@kuonphobos: Too high on a Dawkins-Hitchens cocktail? Both these men are and were (in Hitchen's case) some of the best advocates for the absolutely crystal clear flaws in religion and the blatant and harmful problems faith has constantly bestowed on humanity. You can try and disallow his fair albeit aggressive criticisms of the OP but trying to compare a strawman and ad hominom arguments to Dawkins and Hitchens' eloquent and logically empirical debating style is where you really come undone in trying to undermine Payton's case by attacking two of the best atheist advocates of the 21st Century and is not something I appreciate. In fact, all it show is you fulfilling your own strawman prophecy with your fallacious and unsubstantiated logic in trying to defend the OP from legitimate and strong problems with Christianity.
Lvenger's forum posts
I'm just reading the second Superior trade, 'Troubled Mind', and I can't believe they're going to throw away a fresh new slant on Spidey just for a movie. How long after Peter comes back before we're back to the same, dreary routine?! whatever else Superior was it was fresh and new, and as someone who's been reading comics since the early 80s, you don't see that very often.
If by fresh and new you mean downright disrespectful to Peter's legacy, horribly contrived story telling and plain horrible characterisations then yeah Superior was 'fresh and new.' And if by dreary routine, you mean timeless classic that only needs tweaking and updating with the times, then that's exactly what Spider-Man needs. A return to the classics, not changing the wheel for the sake of change. Superior has been an awful mess and a blemish on Spider-Man's history. For someone who's been reading since the 80s, I find it surprising you don't find it disrespectful either.
Just like with the Wonder Woman and Thor vs Superman and Hulk thread, I am majorly impressed with the sheer quality of debating so far. Whilst Team 2 does seem more appealing based on their match ups, I do have to admit that Blue Marvel lacks a great deal of feats to solidly enable him to stand up to Thor, let alone Wonder Woman. It's true that Team 2 would have an edge if Superman takes on Thor but Adam going up against Wonder Woman will be really difficult given her better speed, reaction and versatility feats with her weaponry and standard gear. If she wraps Adam in the lasso before Superman finishes off Thor, it's game over and even if Superman can finish speed blitzing Thor, we're still left with the closely contested Superman vs Wonder Woman match up that has loads of variables and considerations behind it. A really close match in any case but for now, I might lean towards Team 1.
Oh and here's Blue Marvel's respect thread on here courtesy of @green_skaar in case people need to know more about him: http://www.comicvine.com/forums/blue-marvel-1953/blue-marvel-respect-feats-1492930/
Technically it's Hank. The 4 smartest men in the Marvel Universe are ordered as
- Reed Richards
- Doctor Doom
- Hank Pym
- Bruce Banner
Can't remember who number 5 is but technically Hank is above Bruce in pure intellect. However, Bruce's Banner Tech inventions did enable him to nullify Doom's tech though I don't see how Bruce beat Doom when it was the Leader's virus that did the trick.
@lvenger: (1) So if God presented himself to everyone all at once right now, we'd chalk that up to mass hallucination? How does that make any sense? EVERYONE on the planet witnesses him, and you say the most rational solution would be something akin to hallucination. Mhm. A man of science, you are.
Because in the entirety of human history, with the technology at our disposal and number of unreliable witnesses there are, you honestly think that witnessing God on a world wide scale would be reliable? Mhm, a man of science you are most definitely not on that basis.
(2) I far and away know more about the theory of the Big Bang than you. There is no substantial evidence to know what caused it or how it formed. Any hypothesis any scientist has ever created works off sheer speculation and ideas that are backed by no solid evidence. Nobody has any factual idea how the big bang formed. Same goes for Hilbert. They're all great ideas, but that's all they are, ideas. They have no solid evidence that backs them.
Really because if you were, you should know that the evidence scientists have at their disposals currently vastly outweighs thousands of years worth of superstition, credulous belief and forced propaganda in human history that Christianity and all religions have been since they first emerged. Of course no one has any factual idea of how the Big Bang formed because we cannot view what the world was like before the Big Bang. If you had any idea how the scientific theory methodology worked, you'd be aware that even Stephen Hawking's speculations are more reliable than any theologian chalking it up to an anthrpomorphised bearded man in the sky causing the Big Bang. The latter claim is based on fallacious logic and whilst you talk about solid evidence, that's exactly what your religion is based on. No solid evidence of Jesus being the Son of God or God existing in the slightest. And there never has been any concrete proof of that. That's a definite fact.
(3) Which brings me to my next point, which is that science relies of faith just as much as any religion does. Science claims to be based in complete fact, and it is when it comes to things that have been discovered. However, when we enter the realm of creation, scientists sound like any other devout religious party. "We don't have the answers, but we will! They're out there!" That is a claim made by both parties. Even in your previous post, you stated we don't have the current knowledge to figure how it works ("It" in this case representing anything beyond the Big Bang), but we will in the future. How do you know that? How do you know there is even an answer behind it all? Scientists don't even fully understand how our brain operates yet (ask your science teacher next time you're in class). Could it be faith? Do I need to slap you with a dictionary, because faith doesn't only pertain to religious parties.
That said, any and all denomanations, beliefs, or lack thereof should be respected. I hate no one over what they believe. In fact, it's pretty interesting to hear some of my more religious friends tell me about what they worship.
Ha, wrong on all counts. Science does not rely on faith, that comes from a critical lack of misunderstanding behind the scientific method which you make in this post. This article basically sums up why your argument is a last ditch flawed stab against scientific materialism and there are others if you're up for reading at a higher level. The ultimate point is simply that scientists make observable and documented claims based on what we see in the physical universe, test those claims and make judgements about them. That's the only way we can be sure whether something exists. Not something as paltry as faith but in trust within a tested and proved technique known as the scientific method which can provide us with the necessary answers. That's why we push boundaries with the Hadron Collider or the Hubble Telescope, because they rely on the foundation of the scientific method. Thus, your argument betrays a critical flaw in your "Faith doesn't only pertain to religious parties" because trust me, based on the strength and weight of scientific support I have for this paragraph, it blatantly does and the crux of your argument is rendered very much baseless and subjective speculation.
And I don't hate people for what they believe, I hate what their belief can do to harm others. Religion has been used as tool of oppression and fear for too long now and can hardly claim to be the only recourse in living a peaceful life when it can be twisted for violence, slavery and restricting our true curiosity. That's why I'm an atheist, because I don't need religion to lead a good life. I can lead one without being in fear of some sexist, jealous deity or being afraid of death that I want to live forever in eternal heaven.
Nope it's just some of the people on here are unreasonable defenders of Prime's unsubstantiated and ridiculous power level. I had a conversation with @slimj87d on this very topic and we both speculated that it was a reasonable conclusion to put Prime's power level only on a Sun Dipped Superman's power level at the very most. There's nothing else to place Prime on a much higher level than this other than fan wanking the reality punch and somehow playing this universal destructive feat out of proportion and confusing Prime's ordinary feats for his Superman Prime (amped by a Guardian) feats. A lot of that's going on here. There's also the blatant fact that Prime has a phobia of Flashes. Bart beat the snot out of him on his own, Prime was BFRed by all the Flashes in Infinite Crisis and honestly the feats Wally has shown enable him to beat Prime without CIS.
@arturocalakayvee: Even though Bleeding Cool have gotten the odd rumour right, I still don't fully put my trust in every bit of news they 'break.' Still, it's worth keeping an eye on just in case that premonition is actually right.