213374U

Great. Perhaps you can tell me what the story is about? And no, "running, shooting and listening to NPC ramblings" doesn't qualify as a story.

Yep. And the US never got to the moon.

Well, the important thing here is that She-Hulk is not real. And this one you can feel and taste. Not that any of you ubernerds will ever get the chance, but still...

No, it's not a matter of bias. We're all biased one way or the other, aren't we? It's a matter of "infidels.org" not being worth jack as a reputed source of historical research.

True trekkies probably know already...

Does it really matter?

Unfortunately, that package only includes WC 1&2, as WC3 is too big for HotU to host... or something.

You doofus! She-Hulk was never that hot. And there's more of them.

Simple enough.

And the answer is... both of you are correct! Actually, I think a better way to say this is that their rendering engines are 100% 3D. They look 3D because their graphical representation is true 3D. However, portions of their internal game logic operate only in 2D. Hence the term 2.5D.

Um, are those supposedly reliable sources? Providing a link to "nobeliefs.com" or "infidels.org" hardly strengthens your discourse. I can provide some delightfully informative link (more!) to one of the most underrated sciences ever! And the controversy about it is easy to explain. There is no real point in trying to refute the existance of Julius Caesar, since if he was proven a hoax, it would hardly change anything today. But proving that Jesus Christ didn't really exist would be a serious blow to many churches. Something very appealing to many people. Occam's Razor. While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic. About the quotes, the boards have a limit of quotations per post. If you exceed the limit, the quotations will be all messed up. If that happens, simply make two posts instead of fitting it all into one.

Um. My French is... poor at best so I think I'll have to pass.

Neat. I'm D/L'ing now.

Well, it's cheaper than beer. And at least tomorrow I won't have a hangover.

Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a logical device. And there is no guarantee that any of this stuff can be explained through logic, or any other means for that matter.

I am not very fond of taking relativism to the extreme just for the sake of it. If we need to "agree" on certain things, we are effectively denying the existance of self-evident truths. I find it difficult and generally pointless to make conversation with people that like doing that. But then again, perhaps I'm just not as patient as you are. After all, I'm the local forum cowboy. My point exactly.

No. There is no leap of faith in considering the perceived reality as a static environment with a fixed set of rules. Science proves that. It is a yes-no situation. If those rules weren't true, we wouldn't be able to decipher them through mathematics and/or they wouldn't be able to predict the behavior of the physical world. Is the reality we perceive "real"? That is a whole different matter. Of course all of that has nothing to do with the fact that science is constantly renewing itself. But since the establishing of the modern scientific method, few theories have been completely discarded (if any). What happens is that those theories are just expanded. Relativity hasn't rendered classic mechanics obsolete, for instance. It just explains other scenarios that weren't even considered by Newton.

It does not really matter. The beauty of it is that, if you can express it in a set of equations, it's the same for you, me, your dog, or anything existing within the boundaries of the physical reality. It doesn't matter if what we are seeing or measuring isn't real, because science doesn't really deal with reality in a philosophical or transcendental sense. It just measures what is there, or what seems to be there, if you will. I understand your point, though. If you question reality as the dimension we seem to exist in, then obviously science isn't infallible anymore, since the premises on which it is based are no longer necessarily true. But since science only deals with that "apparent" reality, claiming that science doesn't work if we change the framework is a moot point, really.

No. Science is within reality just as maths are within logic. After all, science is little more than maths applied to the real world. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. What is the belief you must accept in the case of science?

I thought we had already agreed that science is independent from belief...

Not bad.

The degree to what religion affects people is beside the point. We are not discussing that (not any longer, anyway). I think we can all agree that a lack of independent thought is bad, regardless of what causes it. The fact that some people instrumentalize the notion of God for whatever purposes is not a valid argument to counter the possibility that such God might indeed exist. I don't believe in an "entity" that you can fathom as God. I think that is a simplification and a reminiscence of the old times. In my opinion it is just an easy way to answer the ultimate question: what is existance? However I don't discard the possibility that there may be something *beyond* the physical world we can measure, and probably beyond the reality governed by logic. I guess that would make me something of a "mystical agnosticist".

HA! And people were saying that Palps is not

Hmm. Mathematics have nothing to do with that. They are not negotiable. Oh how would I love to be so certain. But think for example of the light spectrum. If you could see in the UV and IR spectrums too, the world would be nothing like you think it is now. And that is because we know of other light frequencies that are invisible to us. But what about those other things that science hasn't fully covered yet? Our knowledge of the space-time continuum is a bit limited yet, for example. It is not unreasonable to think that there may be things that we don't even know about. So, taking things that you see as absolute just because you can see and touch them is just another belief. Plato illustrated this point quite nicely in his allegory of the cave.

There is no difference. You know, some guy said that "10 + 11 = 101", and he invented a whole new algebra. His rules are as true as the regular, decimal algebra. If you think you can build a rational system based on "2 + 1 = 4" go right ahead. You might earn a Nobel Prize and have your name written into the annals of History.