Recent posts by wargamer1000 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):


God does not exist.

Alright, but I naturally feel inclined to negate that.
So I’ll assume the counter-proposition that God does Exist.

On rational speculation, God undoubtedly exists. However the empiricists can say nay to that otherwise. The constant negation of each proposition to the other from either side whether God exists or that He does not would allow a skeptic to arrive with an absurd conclusion that neither God nor the nothing in his absence can exist. I obviously find that position boring or rather such a position should be annihilated.

Therefore logically, it is best assume the position of assuming that God exists in a ‘supreme wager’. As follows in further example;

Suppose a theistic person spends his entire life assuming God’s existence and acts accordingly, in the end, turns out there was (a) God – then the theistic person has an infinite gain.
Second, a theistic person spends his life assuming God’s existence an acts accordingly, in the end, turns out there was no God – then the theist has limited loss.
Third, a nontheistic person spends his life assuming the absence of God’s existence and lives so accordingly, in the end, turns out there was no God – then the nontheist has limited gain.
Lastly, a nontheistic person spends his life assuming the absence of God’s existence and lives so accordingly, in the end, turns out there was (a) God – then the nontheist has an infinite loss.

Thus it is best to assume a theistic point such that an infinite gain is possible.
And if you follow, that question raises ‘which religion is true, if i must necessarily wager for God existence?’

This is of course ’Pascal’s Wager’.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheBSG (undefined):


Not believing in something because it doesn’t benefit you is as dumb as believing in something simply because you believe it does.

Perhaps. But the argument for God goes beyond benefit and mere belief as belief follows after reason. Also, people equate the argument for God as the argument for religion which it isn’t.

Originally posted by FrostyGhosts (undefined):

Let’s have an Pro-Contra argument about God’s existence, shall we?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why are you Atheist?

Originally posted by TheAznSensation (undefined):

The logic behind atheism is much more sound than the logic behind theism/deism/etc.

I’m guessing it’s because theistic reasoning isn’t empirical – ‘and that’s what only truly matters.’ ?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Bible as a historical document

Originally posted by niceman555:

It would make no sense if facts were opinions. What you are saying is that “Bill Gates is the owner of Microsoft” is an opinion. Please explain that.

This kind of thinking: ’It’s an opinion, because the true owner of microsoft are the people who work there….’

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX:You are now the dictator of a small European country

Of Small European Country…
I’d sit tight, and open trading partnerships in Asia. Although this would entirely depend
on my geographic location. Well, I’d prefer to be located either near Eurasia or to lay beside the Atlantic ocean.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Technical Support / How To Restore Lost Saved Files for Flash/Browser Games

Very nice, I thank you both.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Technical Support / How To Restore Lost Saved Files for Flash/Browser Games

Lately, I just lost my saved file for a game. And I hate having to do it all over again from the start.

So how does one recover lost saved files for games?
Please explain.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Legendary creatures

Are ‘zombies’ part of this?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Solar Panels, Pay off

Originally posted by vikaTae:

You would have to set it up as an experiment, wargamer. A possible concern would be polution from the smoke. If it equals the same intensity as a coal powerplant for the same MW, then it’s not really viable. Chemical preservatives in the wood, and additives to paper consumed, would be a problem there, when doing it in bulk.

You may also have a problem in keeping the panels clean with sizable amounts of smoke. Soot on the panels will rapidly drop their efficiency.

Otherwise the idea is sound.

EDIT: And you delete the post, right before I reply. Typical.

LOL, right before.
So fire mimics the sun?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How will the world end?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It was Hobo and yourself who were proposing we launch them into space to ‘get rid of them’.

It’s an insane idea, and a total waste of resources.

Until we meet alien invaders, there is no need.
But what I was saying was just we ‘can’ launch nukes to space.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How will the world end?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Not without putting them on something a whole lot larger than a missile. You’d have to put each warhead, or at most a half-dozen warheads in a capsule atop an Atlas V rocket, and be damn sure of your calculations. We don’t have enough Atlas rockets for our planetary arsenal, and even if we did, firing them out into space, is a recipe for disaster.

If you’re going to do that, wouldn’t it be easier just to disassemble the things whilst you are gathering them, and repurpose the materials?

Right now, there is no use for launching nukes into space.
Designing a space ship which could deliver nukes aren’t so hard. Equally as hard as launching satellites. Yet must be done with more caution.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How will the world end?

A balistic missile does not have sufficient thrust to do that. It doesn’t even have enough thrust to achieve Earth orbit, let alone escape our gravity well. They were never designed with that capability in mind.

Using a ballistic missile? No. Of course it doesn’t, So far. But my point is, we can still launch nukes to other planets without hurting ourselves.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How will the world end?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Same problem, Hobo. An intercontinental balistic does not have enough thrust to escape this planet’s gravity well. No matter where out there you aim it, it will always return to this planet.

Know how space ships work? Since knowing that it doesn’t have the fuel to keep going on to its destination, it simply ejects it cargo, presumably the satellite. And since space has no intertia, the projectile you launch will keep going on (with the help of small thrusters). Hows else did they send those satellites that far out in our solar system?

Now, instead of satellites, use nuclear warheads.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How will the world end?

Originally posted by tenco1:

In a few billion years when the Sun goes kablooey.

Yes, this is how the world would die. The naturally good way.

For the other theories;
A nuclear war? Very Unlikely chances. Nations are rather getting more united.
Pollution? As you said, we’d make more & better technologies, which could mean that we’d have had already found alternative ways to deal with trash and wastes.
Man-made terror? Humans have the knowledge and perhaps experience, we’d know well on what to do to avoid/prevent such.

It wouldn’t kill if humans might turn back to cavemen, but at least the specie survives.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What would you do if you heard a nuke alert

Originally posted by Azolf:

I could use a change of scenery.

I like the way you think.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Scariest Games on Kongregate

No one finds 1916-Der Unbekannte krieg scary?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Are you hairy?

Originally posted by Snap902:

What do you mean by “hairy”?

Hair. Hair all over you.
Those millions of black strands on your head.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Legend of Korra

*Bump

Originally posted by AlextheGreat13:

I had no idea what this “Legend of Korra” thing was, so I did a Google image search and found this:

So I can only conclude that whatever this is, it’s obviously a RIPOFF of Portal 2.

portal 2? What?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The future of the Roman Catholic Church

I worry not if other religions overtake Roman Catholicism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Legend of Korra

So, hows it for you?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Possibility of another WorldWar

Sure, there are tensions, economic crisis, rebellion, civil unrest etc.
But are they enough to cause another catastrophic international war?
Well, not really immediately right now, but if you were to predict, judging by current situations and issues, will there be a chance of it happening?
Of course there’s the UN, but can they hold-off all kinds of uncertainty?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Free Market / Planned Economy

What is the difference between the two? What exactly are these?
But the most important question would be; which is better?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sinking the Unsinkable: Destroyers

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Isn’t that the role of submarines?

You referring to torpedoes? Bleh. An even easier target than a missile since its slower.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sinking the Unsinkable: Destroyers

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:
Originally posted by wargamer1000:


Question is; how to sink it?

Holes.

Yes, holes. Better yet, is to blow the whole thing up.
But its impossible, because it will just shoot down all incoming projectiles anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Sinking the Unsinkable: Destroyers

The modern-day destroyers, as we know, are very sophisticated,complex and invulnerable!

We do know that due to its defense systems and its detection systems which are beyond comprehension, Nothing can hit it.

Question is; how to sink it?

What possible tactics can you do? What weaponry do you need?