Jump to content
Joel

unpopular opinions

Recommended Posts

On 9/29/2017 at 4:39 PM, Crazy Lee said:

My thing is that they seem to come out with a game every single damn year, most of the time with seemingly minor changes. It seems silly to pay $60 every year for almost the same game. Though, it's your money. And for some people that might be the only game they buy each year while others are spending $60 x 20 for other games. Or you might be someone who just buys one every few years.

I read some time ago that sports video game players actually get, on average, twice as many game time hours out of their purchases than gamers overall.  In short, they really like their sports games and play the heck out of them.  Likely because it allows them an interactive experience with the sports teams/games that they are already fans of in real life.

More over, real sports are seasonal, with new rosters, some teams even move to new cities, and lots of incremental changes every year so it makes sense that annual updates would be appealing to the players of those games.

And I say all of this as a nerd who knows nothing of sportsball and has no interest in the games myself.  But I can get why it'd be big to the experience of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CreatorNerd said:

I don't need flu vaccines or whatever if I wash my hands well and cough and sneeze into my elbow.

But like

If you're coughing and sneezing

It means you got ill anyway

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At no point is Silent Hill remotely terrifying. It's atmosphere is no more harrowing than Metroid Fusion. It's monsters are corny as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tsuujou said:

At no point is Silent Hill remotely terrifying. It's atmosphere is no more harrowing than Metroid Fusion. It's monsters are corny as fuck.

Metroid Fusion was the only GBA title to give me the heebie jeebies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Socketosis said:

Metroid Fusion was the only GBA title to give me the heebie jeebies.

Being spotted by the SA-X was some shit, man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2017 at 3:50 PM, DrDingo said:

But like

If you're coughing and sneezing

It means you got ill anyway

Yeah, and I haven't got sick just because I do that, for a long while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is sacrilege, but after playing for 60+ hours, BOTW isn’t the best game ever, or even the best Zelda. The absolutey stunning open world *is* one of the best ever, the problem is Nintendo forgot to populate that world with things to do. There’re not enough varied enemies, sidequests are hot garbage, dungeons are too short, shrines get repetitive, and...where are the caves?

For combat, once I reach a certain point, I don’t want to fight anything to waste resources since the enemies have crappier weapons than I have, and they’re guarding something like an opal. Rarely a “leveled” weapon I already have or stopped using a while ago. And sometimes...they aren’t guarding anything at all! Lynels, guardians, Taluses, and Hinoxes are really the only fun enemies. And upgrading my loadout seems to be pointless. Besides Lynels...what am I turning into a super-commando for? Certainly don’t need it for Ganon! 

The game does feel copypasted with all the koroks and shrines and skull camps. This harms exploration. I already know what’s waiting for me on the other side of that hill. There are few surprises and few secrets, and for a Zelda game, that sucks. Skyrim may have a more bland world, but there are lore tidbits and secrets all over the place. You’ll find skeletons with journals, altars to the gods with offerings (that aren’t koroks), side locations with interesting gear, and maybe a really, really tough enemy type that just spawns randomly in a certain area at night. 

Some may say “it’s about the journey”. Well ok Mr Smartypants, how about I remove all content but the worldmap itself, a walking simulator. Is that what you want? If I want to do that, I’ll go hiking in real life. The game doesn’t have enough fresh material to warrant 200 hours of adventure or replayability. There’s no alternate builds (no thief, mage, warrior, summoner, etc you see in RPGs, just sneak armor) to try for a new playthrough, and after you’ve played the game once, you’ve seen everything. One might say that’s expecting too much from a game, but other games *have* achieved this, and they aren’t MMOs. 

BOTW feels like all the fun was frontloaded at the beginning when environmental interaction was important, you were just starting to use the few runes the game gives you, and you’ve probably only done one Divine Beast. But once you’ve played it for a while, you start to see the “seams”, and the world feels so, so artificial and rushed. I feel Nintendo spent all of their time on the overworld and not enough on everything else. Here’s hoping they do improve on this game.

I hope the next DLC part adds a whole bunch of enemies, makes Ganon harder, and adds more lore.

I’d give it a 7 or 8/10. Still a great game, but aside from the overworld, there’s nothing that stands out as special. I’ll still play it from time to time, but I’m playing other games, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Calemeyr said:

I know this is sacrilege, but after playing for 60+ hours, BOTW isn’t the best game ever, or even the best Zelda.

Actually, I've heard a few people have this issue.

BOTW feels like it prioritized wanting to be a Miyazaki film over being a Zelda game.
They really should have given the player more to do, and in a more meaningful way. I get that it takes place after an apocalypse (in a sense), but there still should be extensive and rewarding dungeons at the very least, instead of just tossing everything you need at you in the beginning and going "Welp, have fun."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vae said:

Actually, I've heard a few people have this issue.

BOTW feels like it prioritized wanting to be a Miyazaki film over being a Zelda game.
They really should have given the player more to do, and in a more meaningful way. I get that it takes place after an apocalypse (in a sense), but there still should be extensive and rewarding dungeons at the very least, instead of just tossing everything you need at you in the beginning and going "Welp, have fun."

Yup. Cale is not alone. I'll be the first to say it's the 2nd weakest console Zelda.
None of my friends even like it anymore. First time Zelda players and longtime fans alike. All of them sold the game and some picked up Horizon Zero Dawn instead.
I agree with Cale on every single point in their post and I don't even think they went in hard enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Calemeyr said:

the problem is Nintendo forgot to populate that world with things to do. There’re not enough varied enemies, sidequests are hot garbage

This is the problem with almost every open world game out there and is an argument for why fully open world games shouldn't be made.

Open world games in general suffer because they try to have these really massive worlds to explore almost seamlessly, making it extremely hard to actually make anything in the open world meaningful and have proper level design with stuff to do in it. You can't make a game like that and make the world full of life, quests, interesting things to find and explore, and in general stuff to do. It's simply too much work, so instead you get mostly empty worlds with a few interesting things here and there. Its why I cringed at the thought of Nintendo mimicking Skyrim back when they first announced it, and hearing all this, its depressing to hear that the game seems to suffer exactly that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlechili said:

This is the problem with almost every open world game out there and is an argument for why fully open world games shouldn't be made.

Open world games in general suffer because they try to have these really massive worlds to explore almost seamlessly, making it extremely hard to actually make anything in the open world meaningful and have proper level design with stuff to do in it. You can't make a game like that and make the world full of life, quests, interesting things to find and explore, and in general stuff to do. It's simply too much work, so instead you get mostly empty worlds with a few interesting things here and there. Its why I cringed at the thought of Nintendo mimicking Skyrim back when they first announced it, and hearing all this, its depressing to hear that the game seems to suffer exactly that.

I've played extremely fun open world games that while flawed, I found to still be fulfilling titles and absolutely put Wild to complete shame. But no one would want to entertain that thought because it's Nintendo/Zelda and the general consensus is that this is the best thing to ever be created by man.

It's actually even more upsetting because this is a Zelda game, a series with an established and unique focus that was thrown out the window to be something it's not and was previously...kind of better than?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t get me wrong, I still find the game fun, mostly the exploration side of things, but there are *many* things it could have done better. Finding just a korok on top of the highest mountain in the game outside Death Mountain was a bit of a letdown.

But BOTW is no longer a game I see myself playing for hours every day.

Enemy, lore, and sublocation variety is what saddens me the most. The characters are so bland, too. I blame the senile Miyamoto for this, he probably said “games don’t need story or character, Wii Music was the greatest game ever dumb gaijin!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Calemeyr said:

Don’t get me wrong, I still find the game fun, mostly the exploration side of things, but there are *many* things it could have done better. Finding just a korok on top of the highest mountain in the game outside Death Mountain was a bit of a letdown.

But BOTW is no longer a game I see myself playing for hours every day.

Enemy, lore, and sublocation variety is what saddens me the most. The characters are so bland, too. I blame the senile Miyamoto for this, he probably said “games don’t need story or character, Wii Music was the greatest game ever dumb gaijin!”

While I agree with some of the points you've made thus far, the thing that makes me personally love the game, is that it gets me immersed in it's world like no other game ever has, hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of videogames, I feel like I'm the only one not hyped up for Super Mario Odyssey. While I admire the ability to play as a goomba or a hammer bro (Though I don't know yet what limitations each costume come with) I've never enjoyed Mario games very much. They feel too slow and methodic for my tastes, and I've always preferred Sonic cause I feel like Sonic games tend to have more twitch and action to them that Mario games usually lack, and I generally can just pick them up and play rather then having to worry too much about jumping from enemy to enemy and such. Plus, Mario games always feel clunky to me, yet fans will always say the games are factually perfect in controls: I just don't see it. I even got Super Mario Maker 3DS reccently, and it's honestly become one of my most regretted full-price purchases for a videogame.

That being said, I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion anymore or not, but I played Sonic Adventure for the first time recently, and I have to say that the game is terrible. I like the Chao Garden to an extent and the fact that the game always has new stuff as you go further, but that's about all I liked. The gameplay's not that great, the cameras are bad, the minigames are a joke, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shiro said:

While I agree with some of the points you've made thus far, the thing that makes me personally love the game, is that it gets me immersed in it's world like no other game ever has, hands down.

From my experience it’s the opposite. I don’t find the game as immersive as it could be. The lack of variety and lack of worldbuilding harms it. I’m playing through FFIV for the first time, and although the world is bare, I feel for the characters and the world. There’s tons of enemies and abilities in the game, and little tidbits here and there.

I think that’s what’s missing. The overworld is very fun to get lost in, but for instance, only finding a Korok on top of the glaciated Hebra peak and not, say, a icy greatsword in a rock with some note next to it took me out (some long forgotten hero hundreds of years ago died here and this is his sword).

I feel the potential for immersion in this game is the best out of any other, but it falls short in fulfilling it because it seems Nintendo just wasn’t a big enough developer to pull it off. 

There still are many places left for me to explore and I will admire the world, but it seems the B-team who were in charge of putting things in that world failes miserably. On every highest peak and deepest hidden grotto, I know all that will be waiting for me is yet another hidden korok rock to push over, or a shrine which may be yet another “test of strength”. When I for once actually found a fire greatsword in a rock underneath the Eldin Leviathan, I almost cried, because that’s what I wanted to see more often. Not super swords everywhere, but something resembling wordbuilding.

The lack of those moments, and the fact that the fun of the plateau can’t be used in mid-late game because enemies are too strong and you have a glider are what breaks the immersion for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Calemeyr said:

From my experience it’s the opposite. I don’t find the game as immersive as it could be. The lack of variety and lack of worldbuilding harms it. I’m playing through FFIV for the first time, and although the world is bare, I feel for the characters and the world. There’s tons of enemies and abilities in the game, and little tidbits here and there.

I think that’s what’s missing. The overworld is very fun to get lost in, but for instance, only finding a Korok on top of the glaciated Hebra peak and not, say, a icy greatsword in a rock with some note next to it took me out (some long forgotten hero hundreds of years ago died here and this is his sword).

I feel the potential for immersion in this game is the best out of any other, but it falls short in fulfilling it because it seems Nintendo just wasn’t a big enough developer to pull it off. 

There still are many places left for me to explore and I will admire the world, but it seems the B-team who were in charge of putting things in that world failes miserably. On every highest peak and deepest hidden grotto, I know all that will be waiting for me is yet another hidden korok rock to push over, or a shrine which may be yet another “test of strength”. When I for once actually found a fire greatsword in a rock underneath the Eldin Leviathan, I almost cried, because that’s what I wanted to see more often. Not super swords everywhere, but something resembling wordbuilding.

The lack of those moments, and the fact that the fun of the plateau can’t be used in mid-late game because enemies are too strong and you have a glider are what breaks the immersion for me.

I'll be honest, I don't even think Wild's world was anywhere close to the best in the genre. I don't think at any point it comes remotely close to even games the likes of FarCry 3. I never felt like I wasted my time in that game whereas Wild was just a poor man's version of that to me. Like an alpha of FarCry 3 or something. 
But more than anything what absolutely made me upset was how it handled it's dungeons. I was stunned and upset because that's my favorite part of Zelda and what I assumed for the last 20 years to be the main focal point of the franchise.

  • 15-20 minutes long
  • 4-6 enemies a piece
  • No unique enemies
  • No unique individual themes
  • No mini boss
  • No dungeon item which means no puzzles unique from everything else in the game
  • No split paths or special gimmick; each shared the same thing of moving the Beast between 2 or 3 positions which changed almost nothing
  • Really bad VERY cheeseable bosses
  • Forgettable near silent music

That doesn't even scratch the surface of the problems I personally had. I honestly just hate this game. lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tsuujou said:

I'll be honest, I don't even think Wild's world was anywhere close to the best in the genre. I don't think at any point it comes remotely close to even games the likes of FarCry 3. I never felt like I wasted my time in that game whereas Wild was just a poor man's version of that to me. Like an alpha of FarCry 3 or something. 
But more than anything what absolutely made me upset was how it handled it's dungeons. I was stunned and upset because that's my favorite part of Zelda and what I assumed for the last 20 years to be the main focal point of the franchise.

  • 15-20 minutes long
  • 4-6 enemies a piece
  • No unique enemies
  • No unique individual themes
  • No mini boss
  • No dungeon item which means no puzzles unique from everything else in the game
  • No split paths or special gimmick; each shared the same thing of moving the Beast between 2 or 3 positions which changed almost nothing
  • Really bad VERY cheeseable bosses
  • Forgettable near silent music

That doesn't even scratch the surface of the problems I personally had. I honestly just hate this game. lol

Skyrim, despite being the normie TES game, had great wordbuilding. Adding ENB to it on PC makes it beautiful and not look like a COD game. Though seeing Oblivion playthroughs, the sidequests weren’t as memorable. Still better than BOTW.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BennyJackdaw said:

Speaking of videogames, I feel like I'm the only one not hyped up for Super Mario Odyssey. While I admire the ability to play as a goomba or a hammer bro (Though I don't know yet what limitations each costume come with) I've never enjoyed Mario games very much. They feel too slow and methodic for my tastes, and I've always preferred Sonic cause I feel like Sonic games tend to have more twitch and action to them that Mario games usually lack, and I generally can just pick them up and play rather then having to worry too much about jumping from enemy to enemy and such. Plus, Mario games always feel clunky to me, yet fans will always say the games are factually perfect in controls: I just don't see it. I even got Super Mario Maker 3DS reccently, and it's honestly become one of my most regretted full-price purchases for a videogame.

That being said, I don't know if this is an unpopular opinion anymore or not, but I played Sonic Adventure for the first time recently, and I have to say that the game is terrible. I like the Chao Garden to an extent and the fact that the game always has new stuff as you go further, but that's about all I liked. The gameplay's not that great, the cameras are bad, the minigames are a joke, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy.

I'm stupid hype for Mario Odyssey because I love Mario Sunshine to bits and have been waiting for a game similar to that. Galaxy 1 and 2 put me to sleep.
I get MUCH more amped for Sonic though. The fluidity, deftness, and very organic level design of games like Sonic Mania, Generations and Sonic Advance just has a sense of flow that other platformers do not achieve for me. And the sense of velocity when you master the game's is outstanding. Mario's really...sterile. And because of that, he's super easy to emulate and copy and even just outclass. Mario's still great stuff, but I don't get hype for most of his games these days. He's just kind of basic and incredibly easy.

But you talk shit about Sonic Adventure again, we're gonna have to box. That's my unpopular opinion. I love that game. @w@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Calemeyr said:

Skyrim, despite being the normie TES game, had great wordbuilding. Adding ENB to it on PC makes it beautiful and not look like a COD game. Though seeing Oblivion playthroughs, the sidequests weren’t as memorable. Still better than BOTW.

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of Skyrim mainly because the build options and depth from Oblivion, my first Bethesda game, were totally gone. But if I had a choice? I'd probably pick that over Wild....if I could use mods (which I always have shitty luck with).

EDIT: Saving grace of Breath of the Wild 

tumblr_omqa0edwzq1w7jinho4_400.gif.9107f86911c46030ec0066970d70633a.gif

I feel like I have to mention this every time the topic is brought up.
*stares*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we need to launch all flat-earths people into space via a rocket and gather the data on how they do in space without any oxygen to help advance medical science. Also put all the anti vaccine people onto an island located far away, and then introduce polio, measles, and every other disease covered by routine vaccines and see how they "develop an immunity with crystals and whatever quack medical advice they have". Then study the effects on the populations to help advance medical science.

I'm not sure the principal of my opinion is unpopular, but perhaps my methodology is a bit unorthodox.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically shit video game series like Marvel vs. Capcom and Call of Duty have been getting much better recently.

Maybe this means Kingdom Hearts 3 will be a big improvement too?

 

Ahahaha no way, the unpopular opinion is the KH is a fucking unsalvageable series lmao 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snails r cute and if u disagree i will shake my head disapprovingly.

 

they have dumb lil' eyes

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2017 at 10:43 PM, Proper noun said:

snails r cute and if u disagree i will shake my head disapprovingly.

 

they have dumb lil' eyes

snail2.jpg.11ab2630982b2960f4359b8487ca2207.jpg

owO

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually liked the “punishment” of being forced to do my schoolwork for the day in a empty room alone in peace and quite while I was in elementary school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nova said:

Being gay isnt a sin.

Rather harrasing gays is a sin.

My boy jesus is probably  quaking.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:36-40

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheer complexity of our world and inherit inability to discern absolute truth is itself evidence that our understanding of the world is not only limited, but so much so that declaration that one possesses absolute truth is nothing short of being entirely naive, and perhaps even blind.

A quote my physical chemistry professor always said that I thought rather beautiful was:

"None of the equations or concepts we'll review are absolute truth. What they do give us, however, are approximations of truth, and as humans, it's the best we can do."

And it's because of this that I'll never see eye to eye with hyper-fundamentalist Christians who think they know it all and are the only ones with the answer, and, not all that different in my view at least, atheist who claim that god does not exist and that this is the only truth. Both sides leave too many questions unanswered for me. Granted I consider myself christian and am part of the PCUSA, but I don't think my belief is perfect, just an approximation of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, U-235 said:

The sheer complexity of our world and inherit inability to discern absolute truth is itself evidence that our understanding of the world is not only limited, but so much so that declaration that one possesses absolute truth is nothing short of being entirely naive, and perhaps even blind.

 

Nature is finicky about admitting truths, or at least those about its reality. And that's not unexpected: we are after all lodged squarely in the middle of it; measuring the stars is out of the question when you don't have firm ground on which plant your telescope. However, that doesn't mean we're unable to discern absolute truth. In fact, it confronts us with all the reality of a brick wall, and it takes all the wishful thinking a human can muster to deny one once encountered. The interesting thing as that they usually only relate to nature as a matter of course (for example when Aristotle says that a is a, it doesn't matter whether the entity is abstract or concrete. A chair is a chair even before you build one because identity isn't a property of chairs, but it is a property that chairs inherit. A is a because the contrary would be contradictory; you have to accept that particular identity as truth before before you have the option of arguing against it. And that truth itself exists is beyond elementary; you can't deny it without first requesting its aid. They are absolutes and we're unable to get rid of them. Because nature comes parceled out in that fashion, it must be knowable in some fashion.)

It's true that our models are only ever going to be approximations and we're in no position to be forgetting our humble position at sea. At this time there's really not even a good reason to think that mathematical notation would be a good way to model nature in the first place except for the observation that it is. But it's also true that complexity is a long way from chaos. The reason science has come as far as it has is because some religious nuts got it into their head that, since God is good and has both created nature as endowed humans with reason, then nature should be knowable and some of the truths known in the abstract should apply to it. That still seems to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jtrekkie said:

 

Nature is finicky about admitting truths, or at least those about its reality. And that's not unexpected: we are after all lodged squarely in the middle of it; measuring the stars is out of the question when you don't have firm ground on which plant your telescope. However, that doesn't mean we're unable to discern absolute truth. In fact, it confronts us with all the reality of a brick wall, and it takes all the wishful thinking a human can muster to deny one once encountered. The interesting thing as that they usually only relate to nature as a matter of course (for example when Aristotle says that a is a, it doesn't matter whether the entity is abstract or concrete. A chair is a chair even before you build one because identity isn't a property of chairs, but it is a property that chairs inherit. A is a because the contrary would be contradictory; you have to accept that particular identity as truth before before you have the option of arguing against it. And that truth itself exists is beyond elementary; you can't deny it without first requesting its aid. They are absolutes and we're unable to get rid of them. Because nature comes parceled out in that fashion, it must be knowable in some fashion.)

It's true that our models are only ever going to be approximations and we're in no position to be forgetting our humble position at sea. At this time there's really not even a good reason to think that mathematical notation would be a good way to model nature in the first place except for the observation that it is. But it's also true that complexity is a long way from chaos. The reason science has come as far as it has is because some religious nuts got it into their head that, since God is good and has both created nature as endowed humans with reason, then nature should be knowable and some of the truths known in the abstract should apply to it. That still seems to be the case.

What I was more in reference to was the microscopic and subatomic arena. Yes there are macroscopic truths that are absolute such as a chair being a chair, regardless where you go. But I'm thinking more along the lines of sub-atomic interactions, how molecules re-arrange (we still argue about half of the interactions that occur in organic chemistry because their pathways are difficult to discern and happen so quick, it's really hard to measure, so there are still a lot of possible routes). But really the biggest one to me is our origins and our purpose (I'm by no means arguing for creationism, the evidence for evolution is immense and it's the only thing that makes sense biologically, plus the earth is pretty damn old). But what I'm really getting down to is to claim an absolute truth in either the non-macroscopic sense with building blocks is naive. If I measure what exists in a tank of an unknown gas and find it to be almost all oxygen I can say it's an oxygen tank and find that to be a pretty good approximation. But it'd be neglecting that other gases exist in the tank, though in minute quantities, and that in all likelihood a certain amount is always leaking out so the ratios of the consistency is changing. That's why I think an absolute is something that as humans we can't obtain except for the macroscopic realm that we can directly sense without the use of aids. Everything else is kind of on the table, including spirituality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, U-235 said:

But really the biggest one to me is our origins and our purpose

Just like any other life our purpose is to consume and reproduce (the current low birthrates in more developed countries at the moment have to do with a combination of biological, social, environmental and economic factors).

Homo sapiens originated from earlier species in the homo genus, which in turn evolved from other earlier species.

Your welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Just like any other life our purpose is to consume and reproduce (the current low birthrates in more developed countries at the moment have to do with a combination of biological, social, environmental and economic factors).

Homo sapiens originated from earlier species in the homo genus, which in turn evolved from other earlier species.

Your welcome.

I mean from a strictly biological perspective, yeah that's correct, as a species we're to consume and reproduce to ensure our survival.

Also I already stated "(I'm by no means arguing for creationism, the evidence for evolution is immense and it's the only thing that makes sense biologically, plus the earth is pretty damn old)". So yes, I get that, we descend from a species of which shared a common ancestor to modern day primates, and before that a species shared by most mammals. I don't know much beyond that, I'm not a biologist, but I know we've got the info out there and it's well proven that we all evolved over millions of years.

However, I'm assuming you had a dash of sarcasm in there (or a lot, I'm not good at reading it in the first place, and online it's far more difficult). But the obvious point I was making was from a perspective not originating from the macroscopic view of biology, but from a view of the underlying factors leading to the ultimate evolution that led to us. And then the purpose our society serves beyond the simple hum-drum ideas of (grow,consume,reproduce,protect members to ensure survival, comfort and meet non-essential needs). I'm thinking more of a spiritual aspect and of the larger aspects of the universe and workings we have yet to touch.

So, thanks for the try, but that didn't really answer much beyond what I already knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, U-235 said:

However, I'm assuming you had a dash of sarcasm in there (or a lot, I'm not good at reading it in the first place, and online it's far more difficult). But the obvious point I was making was from a perspective not originating from the macroscopic view of biology, but from a view of the underlying factors leading to the ultimate evolution that led to us.

The Earth, Moon, Sun and other celestial bodies happened to be in the correct configuration at the right time for self-reproducing chains of molecules to form which then turned into single-celled life. In short, we got lucky.

36 minutes ago, U-235 said:

And then the purpose our society serves beyond the simple hum-drum ideas of (grow,consume,reproduce,protect members to ensure survival, comfort and meet non-essential needs). I'm thinking more of a spiritual aspect and of the larger aspects of the universe and workings we have yet to touch.

The perceived spiritual aspect and wanting to learn about how the world and universe work are merely byproducts of the way our brains function.

40 minutes ago, U-235 said:

So, thanks for the try, but that didn't really answer much beyond what I already knew.

So you ask questions that you already know the answers to. There is nothing inherently spiritual about the universe, you're just trying to project some human values onto it.

We've been lucky with the configuration of the significant celestial bodies around us. Going forward, I only have one question for you:

8400-clint-lucky.jpg

There may be a bit of tongue-in-cheek in there somewhere ^__^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

The Earth, Moon, Sun and other celestial bodies happened to be in the correct configuration at the right time for self-reproducing chains of molecules to form which then turned into single-celled life. In short, we got lucky.

The perceived spiritual aspect and wanting to learn about how the world and universe work are merely byproducts of the way our brains function.

So you ask questions that you already know the answers to. There is nothing inherently spiritual about the universe, you're just trying to project some human values onto it.

We've been lucky with the configuration of the significant celestial bodies around us. Going forward, I only have one question for you:

8400-clint-lucky.jpg

There may be a bit of tongue-in-cheek in there somewhere ^__^

And you are exactly the person I referenced in my first link as someone who I'll never agree with, because you assume (or perhaps without realizing it) you have absolute truth and an in-depth understanding of all factors that led to our very existence and this moment of time.

I mean of course we have some grasp of the world around us, science has shown us plenty of things, and disputing scientific evidence is not only an uphill battle, but foolish.

BUT with that said, there are larger factors at play we can't account for and we still don't completely understand our own bodies (much less the inner workings of our brain ( I mean don't get me wrong, we understand a lot of overlaying principals, but the individual neuron paths and connections and how they affect both our perception and the development of our personalities is beyond our current medical science)) . I don't have all the answers, but I don't think you do either, and quite frankly, would be immensely naive to make a proposal that the universe is inherently lacking of a spiritual element on an ever-evolving science and understanding of the world.

So, no I'm not asking the questions I already know the answers to, more of the ones that no one (truthfully at least) knows the answer to. But I appreciate your willingness to provide your point of view on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, U-235 said:

And you are exactly the person I referenced in my first link as someone who I'll never agree with, because you assume (or perhaps without realizing it) you have absolute truth and an in-depth understanding of all factors that led to our very existence and this moment of time.

I mean of course we have some grasp of the world around us, science has shown us plenty of things, and disputing scientific evidence is not only an uphill battle, but foolish.

BUT with that said, there are larger factors at play we can't account for and we still don't completely understand our own bodies (much less the inner workings of our brain ( I mean don't get me wrong, we understand a lot of overlaying principals, but the individual neuron paths and connections and how they affect both our perception and the development of our personalities is beyond our current medical science)) . I don't have all the answers, but I don't think you do either, and quite frankly, would be immensely naive to make a proposal that the universe is inherently lacking of a spiritual element on an ever-evolving science and understanding of the world.

So, no I'm not asking the questions I already know the answers to, more of the ones that no one (truthfully at least) knows the answer to. But I appreciate your willingness to provide your point of view on it.

I'm merely working with the information available; it's hard to scientifically measure something nebulous like spirituality in the first place. Once one thing is proven or another is proven to be wrong I change my stance.

Besides...

you-need-people-like-me-so-you-can-point

More quotes may come ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I'm merely working with the information available; it's hard to scientifically measure something nebulous like spirituality in the first place. Once one thing is proven or another is proven to be wrong I change my stance.

Besides...

you-need-people-like-me-so-you-can-point

More quotes may come ;D

I work with what I've come to understand of the world around me and what I know to be truth and form my view of the world.

I'm the bad guy? I mean I'll readily admit, people exploit religion and can be total assholes to other people all the time. Hell, look at people using the bible to defend Roy Moore. It's messed up. But I mean, that can be done with or without religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, U-235 said:

I work with what I've come to understand of the world around me and what I know to be truth and form my view of the world.

Looks like we're in agreement as far as that way of thinking is concerned.

2 hours ago, U-235 said:

I'm the bad guy?

Was referring to myself >>

2 hours ago, U-235 said:

I mean I'll readily admit, people exploit religion and can be total assholes to other people all the time. Hell, look at people using the bible to defend Roy Moore. It's messed up. But I mean, that can be done with or without religion.

Wasn't referencing religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, U-235 said:

Hell, look at people using the bible to defend Roy Moore. It's messed up. But I mean, that can be done with or without religion.

Sure, but the problem with the misapplication of religion is that, as an article of pure faith, it cannot be readily dismissed by the use of logic, only gainsaid based upon different interpretations of dogma - which in itself can give rise to more problems than it solves.

Me, I see religion as the Great Exaggerator. Nice people will find in it plenty of encouragement and inspiration to be nice. Nasty people will find in it means to justify their vicious actions. Sure, it's possible to be nice or nasty without religion, but religion adds justification to actions that would otherwise be without need, incentive or purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Faust said:

Sure, but the problem with the misapplication of religion is that, as an article of pure faith, it cannot be readily dismissed by the use of logic, only gainsaid based upon different interpretations of dogma - which in itself can give rise to more problems than it solves.

Me, I see religion as the Great Exaggerator. Nice people will find in it plenty of encouragement and inspiration to be nice. Nasty people will find in it means to justify their vicious actions. Sure, it's possible to be nice or nasty without religion, but religion adds justification to actions that would otherwise be without need, incentive or purpose.

You've got a point, but so do people who are caught up in pseudoscience. Flat earthers could easily be dismissed by logic, and you can show them the science that disproves them (I mean just look at any elementary school science book and you'll see that they are), but they will dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. Some do draw in religion, but plenty don't and just choose to ignore science because of paranoia. Same with people who are convinced that they're of a superior race. Even if you've got logic to dismiss it, there are instances where it won't disarm the situation because the other party simply decides you're part of a conspiracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, U-235 said:

You've got a point, but so do people who are caught up in pseudoscience. Flat earthers could easily be dismissed by logic, and you can show them the science that disproves them (I mean just look at any elementary school science book and you'll see that they are), but they will dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

Don't think I agree there with respect to my specific point. I've not had much contact with the Flat Earth Society, but as far as I'm aware they have yet to do anything that anyone would describe specifically as immoral because of their belief and I don't recall any charity rallies held specifically because someone thinks the world is flat.

From the point of pure science alone, science is self-healing. Flat-Earthers don't have their theories in any serious high school books because they have been roundly disproven by other scientists. New evidence and new theories are often expounded in many scientific fields, but it is the science community in general that judges them worthy or unworthy. Sure, this occasionally gets messed up by internal politics, stubbornness and vanity, but over time there is a tendency for the facts to creep in while the fallacies are weeded out.

With religion we see almost the opposite; old views and dogma is clung to regardless of any new data that might arise. Questioning part of the dogma infers the fallibility of the whole and is therefore to be avoided. If new cults arise, it is largely on the charisma of their leaders. Elaborate counter-theories and sly all-purpose get-out clauses are used to explain inconsistencies. The rewards of living a holy life are intangible and untestable. Prayers don't have to be checked again to see if their results are replicable. There are no empirical religions.

In many ways, pseudoscience and pseudo history share a lot in common with dogmatic religion. The methods of the holocaust deniers for example always reminds me of the nose-growing scene in Pinocchio, where n untruth gets gradually more elaborate in order to address an increasing list of questions rather than applying Ockham's Razor and cutting to the far more likely explanation.

In short, pseudoscience is 'pseudo' for a reason and should not be considered a part of the greater Venn diagram of science proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faust said:

Don't think I agree there with respect to my specific point. I've not had much contact with the Flat Earth Society, but as far as I'm aware they have yet to do anything that anyone would describe specifically as immoral because of their belief and I don't recall any charity rallies held specifically because someone thinks the world is flat.

From the point of pure science alone, science is self-healing. Flat-Earthers don't have their theories in any serious high school books because they have been roundly disproven by other scientists. New evidence and new theories are often expounded in many scientific fields, but it is the science community in general that judges them worthy or unworthy. Sure, this occasionally gets messed up by internal politics, stubbornness and vanity, but over time there is a tendency for the facts to creep in while the fallacies are weeded out.

With religion we see almost the opposite; old views and dogma is clung to regardless of any new data that might arise. Questioning part of the dogma infers the fallibility of the whole and is therefore to be avoided. If new cults arise, it is largely on the charisma of their leaders. Elaborate counter-theories and sly all-purpose get-out clauses are used to explain inconsistencies. The rewards of living a holy life are intangible and untestable. Prayers don't have to be checked again to see if their results are replicable. There are no empirical religions.

In many ways, pseudoscience and pseudo history share a lot in common with dogmatic religion. The methods of the holocaust deniers for example always reminds me of the nose-growing scene in Pinocchio, where n untruth gets gradually more elaborate in order to address an increasing list of questions rather than applying Ockham's Razor and cutting to the far more likely explanation.

In short, pseudoscience is 'pseudo' for a reason and should not be considered a part of the greater Venn diagram of science proper.

I see what your'e saying, but keep in mind, pseudoscience in the past has caused problems. Quack doctors from the 1600's and on to today, including people who believe vaccines are evil and use """science"""" to justify not getting themselves or their kids vaccinated and slowly chipping away at herd immunity. Despite the evidence against it, it came back and continues to hold it's place in part thanks to the world becoming more integrated via social media. The fact that we still use polygraphs as a means of conviction in criminal systems across the world, despite there being evidence they don't work. There are other examples, though I can't really think of anything in particular off the top of my head.

My point being is, religion by no means is alone in heinous misapplication and it is not the only system susceptible to it. It should also be noted that while yes, it's misapplication can cause massive problems, pseudoscience can do the same. Yes pseudoscience is usually readily dismissed from a perspective logic. Religion cannot be dismissed purely by logic, but in general, heinous acts can be dismissed through doctrine. Note though, that diversity in religion makes that obviously an extremely difficult task and individual understanding of words can continue to make it difficult, but there are items that can be agreed upon.

Most Muslims would readily agree that ISIS is not a representative of Islam and do not follow the Quran.

Most Christians would agree the westboro baptist church does not represent Christian values.

Of course individuals will still use religion as a defense in their actions, and of course you can't use numbers or logic in those circumstance to prove them wrong. However, in general, doctrine agreed upon by the general assembly can be used to denounce the actions and state that it is not an item in line with the faith. This obviously isn't as clean cut as it is with science, since a lot of items can be up for interpretation. And it's not always applied when it needs to be. And people will still cause harm in the name of religion. But, there are general ideas agreed upon and acts today that'd be called out by the congregation as being wrong and not a representation of the faith.

  

 

Also I'm starting to think we might be getting slightly off topic from the original thread, so pm me or discord or steam?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, U-235 said:

Most Muslims would readily agree that ISIS is not a representative of Islam and do not follow the Quran.

Most Christians would agree the westboro baptist church does not represent Christian values.

I'd say this is the important take-home point which we both, from different directions, agree upon. This also supports the notion that morality comes from society, not religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when people emphatically disagreed with me that nerd debates online are obnoxious and drive people away and then everyone stopped posting and proved me right.

rekt lmao :100:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern video games are better than old ones, generally speaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...