries. Deny it if you wish, and I know some will, but religion has had just as many, if not much more, positive impact than negative. you're wrong, because all humans are clueless when it comes to what happens after we're dead. no one knows, ergo those who claim they do, are ignorant. btw, the bible has been proven wrong in almost every claim it makes. i think it's pretty safe to say it was written by ignorant people.

argumentum ad numerum. a logical fallacy...

Actually, wrong. While genesis is up in the air (methinks much is symbolic), the flood and exodus haven't been disproven. And actually, there is evidence supporting Noah's flood. BTW, people can't prove aliens or ghosts. Does that mean they don't exist? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, you're wrong. exodus, genesis and the flood have been proven wrong. by real science that is. creationists will still lie and tell you there is evidence supporting it, but they're wrong. talkorigins has a lot of informative papers on this.

ok. it's just that i really dispise 'theists'. i have a lot more respect for 'deists'. i see myself as a weak atheist in general, but a strong atheist against every religion there is. i absolutely loathe organized religion...

I agree with you, and thank you. You have actually explained your reasoning instead of just saying "God isn't real" over and over. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> religious beliefs are per definition an irrational choice. there is no evidence to support the existence of a god/gods. that's all that matters. the lack of, expected, evidence is a very strong proof of the non existence of a god. in addition, most of the stuff in the bible has been disproved(genesis, flood, exodus etc) so it's pretty safe to say christianity is definately wrong...

Again, try not to pass off your opinion as fact please. You say it doesn't exist. The only proof you have to that claim is that you have never been convinced of any existance of a god/s. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BLAH BLAH. You're not an athiest so stop pretending like you are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't tell me what I am and am not. I am an athiest. I do not believe in God. I'm not however, going around saying "there is no God." I can't prove it, so I'm not going to go around pretending like I can. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> do you also go around saying there may be pink elephants living under the antarctic ice? please, get real...