Pidesco

Not really. :-" That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only. What else then? Aside from actual, factual proof I don't see what can affect the establishment of a religion as true or not.

Which means the fundamental truth of a religion depends on one thing alone: the number of people that believes in it. And thus, religion is all statistical bollocks. :D

Then why are Zeus and Thor generally considered to be fictional characters whereas as God is not? More to point why is it considered offensive to criticize someone for believing in God, but not for believing in Thor?

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists. WELL?

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

He's saying that non-religious people are, statistically more likely to be highly intelligent, than religious people. This is not a personal attack on anyone, and is true. It stems from the fact that a lot of religions stimulate closemindedness. That is, dogmatic, unassailable beliefs in something.

Where the hell does Dawkins say all these things Moth is accusing him of?

Basically, he says God is as real as any mythological (or rather, fictional) being. And he's right.

Dawkins is right, of course. That doesn't stop me from believing, that a God exists, however.

Well, that depends on who you ask. Christians will certainly say their God is the same as the Jewish God. However, if you ask a Jew he'll say the only true God is the Jewish God.

I know. That's why it amused me. In a real world social setting, it would be called a gaffe.

Beatles - I Want To Tell You Dedicated to Schmartie. Du kan gr

Graxaplozkpl? You just made it up, didn't you?

Allah is the actual translation for the word God.

THe fact that you can't do load whatever you want into it, right out of the box, means I will never even touch an Ipod.

Firefox.

Beatles - Eleanor Rigby

Mkreku is a reviewer.

Stealth in DM is all about the backstabbing. Again, like I posted two minutes ago, "if you don't care about the combat you probably shouldn't care about this game." It's no biggie, it's just a game that wasn't designed with your tastes in mind.

Dark Messiah has stealth. Or at least the demo had it. I really don't see where that reviewer is coming from. But anyway, if you don't care about the combat you probably shouldn't care about this game.

His complaints about the usefulness of abilities are kind of silly. It would be the same thing as complaining about Deus Ex's multiple ways of doing things. "I finished Deus Ex by headshooting everyone with the sniper rifle, therefore all other things you can do in the game are useless." It's an idiotic way of seeing things. The feel I got from the demo is that each ability is as useful as you want to makre it.

I agree. Or at least I agreed before playing Dark Messiah's demo. The best way to describe the combat in it is that it feels crunchy.

But the combat in Oblivion is a big pile of poo.

The combat is. But the game itself is nothing like Oblivion. Basically it's an FPS that focus on melee. Although magic and stealth can be pretty awesome too.