Not really an update but something I'm kinda proud of relating to this. I was racking my brains trying to figure out an algorithm for pathing. The lopsidedness of the grid added several challenges that a rectangular grid would not have had. I want each unit to individually have its own path so that the path could be updated in real-time. Here is what I have, in glorious pseudo-code(also putting it here so I don't clutter the IRC :P):
Unit reaches top or bottom of column: send to next row along top/bottom path, apply "Moving Up/Down" effect.
Unit moves forward: apply "Moving Forward" effect
Unit reaches intersection:
1. If Forward, check overseer direction:
-a. If top, set effect to Moving Up; continue up
-b. If bottom, apply "Moving Down" effect; continue down
-c. If neither, check team:
- -i. If team 1, default Up.
- -ii. If team 2, default Down.
2. If Up, check overseer[x][x] and overseer[x][x+1] directions:
-a. If Top/Bottom, Top/Top, or Top/Neither, apply "Moving Forward" effect; continue Forward through next opening.
-b. If Neither/Bottom, Neither/Top, or Neither/Neither, continue up.
3. If Down, check overseer[x][x] and overseer[x][x-1] directions:
-a. If Bottom/Top, Bottom/Bottom, or Bottom/Neither, apply "Moving Forward" effect; continue Forward through next opening.
-b. If Neither/Bottom, Neither/Top, or Neither/Neither, continue down.
I must really not be one of those militant atheist dudes, then, because I am not even going to touch global warming. >_> I'm just not interested in arguing a point that I'm not qualified to argue with a bunch of other people who are not qualified to argue. Call me when it goes back to philosophy.
Congratulations, you're a liar. You said you weren't going to reply to me. I therefore made my last post to you short, expecting the conversation to end there. You replied, even bothering to criticize the tone of my post. I have given you and every religious person here every amenity they deserve in this debate. I've explained my point of view thoroughly and addressed every challenge(except one, but as someone noted, I was making a rhetorical point with that one). You and most of those on your side, however, have not done me the kindness of addressing every point I've made, going so far as to read only one sentence before responding to me with points that the very post you respond to debunks.
Now it's my turn to end our conversation, and I won't be a liar.
Well, I did say almost never, didn't I? I'm not one to exclude possibilities if they are plausible. With those examples, you're bearing witness to a common plague of humanity, regardless of the subject matter: vocal minorities. Just like how I don't let people who bomb abortion clinics, or protest the removal of religious symbols from government buildings, stain my perception of Christianity in general, don't let the more ignorant atheists stain your perception of them in general.
As for the likes of Maher and Dawkins, they are of the belief that they only way to argue with Christians anymore is through ridicule, because every sound reasoning presented to their opponents throughout the years has been rejected with blanket statements that have never stood firm in the face of scrutiny. Many Christian apologists flat-out close their eyes and plug their ears when their own argument is attacked.
Logic is not subjective. There is no such thing as "MY logic".
Okay, here's two statistics:
Number of violent crimes motivated by atheism: zero
Number of wars started by atheists: zero
Sources? I don't need sources. This should be obvious. No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side, and you can't be motivated by a lack of a belief. You don't need a study to determine these things.
Your "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" is absolutely preposterous. What is the logical underpinning of that assertion? First off, the vast majority of people are raised in a religious household. To denounce something you believed, you have to believe it in the first place. Second, you know that you don't have to denounce atheism, right? Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack of one. To attach "-ism" to it does it an injustice because it gives it a resemblance to any religion, but it is not one. "Denouncing atheism" is like resigning from a job you never worked at.
Well, I would say they are based on observations, but in Mozared's case I'd say the observations are more misinformed and ignorant than subjective. Anyone who would say that most atheists are the militant, crusading variety is simply wrong. That assertion is incongruous with reality.
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
Like any scientist, the great Albert Einstein is capable of misconceptions, misperceptions, and misunderstandings. Honestly, if lacking a "crusading spirit" is what caused him to shy away from being called an atheist, then he didn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is not so political. Do you believe in God? If yes, you are theistic. If no, you are atheistic. It's that simple. Agnosticism has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I just went there. I said Albert Einstein was wrong. I can do that.
What does it matter that the professor was capable of trampling his argument? That's what's supposed to happen to flawed arguments. What does it matter that "too many" of his conclusions came from the professor. It could simply be that the professor was THAT correct. If you're trying to insinuate some kind of intellectual indoctrination, you'll have to elaborate. It was not a rhetoric debate, it was a logic debate. The professor used the very same reason that he had embraced before deconverting. He was wrong, and had no choice but to accept it, because that is what reason forces you to do when you are wrong.
1. Something on the planet self-replicated and the result wasn't identical to the original being.
2. That thing died.
3. Repeat with the result for 5 billion years.
Conclusion: PEOPLE.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but elegant theories like this possess the same beauty to me as that of math. Things like Euler's identity(e^(i*pi) = -1), the first equation (1 + 1 = 2), and the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pythag_anim.gif) are all elegant expressions of truth, and that is the source of their beauty for me. You may not think there is beauty in evolution theory, but you can't deny its elegance.
My argument against the elegance of creation theory is that by saying "God created people", you are also direly paraphrasing it. "People" is a very complex subject. In evolution theory, all the stuff in people is handled beforehand, in the "5 billion years" step. For creation, you have to include "God created the brain, the heart, the liver, the bones, the DNA, the organelles, the blood, the mitochondria, the lymph nodes, the gallbladder, the eyes, the appendix(whoops!), the skin, the hair, the teeth, the stomach, the kidneys, the spine, the arteries, the lungs, the muscles..." For ALL of those various parts, if you were to ask someone who believed evolution theory "How did people develop (insert body part here)?", the answer is always "A previous generation of life mutated it and its descendents lived on."
On a mildly related note, did no one check out the series I linked in a previous post? :( It talks about this stuff.
There is no use in arguing!!!!!! Some people believe in science some people believe in extraterrestrial life creating everything in the universe (Yes GOD or various gods) One thing is for certain.. No matter how hard humanity tries we as a species will never full understand fully how our universe works. We can guess, we could label things and put things into a perspective that in our minds we could rationally understand... however we will never know it all.
Who doesn't believe in science? Do you believe that supernatural processes are what cause your computer to work, or for cold medicine to get rid of your congestion, or for pens to come in packs of 200 instead of being handcrafted individually? The problem is that people who deny the scientific understanding of physics, geology and biology will freely and hypocritically accept, without any understanding whatsoever, all the other sciences. Metallurgy? Great! Materials engineering? Sure thing! Aeronautics? Book me a flight! But then you get to biology, geology and physics. Certain details get cherrypicked, and others get wholeheartedly denied. Biology has a working model of the explanation of biodiversity, which happens to be the foundation of all biological study, and it's one of the simplest assertions of any science:
1) Offspring are not identical to their parents.
2) Everything dies.
Now, since evolution theory is the basis of modern biology, you could make an argument that all of biology is flawed if you believe evolution is flawed. HOWEVER, then you get to the whole age-of-the-universe dilemma. You don't get to argue against the foundations of physics with that one. You have to deny a fairly non-fundamental subject in physics, radioactive decay.
And besides ALL of this, simply by accepting the scientific method as it pertains to any science, you accept the scientific method as it pertains to all sciences. If you think science can explain why your glasses allow you to see(optics), you necessarily believe the carbon-dating process. Science is not a body of work, it is a process, and it is the same process for all scientific studies. Have a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, accept the results.
I'm not sure you even know what you mean by "this". Evolution withstood 150 years of the scientific method. Nearly all Christians don't systematically subject their own beliefs to scientific scrutiny, and the people who do universally discover that it's full of holes. No, Christianity has not withstood 5000 years of the microscope.
0
Not really an update but something I'm kinda proud of relating to this. I was racking my brains trying to figure out an algorithm for pathing. The lopsidedness of the grid added several challenges that a rectangular grid would not have had. I want each unit to individually have its own path so that the path could be updated in real-time. Here is what I have, in glorious pseudo-code(also putting it here so I don't clutter the IRC :P):
Unit reaches top or bottom of column: send to next row along top/bottom path, apply "Moving Up/Down" effect.
Unit moves forward: apply "Moving Forward" effect
Unit reaches intersection:
1. If Forward, check overseer direction:
-a. If top, set effect to Moving Up; continue up
-b. If bottom, apply "Moving Down" effect; continue down
-c. If neither, check team:
- -i. If team 1, default Up.
- -ii. If team 2, default Down.
2. If Up, check overseer[x][x] and overseer[x][x+1] directions:
-a. If Top/Bottom, Top/Top, or Top/Neither, apply "Moving Forward" effect; continue Forward through next opening.
-b. If Neither/Bottom, Neither/Top, or Neither/Neither, continue up.
3. If Down, check overseer[x][x] and overseer[x][x-1] directions:
-a. If Bottom/Top, Bottom/Bottom, or Bottom/Neither, apply "Moving Forward" effect; continue Forward through next opening.
-b. If Neither/Bottom, Neither/Top, or Neither/Neither, continue down.
0
@Hookah604: Go
^ me the moment this topic started being about global warming (7ê_ê)7
0
I must really not be one of those militant atheist dudes, then, because I am not even going to touch global warming. >_> I'm just not interested in arguing a point that I'm not qualified to argue with a bunch of other people who are not qualified to argue. Call me when it goes back to philosophy.
0
@Bilxor: Go
Worm food is my present belief.
0
@Charysmatic: Go
Congratulations, you're a liar. You said you weren't going to reply to me. I therefore made my last post to you short, expecting the conversation to end there. You replied, even bothering to criticize the tone of my post. I have given you and every religious person here every amenity they deserve in this debate. I've explained my point of view thoroughly and addressed every challenge(except one, but as someone noted, I was making a rhetorical point with that one). You and most of those on your side, however, have not done me the kindness of addressing every point I've made, going so far as to read only one sentence before responding to me with points that the very post you respond to debunks.
Now it's my turn to end our conversation, and I won't be a liar.
0
@Charysmatic: Go
The irony is that your last paragraph is rather insulting.
0
@Gradius12: Go
Well, I did say almost never, didn't I? I'm not one to exclude possibilities if they are plausible. With those examples, you're bearing witness to a common plague of humanity, regardless of the subject matter: vocal minorities. Just like how I don't let people who bomb abortion clinics, or protest the removal of religious symbols from government buildings, stain my perception of Christianity in general, don't let the more ignorant atheists stain your perception of them in general.
As for the likes of Maher and Dawkins, they are of the belief that they only way to argue with Christians anymore is through ridicule, because every sound reasoning presented to their opponents throughout the years has been rejected with blanket statements that have never stood firm in the face of scrutiny. Many Christian apologists flat-out close their eyes and plug their ears when their own argument is attacked.
0
@Charysmatic: Go
Logic is not subjective. There is no such thing as "MY logic".
Okay, here's two statistics:
Number of violent crimes motivated by atheism: zero
Number of wars started by atheists: zero
Sources? I don't need sources. This should be obvious. No war ever began without God or gods or spirits being on the aggressor's side, and you can't be motivated by a lack of a belief. You don't need a study to determine these things.
Your "I generally see people denouncing theism more than atheism. Which suggests they're more violent than theists" is absolutely preposterous. What is the logical underpinning of that assertion? First off, the vast majority of people are raised in a religious household. To denounce something you believed, you have to believe it in the first place. Second, you know that you don't have to denounce atheism, right? Atheism is not a belief system, it is the lack of one. To attach "-ism" to it does it an injustice because it gives it a resemblance to any religion, but it is not one. "Denouncing atheism" is like resigning from a job you never worked at.
0
@Charysmatic: Go
Well, I would say they are based on observations, but in Mozared's case I'd say the observations are more misinformed and ignorant than subjective. Anyone who would say that most atheists are the militant, crusading variety is simply wrong. That assertion is incongruous with reality.
0
@Mozared: Go
@Gradius12: Go
You misunderstand me. The problem is that most atheists, the vast majority of atheists, are NOT crusaders or militant in any way. "atheists are more often the backwards stuck up 'rebels' than the theists they 'war' against" Is the EXACT point I'm saying he's wrong about. Atheists are almost never like that.
I've already made this point in the topic.
http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/general/off-topic/42073-do-you-consider-yourself-part-of-an-organized-religion/?page=12#p240
0
@Gradius12: Go
Like any scientist, the great Albert Einstein is capable of misconceptions, misperceptions, and misunderstandings. Honestly, if lacking a "crusading spirit" is what caused him to shy away from being called an atheist, then he didn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is not so political. Do you believe in God? If yes, you are theistic. If no, you are atheistic. It's that simple. Agnosticism has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, I just went there. I said Albert Einstein was wrong. I can do that.
@Deadzergling: Go
What does it matter that the professor was capable of trampling his argument? That's what's supposed to happen to flawed arguments. What does it matter that "too many" of his conclusions came from the professor. It could simply be that the professor was THAT correct. If you're trying to insinuate some kind of intellectual indoctrination, you'll have to elaborate. It was not a rhetoric debate, it was a logic debate. The professor used the very same reason that he had embraced before deconverting. He was wrong, and had no choice but to accept it, because that is what reason forces you to do when you are wrong.
0
@Hookah604: Go
You wanna talk about elegance? ;>_>
1. Something on the planet self-replicated and the result wasn't identical to the original being.
2. That thing died.
3. Repeat with the result for 5 billion years.
Conclusion: PEOPLE.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but elegant theories like this possess the same beauty to me as that of math. Things like Euler's identity(e^(i*pi) = -1), the first equation (1 + 1 = 2), and the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pythag_anim.gif) are all elegant expressions of truth, and that is the source of their beauty for me. You may not think there is beauty in evolution theory, but you can't deny its elegance.
My argument against the elegance of creation theory is that by saying "God created people", you are also direly paraphrasing it. "People" is a very complex subject. In evolution theory, all the stuff in people is handled beforehand, in the "5 billion years" step. For creation, you have to include "God created the brain, the heart, the liver, the bones, the DNA, the organelles, the blood, the mitochondria, the lymph nodes, the gallbladder, the eyes, the appendix(whoops!), the skin, the hair, the teeth, the stomach, the kidneys, the spine, the arteries, the lungs, the muscles..." For ALL of those various parts, if you were to ask someone who believed evolution theory "How did people develop (insert body part here)?", the answer is always "A previous generation of life mutated it and its descendents lived on."
On a mildly related note, did no one check out the series I linked in a previous post? :( It talks about this stuff.
0
Who doesn't believe in science? Do you believe that supernatural processes are what cause your computer to work, or for cold medicine to get rid of your congestion, or for pens to come in packs of 200 instead of being handcrafted individually? The problem is that people who deny the scientific understanding of physics, geology and biology will freely and hypocritically accept, without any understanding whatsoever, all the other sciences. Metallurgy? Great! Materials engineering? Sure thing! Aeronautics? Book me a flight! But then you get to biology, geology and physics. Certain details get cherrypicked, and others get wholeheartedly denied. Biology has a working model of the explanation of biodiversity, which happens to be the foundation of all biological study, and it's one of the simplest assertions of any science:
1) Offspring are not identical to their parents.
2) Everything dies.
Now, since evolution theory is the basis of modern biology, you could make an argument that all of biology is flawed if you believe evolution is flawed. HOWEVER, then you get to the whole age-of-the-universe dilemma. You don't get to argue against the foundations of physics with that one. You have to deny a fairly non-fundamental subject in physics, radioactive decay.
And besides ALL of this, simply by accepting the scientific method as it pertains to any science, you accept the scientific method as it pertains to all sciences. If you think science can explain why your glasses allow you to see(optics), you necessarily believe the carbon-dating process. Science is not a body of work, it is a process, and it is the same process for all scientific studies. Have a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, accept the results.
0
@Taintedwisp: Go
I'm not sure you even know what you mean by "this". Evolution withstood 150 years of the scientific method. Nearly all Christians don't systematically subject their own beliefs to scientific scrutiny, and the people who do universally discover that it's full of holes. No, Christianity has not withstood 5000 years of the microscope.
0
@FDFederation: Go
Moreover, RIP Vilerat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Smith_%28diplomat%29
Vilerat was a highly influential figure in the EVE Online community. The channels and EVE news sites are buzzing with the story.