Rowan
Boxer of the Galaxy

Thanks for the thanks I usually get negative remarks to most thing I post in a political or debatable discussion

Sorry I have to ask, are you a guy or a chick ... I'm confused by the avatar (very convincing Rikku dress-up btw, I thought it was the actual character).

The game, if you do all the sidequests too, is a good length. It's not overly long, so don't expect to spend hundreds of hours in it. I'm about level thirty-six or thirty-eight, and I've finished everything but playing through on a harder difficulty mode and doing some online stuff.

Mordecai is "The Hunter", the guy who you see with the sniper rifle at the start.

As you level up, you can points to apply to three main areas of development with each character. The chances of impact on certain skills changes with how you spend the points there. So as long as you're putting points to say... "+10% damage using elemental weapons", you'll do +10% damage with any elemental weapon you use. That's just an example - there may or may not be that attribute. As far as weapon use goes, I didn't really pay attention, and my Lilith fights with SMGs and the other type of machine gun.

Haha, I'm glad you like it. It is a pretty fun game. A lot more fun co-op, but still. It's simple enough to play, but is still a challenge.

All the special abilities are pretty cool. I don't like Mordecai's though - just seems weak and useless. Lilith's is the best by far, especially when you level up - you can get it to heal you while in phasewalk, and position yourself elsewhere when it gets tough. Comes in a lot of handy in the final boss fight, especially if you're playing solo.

Google is your friend, it gives you access to all the information you'd ever need. I'm not going to go out of my way to provide the references, I gain nothing from it. Your claim there is no evidence is one of ignorance. Have you studied biology? Do you go out of your way to read about it beyond opinionated biased articles you find online? The fact that it is considered the single strongest theory for how life has became what it is, and that you're saying there is ZERO evidence shows me that you have not done those things. Again, ignorance.

Nearly every academic institution, schools which foster some of the greatest depth of studies into science work under the knowledge that the evidence is nearly inarguable. Are they all wrong? Are the schools which teach some of the greatest and most dedicated minds their fields incorrect and you the layman are privy to knowledge they are not? Bold

Indeed.

My mind wanders all over the place lol. My chief interest philosophically is in metaphysics, which is funny since I've discovered that to be the field least compatible with logic and common sense. Inside the box however, I'm interested in particle physics, nuclear science and the like. Really the only field I don't tend to spend much time thinking about would be ethics, since I'm a moral nihilist. Actually, my argument for moral nihilism was the original basis for the argument that would become the one I gave for absolute uncertainty.

I used to think everything was absolute, governed by logic alone. This lead me to become a pretty cold person, as I didn't really care what was right (meaning morally) as long as it was correct. Ethics however is one of the most common fields of argument people get into anymore. So I tried to find a logical belief on the fundamentals of morallity, so I could form a logical argument in ethical debates. One of the principles of logic I'd learned was that a normative conclusion (what ought to be) could never be drawn strictly from factual (what is) premises, you need at least one normative preise for a normative conclusion. This lead me into an infinite regression argument following nearly identical form to the one we've been having. If two logical people disagree on a normative conclusion in a deductive argument, assuming neither used fallacious reasoning, the only reason for this would be disagreement on the premises. Any factual premises could be checked against reality, so if that's where the disagreement was, it could be resolved. If not, the disagreement would have to be on the normative premise. And then once again, that would rely partially on facts, but on at least one belief, as would that belief... which lead me into that regression far enough to realize, that no moral theory could ever be a fact, as it was literally impossible that it could be based in fact alone, which meant it had no place in my world, where fact was all that mattered. Wasn't until quite a while after I came up with this that I realized it also applied to what I previously considered undeniable facts.

Really though, anything that catches my interest, I'll stop and ponder. Sometimes I learn interesting things, sometimes I feel as though I just wasted minutes of my life.

That's Lilith from the game Borderlands. xD

I agree with some of that. It isn't very useful to know this, which is why it's such an unsatisfying answer. It doesn't lead us anywhere, we can't abandon our theories and perceptions just because we can't be certain of them. We need to have that fundamental belief whether it's perfectly logical or not, otherwise we can't deal with reality.

The rest of that argument fits in only with one fundamental belief. Reducing spirituality to something less than science because we don't percieve it, or place any value in it, because in our world it doesn't mean anything, is pretty much the same thing you were trying to do before lol.

I agree with the last paragraph, but only because I have faith in a similar fundamental belief, we don't really have a good reason to believe that, but because of who we are and how we see and understand the world, that's the conclusion we come to when we think within the boundaries of our beliefs. Though we can't be certain of this conclusion, pragmatically speaking, we do still have to commit to some belief in the end and work with the conclusions we can get out of it. If we aren't willing to seek new knoweldge in spite of not having certainty, we'll never be able to have certainty. If we stick with our beliefs and keep moving forward, we at least have a chance.

That it would be, haha. ^^

Eh. The internet is full of jackasses, and full of people who think they're right. Posting in ID is like signing a death warrant, so I tend to ovoid the place. I only stepped in because Meier wasn't around and that shit was getting ready to go out of hand.

No I can't honestly say that. But I don't take responsibility for what other people read in my words. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

Oh ok I see well the woman in your avatar pic has very sexy breasts.

My statement was not directed at you. Any animosity you may have inferred does not exist and/or is directed at the views you exhibit, and not to you personally or generally.

Oh I'm sure there are any number of possibilities that could concievably be believed by people with the appropriate thoughts and perceptions. Each would be every bit as plasuible as any other. But for all practical purpose, there are only two options, there either is a God, or there is not. There are many concievable ideas of how a universe could come about with either, but ultimately one of those two will be correct. If we establish there was a divine creator, we still don't know which one, or if any religion portrayed it correctly, similarly knowing there was no divine brings us no closer to knowing what exactly happened at the beginning (which is where alot of the other options would come in, probably what you meant when suggesting a third).

A dull answer, but really, a huge step forward when approaching the problem to realize that we can't be too comfortable with our beliefs, and must always look at the whole picture. And it is an answer, one's that's much harder to pick holes in than any others I've heard, which is one of the reasons I felt so awesome when I reached that answer. I too was only able to accept my own conclusion begrudgingly, but really, doubt isn't a bad thing. Doubt has been the beginning of some of the most important of all discoveries. And believe me, I know you'll keep thinking about it. It's damn near impossible not to once you reach this conclusion, I should know lol.

And any time. Arguing is one of my favorite things lol.

Looking for answers is what I've decided to make my purpose in life. Nothing fulfills me as much as discovering something like this, and it just makes me want more. Society can go screw a goat, I do what I want =D

Pertty much, yup. Not a very satisfying conclusion, is it? lol. Took me quite some time to get deep enough into my own beliefs to ultimately wind up with that conclusion. Quite a disappointment in some ways, but in a sense I felt pretty cool that I'd come far enough to accept something like that. I continue to stick with my beliefs in spite of this knowledge, because I think science and logic are the only hope for attaining the only answers that can ever let us escape from that rather lame conclusion.