Rayman Pirate-Community

iambored2006 wrote:Edit: Tobbe, I forgot something important I wanted to say- the replies to my apology and rephrased expression of opinion (when I was banned) were enough evidence that you did simply get insulted by my opinion of Europe. DesLife, who banned me, was angry even after I rephrased myself, which proves I was banned for my opinion. That's fascism for you.

Kids, you ought to thank iab again for being a good exemple of a bad boon : this is how you get a week ban !

I haven't even waited for the team's approval here, so I'm taking full responsibility for this. It seems to me that you are an asshole not worth talking to, and stupid beyond belief. I did warn you that complaining about your ban would only get you another, longer one, yet here you are, provoking me again. You were not banned for your opinion though, but for writing hateful nonsense. However, if you truly want to join an islamist army to invade Europe, if that truly is your opinion, then that's one stupid enough opinion to earn you a ban too. Call me fascist if you will, and I'll call you a stupid piece of shit. Now I advise you to think twice about how you should behave here, because the only reason you're not permabanned yet is that the rest of the mod team is way nicer and more patient than I am.

Yours sincerely~

iambored2006 wrote:Edit: Tobbe, I forgot something important I wanted to say- the replies to my apology and rephrased expression of opinion (when I was banned) were enough evidence that you did simply get insulted by my opinion of Europe. DesLife, who banned me, was angry even after I rephrased myself, which proves I was banned for my opinion. That's fascism for you.

This is a privately-hosted message board, not a democratic state. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply here – anything and everything is at the discretion of the administration. If you want to spread your ‘opinions’ and gather recruits for your Muslim invasion, I’m sure you can find plenty of hate sites that will facilitate you. By the way, I recommend that you stop throwing the word ‘fascism’ around, as it seems you don’t quite understand its meaning.

If you think about it this way, science says that the world was created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang was created by particles colliding BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! Also it is stated that this all happened because the Universe which was once in a "extremely hot state" expanded... The only problem with this is that scientists have not and cannot go further back, what caused the universe to come into existence? If they find an answer for that then what caused that to come into existence? If scientists go all the way back which they are most likely not able to, they would realise everything came into state by one thing and that one thing is god!

Iambored just got pushed to the back of the refutation line!

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:If you think about it this way, science says that the world was created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang was created by particles colliding BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! Also it is stated that this all happened because the Universe which was once in a "extremely hot state" expanded... The only problem with this is that scientists have not and cannot go further back, what caused the universe to come into existence? If they find an answer for that then what caused that to come into existence? If scientists go all the way back which they are most likely not able to, they would realise everything came into state by one thing and that one thing is god!

Not to burst your bubble here, thingamajig, but this is one of the more serious topics...most of the time.
Where there are many debates.

I already know that i am just stating my opinion, if people want to debate it is up to them.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:I already know that i am just stating my opinion

Your opinion is based on demonstrable factual errors and logical fallacies, and you can't expect people not to point them out.

Point them out if you wish then.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:If you think about it this way, science says that the world was created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang was created by particles colliding BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

once upon a time there was a big guy who lives for eternity somehow, then he created the universe and defies the laws of physics BLAH BLAH BLAH - as you can see, putting "blah blah" after your words means that other people's opinions are wrong. Doing so works no matter what you put before it.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:The only problem with this is that scientists have not and cannot go further back,

What are you talking about? Of course they're able to see what happened in the past, through the magic of phosphoric-preserved DNA samples for life and a handy dandy thing called a spectroscope to track the location and movement of distant non-terrestrial objects.

The Earth was most definitely in a hot state, this factually proven, not transmitted via mind signals.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:what caused the universe to come into existence? If they find an answer for that then what caused that to come into existence? If scientists go all the way back which they are most likely not able to, they would realise everything came into state by one thing and that one thing is god!

Yes, because the logical solution to a very probable but not totally proven theory is to dismiss it and assume it was the making of a big homie in the sky that was first mentioned in an ancient book that has been translated through hundreds of languages. Personally I think the Earth was created from a piece of the moon (which by the way is made out of cheese, therefore the Earth is made out of dragon skin and phoenix beak).

Yeah but no matter how far the theory gets they have still not proven it to be correct, they just assume it is!

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:Yeah but no matter how far the theory gets they have still not proven it to be correct, they just assume it is!

Just like how you assume there's a god.

The Big Bang is the closest thing we've come to. The difference is that, even with our loads and loads of evidence that it probably did happen, we're open to changing our theories when new discoveries are made, not sticking to one ancient, 'certain-of' idea that doesn't have a single piece of possible evidence.

By the way, I love your sig.

The thing is science keeps on changing theories and each one has not been proven. We believe in god, has anyone proved there is no god, they tried that with the Big Bang what happened...failure!

Oh and thanks

Soo many errors - from both sides! Too bad I have to sleep.

Tobbe wrote:Soo many errors - from both sides! Too bad I have to sleep.

Seriously? What have I done this time? You've proven me wrong on a few occasions, but this is just ridiculous.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:The thing is science keeps on changing theories and each one has not been proven. We believe in god, has anyone proved there is no god, they tried that with the Big Bang what happened...failure!

Oh and thanks

I once watched a funny video about that. it stated that God has never been disproving, so doesn't that make all of religion true? No, it doesn't.

Here is an example for you:
In 2002, a colony of 547 flying purple unicorns created a planet that looks like Jupiter by making atomic lollipops explode with the use of TNT blocks from Minecraft. They then build 19 houses on it that look like your nose and put 20 teacups in it that were all light blue. Then Michael Jackson came and screamed ''I'ma firin mah lazer! Blaargh!' and killed 44% of the unicorns. At last, Rayman defeated Jackson by shoving his shoes up his ears while singing ''Baby'' by Justin Beaver.


You can't disprove this is not true, so doesn't that make all of this story true?

RayTunes wrote:

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:The thing is science keeps on changing theories and each one has not been proven. We believe in god, has anyone proved there is no god, they tried that with the Big Bang what happened...failure!

Oh and thanks

I once watched a funny video about that. it stated that God has never been disproving, so doesn't that make all of religion true? No, it doesn't.

Here is an example for you:
In 2002, a colony of 547 flying purple unicorns created a planet that looks like Jupiter by making atomic lollipops explode with the use of TNT blocks from Minecraft. They then build 19 houses on it that look like your nose and put 20 teacups in it that were all light blue. Then Michael Jackson came and screamed ''I'ma firin mah lazer! Blaargh!' and killed 44% of the unicorns. At last, Rayman defeated Jackson by shoving his shoes up his ears while singing ''Baby'' by Justin Beaver.


You can't disprove this is not true, so doesn't that make all of this story true?

I was basically trying to make the same point, though I didn't get an answer I just got him saying the same thing over again:

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:

RayFan9876 wrote:

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:what caused the universe to come into existence? If they find an answer for that then what caused that to come into existence? If scientists go all the way back which they are most likely not able to, they would realise everything came into state by one thing and that one thing is god!

Yes, because the logical solution to a very probable but not totally proven theory is to dismiss it and assume it was the making of a big homie in the sky that was first mentioned in an ancient book that has been translated through hundreds of languages. Personally I think the Earth was created from a piece of the moon (which by the way is made out of cheese, therefore the Earth is made out of dragon skin and phoenix beak).

The thing is science keeps on changing theories and each one has not been proven. We believe in god, has anyone proved there is no god, they tried that with the Big Bang what happened...failure!

Hey Evil, has anyone ever tried to prove god's existence? They sure have, and what did they end up in? That's correct, failure. For your information, many scientific theories every month are proven to be true, and many new discoveries are constantly being made, but excuse us for not being so quick to make up our minds when trying to discover the biggest secret the Universe withholds.

If there's a situation where the two most likely variables are involved (let X be god; let Y be scientific explanation), there's fine line between proving that X is true and not being able to prove that Y is true. If you prove X to be true, that obviously disproves all other possibilities assuming there can only be one answer. However if you can only do as much as be unable to prove that the opposing Y is true, that doesn't automatically make X true. We don't know if Y is indeed true or not, though almost all signs point to it being the most likely culprit.

There's straight logic for ya.

RayFan9876 wrote: If there's a situation where the two most likely variables are involved (let X be god; let Y be scientific explanation), there's fine line between proving that X is true and not being able to prove that Y is true. If you prove X to be true, that obviously disproves all other possibilities assuming there can only be one answer. However if you can only do as much as be unable to prove that the opposing Y is true, that doesn't automatically make X true. We don't know if Y is indeed true or not, though almost all signs point to it being the most likely culprit.

There's straight logic for ya.

That is the most excellent explanation I've ever heard.

Wth why?
She was explaining one of the most obvious things about religion here.
Although she explained it right, I can't learn anything from it.

I fully understand your logic but still my logic is this and i know that it is flowed-

(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Evil-Thingamajig wrote:I fully understand your logic but still my logic is this and i know that it is flowed-

Are you kidding? This is your reason for believing in god? This piece of non-logic is the mother of all non sequiturs. And I'm wondering: If you know your reasoning is faulty, then why do you use it to justify believing in god?

This is basically what you're saying.

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true
3. Therfore, A is true.

I hope I don't have to explain to you why this is faulty logic. Just for fun, I will now prove that Santa Claus exists:

1. If Santa Claus exists, the I should believe in him.
2. I believe in Santa Claus
3. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

Now I may not really believe in Santa Claus, but lots of kids all over the world do. Does that mean he exists?