TheMightyEthan

Well for determining the number of intelligent civilizations extant in the galaxy at any given time we can use the Drake Equation (or a slightly modified version): N = R * fp * np * fe * fl * fi N = the number of intelligent civilizations at any given time R = the average rate of star formation in the galaxy fp = the fraction of stars that have planets np = the average number of planets per star that actually has planets fe = the fraction of planets capable of supporting life fl = the fraction of planets which are capable of supporting life that in fact develop life fi = the fraction of planets that develop life on which the life goes on to develop intelligence. We have a pretty good idea of R, we're getting close to figuring out what fp and np are, but for fe, fl, and fi we just have to guess and really we have nothing to base those guesses on. For all we know the number could be practically zero and the Earth is the only planet with life in the galaxy, or the Solar system is actually strange in that it only has one planet with intelligent life. We really have no way to know.

Well, the similarities are there. But I played Darksiders looking for a Zelda-like experience and was kinda disappointed on that aspect. That's funny, I played it looking for a Zelda-like experience too and got exactly what I wanted. No accounting for taste, I guess.

Not necessarily, sometimes you start with the conclusion (hypothesis), but if so then you try to DISPROVE your hypothesis, not support it. Nitpicky I know, and it doesn't undermine the core of your point.

I was commenting on the bad VA specifically.

I actually accept as a core tenet that I have no way to know that my senses give me accurate information about the world, however I simply act on the assumption that they do because there's no other way to... be...

I missed them because I didn't get far enough because the game wasn't fun.

@withoutphallus: I disagree with your assessment of the probabilities. Sure it's (probably) unlikely on any given planet, but the universe is a really damn big place. Even if the chance of any given planet having life was 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 there would still be billions and billions of planets with life on them in the visible universe (though probably not in our galaxy).

Just because it's supposed to be bad doesn't make it enjoyable, it just makes it bad. It doesn't go far enough to get into "so bad it's good" territory.

When I was a kid I really really believed in alien abductions and other paranormal things (distinguishing "paranormal" from "supernatural"). Now, however, while I still think it ridiculously improbable that Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, I doubt any of it has ever visited us.

True story: I stopped believing in the Christian God (my parents are Episcopal) around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus.

You sound like somewhere between an Ignostic and an Agnostic really. Well as I said I'm technically agnostic in that I take no stance on what the actual nature of the universe is (in as much as whether there is any kind of deity or not), but in practice I'm an atheist because my operating assumption is that there is no deity or supernatural of any kind. That is my operating assumption because my core outlook is very scientific: in the absence of evidence supporting the existence of a thing I will assume that thing does not exist. So in practice I'm an atheist but in actuality I'm an agnostic.

I haven't played God of War (well I played the GoW3 demo, but that's the extent of my exposure), but Darksiders was screaming "Zelda!" at me the whole time. I loved it.

You must be confusing me with someone else. Or confusing Just Cause 2 with a different game.

Mass Effect.

Yeah, I bought it used on Glyde, played it for about an hour, then sold it on Glyde. I should have trusted my instincts from playing the demo, but everyone raved about it so much I caved in.

I think Noire is fine. The only reason the style is called "noir" is because "film" is a masculine noun in French, so you use the masculine form of the adjective. "L.A." is a city, so is feminine, so you use the feminine form. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I accept that there is true randomness in the universe (the decay of radioactive isotopes, etc) because the maths say its random. If someone were to discover new maths that explain the randomness as actually being deterministic, however, then I would no longer accept it as random. As for the Higgs boson, the reason they say it has to exist is because the Standard Model theory of quantum mechanics predicts that it would exist, and that theory is the most wildly successful scientific theory of all time. It has yet to make a prediction that was disproved. Granted the Higgs boson could be the first thing that the Standard Model got wrong, and then the theory would have to be refined, but a theory with as much evidentiary support as the SM is not going to be abandoned lightly.

This. Even that wouldn't convince me, I would more readily accept that I had had a psychotic break and was hallucinating or that it was aliens with "sufficiently advanced technology" or something else entirely, but in any event that it had a natural explanation. This is not to say, however, that I am 100% sure that there is no god, it's just that the existence of a god is not supported by anything I've ever experienced and in the absence of evidence I'm not going to assume there is a god. There's no leap of faith involved, however. As for the above situation, while it may appear that I am firmly convinced that there is no god based on my reaction, it's just that I can adequately explain the event without requiring the assumption that it is in fact a god.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to know either. *Edit* - Apparently it was last done in 1708 though, so it's not exactly a huge issue...

What happens if the Queen refuses to ratify a law? *Edit* - To keep this post from being entirely off-topic: While was far as spirituality goes I'm atheist (technically agnostic, but atheist in practice), philosophically I'm a secular humanist.

Question: if a straight couple wants to get "married" but they don't want any church to have anything to do with it, then is it a marriage there or is it a civil partnership?

Too Human was terrible. Please never speak of it again.

I take issue with this viewpoint: it's not a choice. If it were a choice then I would choose to believe in God and seek forgiveness from Him for my sins and whatnot, because as people so often point out that is the "safer" option. However, regardless of how appealing a belief is, or how much I might truly want to believe it, I cannot will myself to belief something that just doesn't make any sense to me. Disclaimer: if my tone comes across as hostile I assure you that I do not mean it to be. Wait, it's the *safer* option? You're not falling for the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, are you? Because just choosing to believe in God A isn't safe if it's really God B who's running the show. Pascal's Wager assumes that Christianity is the only viable alternative to atheism, and that there aren;t a myriad of different Christianities whose doctrines are all at odds and would send the adherents of other doctrines to an afterlife of torment. People can believe whatever nonsense they want; I'm firmly of the opinion that the majority of foundational beliefs of any person are essentially arational (though atheism itself is rational). Pascal's Wager's blatant fallaciousness really gets my goat, though. Actually my specific statement is based on the assumption that even if there is a "god" (or "gods") all religions are wrong, but that a common thread in many of them is that you need to worship him (or them). So worshiping "god" (or "the gods") in general is the safer option, not any specific religion. *Edit* - I will admit that I am predisposed toward Abrahamic religions since they have been in my face my whole life, but if I were to "choose" to become spiritual/religious I actually find animistic beliefs much more appealing.

I take issue with this viewpoint: it's not a choice. If it were a choice then I would choose to believe in God and seek forgiveness from Him for my sins and whatnot, because as people so often point out that is the "safer" option. However, regardless of how appealing a belief is, or how much I might truly want to believe it, I cannot will myself to belief something that just doesn't make any sense to me. Disclaimer: if my tone comes across as hostile I assure you that I do not mean it to be.

No, I just bolded it to make clear that that was the part that amused me so much. I know what he was saying.