[QUOTE=The Jack;53016316]Well I just googled the meaning of atheist. Being a casual athiest and just Lacking belief in god is fine. However, you really need to put effort into proving that god is or isn't real, lacking a miracle. But I don't think there's much point in that. What does one gain if they prove that god isn't real, other than the ability to go wild without divine retribution? I don't think being militantly opposed to stupid fundamentalists who hate science really counts as an atheist cause. Telling people "there is no god" when nobody's got themselves some empirical evidence is just silly.[/QUOTE]
Do religious folk put in a lot of time and effort trying to prove God exists? They don't. They just say he does and most of them stop at that point. Most atheists are no different in that regard, especially since they're aware that no matter how logical an argument they might make they're unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;53015575]I don't think I'm much of a fan of Roguelikes. I got one for free off Steam, Kingdom, spent a few hours playing it, learning the mechanics, started doing really well, only to make one decision without the game even telling me (it has a minimal UI and apparently I'm supposed to interpret a random pile of trash and flags as 'GO ATTACK THE ENEMY HOMEBASE EVERYONE :downs:' when it looks exactly the same as upgrading a building) that basically fucked me over for the rest of the game. I tried my best to recover but it pretty much became obvious that recovery was impossible and I was going to die a slow death so I might as well just give up.
It feels like that in a lot of these games. I know part of the point is learning the mechanics and doing better each time, but a lot of the time that's also complete bullshit because things will happen that you just [I]can't[/I] be prepared for. And once it happens, you just have to wait slowly until you die or give up, and it's not fun, it's just stressful and depressing.
Like in Don't Starve, any year if the game feels like it a giant fucking yeti boss monster can come up and destroy your camp, and you just have to be prepared for that to happen at any moment even if you literally don't have the time to prepare for it, and if you kill it the damage to your camp tends to be so severe you'll freeze to death and have to start over anyway.
I don't like watching 3 or 4 hours just get burnt because I fucked up once, or even better, because the game just decided to randomly say "Hey, fuck you". That's like if you tasked me with building a lego castle, except any time he feels like it my older brother will come in and go "EHEH FUCK [I]YOUUUUU[/I]" and drop a 10 pound weight on it.[/QUOTE]
Neither of those games are roguelikes. I know indies have fucked the term from all angles in the hopes of gaining attention but they have nothing in common with rogue.
pretty sure roguelikes are games like dungeons of dredmor
[QUOTE=The Jack;53016316]Telling people "there is no god" when nobody's got themselves some empirical evidence is just silly.[/QUOTE]
Telling people "there is a god" when nobody's got themselves some empirical evidence is just silly.
[QUOTE=The golden;53016010]I think FTL was the worst game I ever played in regards to this. Holy crap that game pissed me right off and same with any that are similar to how it works. Skill seemingly means very little because the game can just randomly throw a game-ending situation at you at any time and there is nothing you can do about it. I'm sure some people see that as enjoyable but personally I can't stand it.[/QUOTE]
Skill does matter, but skill isn't just how you manage an encounter, it's how you prepare for it as well. Keep some extra scrap around for repairs, try to get a diverse enough crew, don't push your luck too much if you're in a shitty situation already.
It's a bit like XCOM, you can be a brilliant tactician, but if your strategy and logistics are lacking then you're going to have a hard time.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;53016609]Neither of those games are roguelikes. I know indies have fucked the term from all angles in the hopes of gaining attention but they have nothing in common with rogue.[/QUOTE]
This. Roguelike is defined [I]very[/I] specifically, and, keeping in mind that Rogue is nearly 40 years old now, meaning the definition wasn't just a spuriously defined thing that got knocked out of existence, like 'Doom Clone', it was not until around Spelunky, which was roguelike inspired, that "HEY GUYS IS ROUGLIK WHEN A GAM IS REALLY HARD AND U DIE???" came about.
If we defined Roguelike by permadeath, difficulty and aspects of procedural generation, the list of Roguelikes would be insanely broad and so nonsensical that the term would have literally no meaning. Soldier of Fortune 2: Gold, would be a Roguelike on the hardest difficulty in the random map generator. So would most of the Worms games.
[QUOTE=Naught;53016629]pretty sure roguelikes are games like dungeons of dredmor[/QUOTE]
Depending on how specific your definition is. Some people call Dredmor a "roguelite" because of the casual features the game has. But yeah it's a lot closer to Rogue than Don't Starve (a survival game) and Kingdom (a strategy game).
[QUOTE=The golden;53016010]I think FTL was the worst game I ever played in regards to this. Holy crap that game pissed me right off and same with any that are similar to how it works. Skill seemingly means very little because the game can just randomly throw a game-ending situation at you at any time and there is nothing you can do about it. I'm sure some people see that as enjoyable but personally I can't stand it.[/QUOTE]
Over 100 hours in FTL reporting in. The game will very, very rarely throw an unwinnable situation at you. Half the skill you need to do well in FTL is preparation and resource management. I can get to the final sector about 90% of the time on Easy which for most people is the default difficulty.
Inferno is the best chapter of Doom.
BJ is worst part of any porn and I wish they'd stop
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017755]BJ is worst part of any porn and I wish they'd stop[/QUOTE]
The ones where they spit on a body part and suck it up are [I]easily[/I] worse than that.
[editline]a[/editline]
Like that shit is an instant disgust-providing boner-killer for me, and I never know when it's coming because it's not something anyone feels like tagging.
But seriously, what is the appeal of staring at a bj?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017803]But seriously, what is the appeal of staring at a bj?[/QUOTE]
sometimes it's hot
usually it isn't
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017803]But seriously, what is the appeal of staring at a bj?[/QUOTE]
Asking the appeal of any given sexual preference is going to be fruitless, you'll likely just get the answer "because I think it's hot".
For the majority of heterosexual porn produced, you're supposed to insert as the male and imagine it's [I]your[/I] dick being sucked by super hot porn star (whoever she is), but if that doesn't work for you, then it's not going to after you hear someone else explain why it does for them.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;53017816]Asking the appeal of any given sexual preference is going to be fruitless, you'll likely just get the answer "because I think it's hot".
For the majority of heterosexual porn produced, you're supposed to insert as the male and imagine it's [I]your[/I] dick being sucked by super hot porn star (whoever she is), but if that doesn't work for you, then it's not going to after you hear someone else explain why it does for them.[/QUOTE]
I'd still be curious to hear explanations
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017824]I'd still be curious to hear explanations[/QUOTE]
Explanations don't get any more detailed than Samiam22 's example, it's exactly why I like it.
More detailed but gross[sp]I like the idea of face-fucking someone, although one of my main fetishes is super sloppy bj's so I'm pretty biased[/sp]
[QUOTE=slapdown3;53017826]Explanations don't get any more detailed than Samiam22 's example, it's exactly why I like it.
More detailed but gross[sp]I like the idea of face-fucking someone, although one of my main fetishes is super sloppy bj's so I'm pretty biased[/sp][/QUOTE]
See, that's more interesting
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017824]I'd still be curious to hear explanations[/QUOTE]
Getting my dick sucked feels amazing and the act itself is different in nature to sex, because it's one person exclusively pleasuring the other. Also why I like cunnilingus. So it's fun to fantasize about.
There's also a sub/dom element to it, but that's more individual and not everyone would agree with me.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017803]But seriously, what is the appeal of staring at a bj?[/QUOTE]
I mean presumably the same as staring at any kind of sex act
Richard dawkins, although a very intelligent man, has a fucking terrible attitude. He's militant atheist level, its like every atheist high school kid who shit on other religions but he never grew out of it
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53017824]I'd still be curious to hear explanations[/QUOTE]
If you can understand that it's part of a taste that people have but you don't, then you should see the merit in having BJ scenes/vids. Personally, I'm quite fond of female POV BJ vids (as niche and rare as they are), because I think it would be quite fun to suck someone's dick. Never tried, though, I don't like any of my guy friends enough to suck their dicks.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;53017881]Richard dawkins, although a very intelligent man, has a fucking terrible attitude. He's militant atheist level, its like every atheist high school kid who shit on other religions but he never grew out of it[/QUOTE]
I reckon it's more of an unpopular opinion to defend Richard Dawkins, so here goes; I think his overall intolerance/hatred for religion comes ultimately from good intentions. I've read several of his books and it's abundantly clear that he has nothing against religious people per se, but is disgusted by how it's used to abuse power and cause conflicts, especially in northern Africa. He has a lot of experience with evolution deniers, too, and as an evolutionary biologist who has written countless (rather good) books on the subject, you can see how that would wear his patience for religion rather quickly. The largest group of people who are currently denying what should be accepted as basic science are religious fundamentalists.
[QUOTE=Captain Chalky;52556318]More like why would you undress them? [sp]They are clothed when in the park but naked when in questioning. So basically, whenever something goes wrong and a host is called in for questioning, they are undressed for no reason, only to be dressed again so that they can be put back into the park.
I can sort of understand the decommissioned hosts being naked, since they don't need clothes in storage. (and they can be reused for other characters) But the interrogation scenes? Pure fan service.[/sp][/QUOTE]
i know i¨m quoting a six month old post but it really irks me:
They wash the robot prostitutes dirty work clothes, makes sense and necessitates the nudity.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;53017905]I reckon it's more of an unpopular opinion to defend Richard Dawkins, so here goes; I think his overall intolerance/hatred for religion comes ultimately from good intentions. I've read several of his books and it's abundantly clear that he has nothing against religious people per se, but is disgusted by how it's used to abuse power and cause conflicts, especially in northern Africa. He has a lot of experience with evolution deniers, too, and as an evolutionary biologist who has written countless (rather good) books on the subject, you can see how that would wear his patience for religion rather quickly. The largest group of people who are currently denying what should be accepted as basic science are religious fundamentalists.[/QUOTE]
I see your unpopular opinion and raise you another unpopular opinion about Richard Dawkins:
I honestly have no idea how people get the impression that he's has a "fucking terrible attitude" or is some sort of especially rude arrogant atheist. His discourse is generally about as civil as you can get while arguing the point that you think God doesn't exist. So what, should no atheist be allowed to argue the point? I get being respectful of other people's beliefs, but I think we should be able to have this kind of discussion like adults, and not get pissy because someone told me he thinks my beliefs are wrong.
Now [I]Hitchens[/I] was an abrasive atheist. Still, I think, an interesting and intelligent man, but somehow Dawkins gets the ire because he seemed to popularize unrepentant atheism.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
If you see some mention of God in public, for instance, and feel the need to insert your opinion "oh yeah well god doesn't exist so..." that's douchey, but I've never seen Dawkins do that.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53018239]I see your unpopular opinion and raise you another unpopular opinion about Richard Dawkins:
I honestly have no idea how people get the impression that he's has a "fucking terrible attitude" or is some sort of especially rude arrogant atheist. His discourse is generally about as civil as you can get while arguing the point that you think God doesn't exist. So what, should no atheist be allowed to argue the point? I get being respectful of other people's beliefs, but I think we should be able to have this kind of discussion like adults, and not get pissy because someone told me he thinks my beliefs are wrong.
Now [I]Hitchens[/I] was an abrasive atheist. Still, I think, an interesting and intelligent man, but somehow Dawkins gets the ire because he seemed to popularize unrepentant atheism.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
If you see some mention of God in public, for instance, and feel the need to insert your opinion "oh yeah well god doesn't exist so..." that's douchey, but I've never seen Dawkins do that.[/QUOTE]
He is rather forward about his belief that religious people are delusional, his most famous anti-religious book is called "The God Delusion" and it argues inside that people who are atheists should be proud for displaying good critical thinking skills and overcoming discrimination.
I agree with you, though. He himself hasn't really done the stereotypical militant atheist schtick, but his books and consistent, abrasive anti-religious stance certainly attract the kinds of people who do.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;53018361]He is rather forward about his belief that religious people are delusional, his most famous anti-religious book is called "The God Delusion" and it argues inside that people who are atheists should be proud for displaying good critical thinking skills and overcoming discrimination.
I agree with you, though. He himself hasn't really done the stereotypical militant atheist schtick, but his books and consistent, abrasive anti-religious stance certainly attract the kinds of people who do.[/QUOTE]
As far as overcoming discrimination, it's pretty obvious discrimination against atheists exists in some form, so I don't think it should be controversial to say that they should be proud for overcoming discrimination. As for displaying good critical thinking skills, surely if you believe there is insufficient evidence to believe in a god, then you likely believe that if someone has come to the conclusion that there is no god (or not enough reason to believe in one) against the majority belief and pressures of society, they likely have strong critical thinking faculties. You might not agree with that, but I don't think it's an offensive thing to think. It's not criticizing the critical thinking faculties of religious people. Plenty of the pioneers of quantum mechanics had philosophical beliefs regarding the theory that would be unpopular today, but I don't think anyone believes they didn't do fantastic work.
I don't think your average religious person is delusional, but far from talking to god, plenty of people claim to have been [I]talked to[/I] by god. I'm not talking what my mother does where she thinks any little good thing that happens is some kind of sign, I mean they literally believe supernatural entities spoke directly to them. I'm fine with religion that doesn't harm anyone else, but if you're a naturalist who doesn't believe in the supernatural, how do you account for people who claim to have been talked to by god/angels/demons, etc. I know "delusional" is used as a slur, but the other options are that these people are not being honest with others (or themselves) about what they've experienced, which is totally possible and fine, or that they are pressured into believing or claiming to believe these things by societal pressures. I actually think that's the most likely in the majority of cases though it's not necessarily mutually exclusive with delusion.
Definitely true that his work attracts the "fedora tipping" crowd, but I think that gets conflated with Dawkins himself too often.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
iirc I read most of The God Delusion if not all, and most of it is really just arguments against the existence of a god, pretty normal debate stuff, and arguments that organized religion has caused damage in the world. The title is really the most abrasive part I remember (but I read it years ago).
Personally either I'm instantly hooked on a new game or I get bored of it very quickly.
I think that's due in part to not having as much free time as I used to.
Equality is not achieved by forcing a specific group into the spotlight more than others because "equality!!". You've merely flipped the situation on its head and ended up with the same problem.
[QUOTE=Owlz?;53019264]Equality is not achieved by forcing a specific group into the spotlight more than others because "equality!!". You've merely flipped the situation on its head and ended up with the same problem.[/QUOTE]
There's been alternatives to affirmative action, but they all still pretty much boil down to having to force a group into a spotlight.
If some people want other ones to learn about some certain topics, It would help a lot to not sound harsh towards the people who doesnt know these topics.
I've seen this happening and it always turn people off and make them not care about these topics or worse.
Also some people here really need to calm down sometimes, I know this is not an Unpopular opinion but I had to say it somewhere.
[QUOTE=rutolfus;53021296]If some people want other ones to learn about some certain topics, It would help a lot to not sound harsh towards the people who doesnt know these topics.
I've seen this happening and it always turn people off and make them not care about these topics or worse.
Also some people here really need to calm down sometimes, I know this is not an Unpopular opinion but I had to say it somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And on the flip side when it's a topic that directly affects one's own life (LGBT topics, for example) you tend to very quickly lose patience with people because ignorance ends up quite consistently siding with those who are actually malicious. And arguing against ignorance tends to quickly get frustrating in those situations to begin with because people are so resistant to admitting when they're wrong that you might as well be arguing with a wall most of the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING
