MTG Salvation

Goblin Germdriver :3mana::sympr:
Artifact Creature- Goblin
Infect, Protection from Blue
Whenever ~ attacks it gets +1/+0 for each other attacking creature with infect.
2/2

Next: Finishing previous cycle Witchmaw Nephilim

Rage of Raka :3mana::symr:
Sorcery
Kicker :1mana::symw::symu:
~ deals 5 damage to target player, if ~ was kicked draw 3 cards.
"Violence does not always mean ignorance"

Next: Sunrise Sovereign in Legends (I wanna see archaic wording and everything :P)

Yeah, I actually like New WoD alot. I feel that they trimmed alot of fat and the tabletop version is awesome. Check out Vampire: The Requiem.

Also I forgot to ask about other people's characters too. Mine is a Southwestern Gangrel, ex-Sabbat with a ghoul monkey Hopefully if anyone from my group is reading this they should recognize it

Please critique and/or tell me if I'm doing anything not allowed

I wanted to make this thread basically to see who else on here plays WoD (New or Old). I'm personally partial to Vampire: The Masquerade, but I'd love to hear some stories from other peoples adventures in the World of Darkness.

I'm definitely not digging the new Garruk art...he looks like he should barely be able to bend his arms. But maybe he's going B/G and uses Working Stiff now.

I'm sure if anyone (PW or not) were to take a bath in the stuff it would have some very negative side effects but I'm guessing that the power of the spark offers at least nominal protection from it...also remember how Melira is "uncorruptable" and has no metal in her body, meanwhile Tezz has Etherium all over the place. Maybe he's the only 'walker who could be corrupted by it.

Quote from dcartist

I absolutely do not follow what the OP is saying. Not in any way shape or form. Does WUBRG have an alter-ego?

Ouch...I hope that the few opinions that I've offered on this sub-forum haven't been as specious as the OP's...unless you're saying my alter-ego is vague and engages in sophistry while my "conscious ego" is wise and insightful

Anywho...
I personally disagree with the OP. I think that philosophy has many practical uses. It shapes the way that one looks at life and conducts oneself. What is more important to our day to day lives than the personal philosophies of ourselves and those around us? Philosophy doesn't have to mean Kierkegaard, Aristotle or Ayn Rand...its just a system that anyone lives their life by.

Quote from Alicanto

So you are saying after nearly 2000 years of Christianity, based on the Bible (excluding the fact that the Bible was copied a few hundred years later...) will be gone in 500 years? I highly doubt that.

Well 500 years was an arbitrary number but with the current trend of jaded youth, growth of belief in science and the general athiesm/agnosticism growing in western culture I wouldn't be to suprised....everything, no matter how colossal in our minds, has an expiration date. All it takes is a cultural shift.

Quote from InfinityAlarm

Why have faith in the claims of The Bible, and not in the claims of people making those sorts of supernatural claims today?

Quote from Wakkarr

Considering this is the 'Evidence for Christianity' thread it seems like a massive cop-out to just say that it all comes down to faith. Why should anyone have more faith in those claims? Because the claims say you have to, and claim that faith without evidence is agood thing? What is someone said you would get a million dollars and be resurrected if you died today, and their reasoning for why you should belive it is because it is written in a 1000 year old book and you simply need to have faith that it is true? Its absurd, we dont accept faith (as in beliveing something with no evidence) as adequete reasoning for any other aspect of our lives, but when it comes to the biggest question that exists, we are supposed to just shrug our shoulders and say 'just have faith that its true'.

First I want to clarify, I never said I have faith in the Bible. I was explaining why some people have faith in it. I might have been a bit roundabout in my explaination though. The reason the Bible is given more legitimacy than other things by Christians (this is key) is basic faith and conditioning. They've been told to believe absolutely in the Bible by generations of other faithful so that is what they believe, meanwhile other claims are seen at best as harmless rantings or at worse as heresy or posession.
But to a Hindu the Bible is nothing more than another document that is important to other people.
Every religion, economic system, form of government and corporation is a concept, a large scale agreement that is bound together by so much documentation. In 500 years our Constitutions, Bibles, Qu'rans and Stock Certificates will likely carry no more weight on reality than Hammaburi's Code of Laws does now. Any power that any piece of writing or currency has is ascribed to it by large groups of people. Without their faith it's just more writing on paper.

Quote from InfinityAlarm

Also, Wakkarr didn't say anything about proof. He said evidence. Look at what happens to what you said when you frame it in terms of evidence instead of proof: 'Faith, by definition, requires no actual evidence to exist. It simply is, and evidence [no matter how sketchy] only serves to bolster it.'

I must be missing something....I don't see that much of a difference between proof or evidence. The definition of proof is "Evidence enough to establish a thing as true." So if one requires no proof wouldnt they therefore require no evidence?

Quote from InfinityAlarm

Belief in literally anything at all can be justified in that way.

Quote from Wakkarr

Obviously not, but we are talking about things which exist purely in the mind, whether they occured or not. i.e. If you leg was crippled then the fact that you leg is crippled is proof that at some point your leg became crippled or was always crippled. Simply put, you have more than just your own memory that it occured. Whereas claiming that an event occured years ago without physical proff to back it up means you are basing it entirely on your memory of the event...

This brings up the essence of subjectivity.
Let me ask you both this: Is Dr. House's leg any less crippled in his conscious reality? Even though everyone says his leg's pain is psychological, is it any less real to him? Everything (except the passage of time) has varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. The big question how far does pure subjectivity affect our personal realities.

I dont want to sound callous but this curse seems...ineffective with just a slight bit of rationalization.
1. There are 1.78 deaths per second so what if one more person dies every 24 hours that would bring up the average by like .02 or some minute amount.
2. What more rationalization is there?

Really you aren't even taking their life. If the witch doctor/shaman/whatever didn't curse you everyone would still live (Unless they were already scheduled to be one of the 15,300 people to die that day). It's that simple.

Quote from Wakkarr

Experience is in the mind. Thinking you experience something is the same as actually experiencing something in the mind of the person who is doing it.

I kind of agree with you here....as I said earlier, subjectivity is a huge part of our conscious though. But does that mean that if you vividly belive and remember your leg being crippled...but it actually wasn't physically (ala House) is it actually crippled?

Quote from Wakkarr

so why should we accept an infinitely lower standard of evidence for the bible claims?

The answer to this is simple. Faith, by definition, requires no actual proof to exist. It simply is and proof only serves to bolster it.

Fluffyn00b is banned for epitomizing two things that I hate....Fluffy things and n00bz

Quote from Cervid

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to explain here, as the English breaks down a bit, but science is absolutely not based off of faith, it is based off of evidence.

You fail to realize that everything is subjective (with the exception of the passage of time, but thats not important at the moment). Science is merely faith in what can be observed as opposed to religion, which is faith in unseen or spiritual forces. Both require faith and conviction that what they perceive is "The Truth"

Quote from Cervid

What do you mean? Are you trying to say that religion doesn't value evidence?

That is exactly what I'm saying. Religion has no need for evidence as true faith requires no evidence, it simply is. Take the tale of Job from the bible. He was shown no "evidence" that what he believed was his God existed and yet he continued to have faith in God. Any man of lesser faith would have denounced his religion after the trials he was put through.

Quote from Cervid

I'm pretty sure the atheists and theists would both agree that the earth's rotation is what causes the sun to appear to rise and set.

But what causes the sun to continue shining? What causes the earths rotation? There are those who claim that even our pictures of earth from space are "trickery" or "lies." And since that is their subjective belief there is no way for anyone, except themselves, to change their subjective belief.

Quote from Cervid

Science is not a faith-based system, and I'm not sure where you're trying to go with the physics analogy exactly.

I already explained how science is faith-based. But what I meant with Schroedinger's Cat is that once any human finds out what the "ultimate truth" is, be it Christian heaven and hell, Buddhist reincarnation or athiest infinite nothingness, we have no way to tell anyone. So we cannot observe the outcome (afterlife/meeting the maker) all of them are paradoxically possible and impossible.

Llanowar Elves (7th Ed)
Llanowar covers a million square miles, yet nobody enters the pants without the elves knowing it.