Posts by Bunglo

  • zeitgeist: moving forward

    Quote from FrieChamp

    Bunglo, do you study theology? It seems like you have spent quite some time on this subject. Yet I'm not sure whether you are a religious believer, an atheist or agnostic.

    I be a Christian, though I certainly wouldn't consider myself religious. I would actually have to agree with Warby that the venue of religions (at least the major ones that are still practiced) that haven't been corrupted is small to non-existent, which is why it's good to know what the original (or the earliest we can find, we don't have original copies of any ancient text, religious or otherwise) manuscripts tell us.

    I study various religions, theology, philosophy, along with the relating history to make the picture a bit more clearer. I'm no scholar or anything though, I just look into the subjects more than your average layman.

    If I didn't want to work in the games industry, I'd be extremely tempted to go to a university to learn more about them.

    I honestly didn't consider this a political discussion, just an examination of the first part of Zeitgeist. There's just no good reasons to agree with it. The other parts, I've no clue as I've not watched them but let me assure you all, I've watched enough conspiracy theory videos and listened to enough Alex Jones to be somewhat familiar with some of the theories out there. Whether I'm in agreeance with them, that's another matter

  • zeitgeist: moving forward

    Quote from Warby

    yes i do but that is only a fraction of what these movies have to offer ! i think its a shame that you didn’t bother watching the whole thing (or all 3 for that matter) because all the infrastructural stuff about how to design cities and societies for example is really fascinating ( there is good none offensive stuff in there too ! :derp: )

    It's already been shown that this Peter Joseph guy simply parroted what Murdock parroted from Gerald Massey who never revealed what ancient texts he found the parallels in. Zeitgeist section on religion is almost entirely fabricated or consists of half truths, why would you continue to say it shows religion to be false?

    I should also question, why would I bother with the other parts of the movie if the first part relied on virtually no scholars work, only some claims by an amateur Egyptologist who never revealed where he got his information from? Can I expect the same, rigorous research Joseph did in the other sections as he did in the first? I'm not going to wast my time on a film that's torture to watch within the first 10 minutes, if you had educated your self on the subject, you'd realize why. I'm seriously starting to question if you're being entirely truthful when we look back at one of your previous comments:

    Quote from Warby

    but as a self proclaimed follower of the scientific method this guy would love to be proven wrong and revise his theorys ( like i would too! )

    Quote from Warby

    i for one dont think these movies need to debunk religion because religions do a fine job at doing that themselves !

    I'm not talking about the truth claims of religions, I'm talking about the claims made in Zeitgeist.

    Quote from Warby

    why what would that prove ? nothing !

    It would prove that the parallels shown in Zeitgeist actually do exist like it claims they do. Of course, you can't find such sources, no one can because they don't exist.

    Quote from Warby

    my original point remains in full effect it will always be claim vs claim. i wasn’t there and experienced any religious miracle and that is the only thing that would convince me !

    you weren’t there, i wasn’t there, peter jospeh wasn’t there, the authors of the "ancient sources" weren’t there (you might claim they were but you weren’t there so how would you know ) ! all these claims are equily (in)valid and pointless ! this claim vs claim situation can never be resolved !

    You seem to be confused on the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not arguing for or against the validity of any claims that come from religion. What I'm doing is stating that the claims made in the first section of Zeitgeist are either fabricated or contain half truths. You haven't shown otherwise, as stated before, no one has or can. Not because of 'claim vs claim', as you say, but because what Joseph says is in the ancient documents and hieroglyphs is not. What he says concerning historians in the first century regarding Jesus contains half truths and misleads the viewer into thinking they don't mention a man named Jesus from Nazareth, when they do. What he says regarding astrology consists of half truths or fabrications. What he says regarding language similarities relies on the English language, not showing the audience that no such similarities are possible using the original ANE languages used at the time.

    It's a case of the blind leading the blind. Peter Joseph used sources from an author who got sources from a man who fabricated the claims to begin with and now we have people such as your self saying this movie proves religions are simply copies from older ones. Your doing a great deal of damage to our society by spreading such garbage, what's worse, its obvious you didn't look into what you were being told, you heard what you wanted to hear and ran with it.

    Quote from Warby

    so lets talk about mindset instead !

    This is a nice dodge, now you don't have to back up anything Zeitgeist said.

    Quote from Warby

    when i grew up and realized that there is more than one religion in the world (in fact there seem to be thousands). and they were pretty much all contradicting each other and most of them claim their religion to be the only TRUE one. i was wondering what are the odds that one group in this sea of groups is right and all the other ones are wrong ?! vs that all these people are wrong ?i went with occam's razor and said its much more likely that they are all wrong!

    Basically, you didn't investigate the truth claims made by any religion and went with the lazy option, using some arbitrary system of probability, of "they're all wrong..."

    Quote from Warby

    but why than would somebody invent something as religion ? power and gain seem to be the obvious choices for reasons ... motive and opportunity for creating a religion are certainly there ! and that is something "I" can experience today nobody has to relay on trusting "ancient sources" to see this to be true just turn on any speech by george w bush or any politicians (and lets include people like bin laden for good measure) to see how religion is used as a tool to gain power and monetary gain.

    Non-sequitur #2: Because some people or groups invent and/or manipulate religion for money and gain, they're all wrong.

    Quote from Warby

    so yeah nothing that i can not experience myself and/or REPLICATE myself if i put the afford and resources into it today convinces me ! and yes its not mine (or sciences) duty to proof religion wrong

    its religions duty to proof itself right (that is if they want to convince me) and they have to rely on something better than "claim" !

    And yet, you can't seem to understand why I want you or anyone else to present evidence for the claims being made in Zeitgeist...

    Quote from Warby

    a much more enjoyable to read (by a much more intelligent person than me ) of a similar thought experiment is carl sagans invisible dragon in his garage:http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

    Another atheist recommending me Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan is no authority on religion, theology, the history thereof, nor is he a philosopher. If you looked into the subjects at all, you'd realize why no intellect, atheist or religious, would recommend him on such things.

    Quote from Warby

    if i cant convince you that this mindset is healthier one maybe he can !

    Classic internet atheist going on right here. Telling me my mindset of belief isn't as healthy as being deceived and lazy, believing what you want to, even when the evidence says other wise. If I can make one recommendation, stay away from Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Barker, and other vocal atheist, they're an embarrassment to the rest of the atheist who know any better.

    Quote from Warby

    ... can we get back to renewable energy sources, self replicating machines, sci-fi citys and future societies without money please ? that is the interesting stuff ! religion is a closed book !

    If you wish but just know that you've shown no evidence to support the first section of Zeitgeist and I have to facepalm at the area I bolded considering you've revealed how little you know on the subject.

    So yeah... about those future cities n' stuff

  • zeitgeist: moving forward

    I was only commenting on and will only comment on the section of zeitgeist that attempts to show that Christianity is simply another rehashing of other religions and/or a result of astrology. I have not bothered to watch the other areas of the film so me attempting to respond to it would be naive.

    Quote from Warby

    Pampers and bungalo you sound exactly like the michael moore nay sayers always claiming everything he says is a lie but then when squeezed they never deliver an example or proof...

    You've got it backwards, the maker of this film and those who agree with it's claims are the ones who haven't delivered the evidence. If you say that there are dozens of religions that all follow the same basic "script", you better back that up with reliable sources. No, the author Acharya S (a.k.a. Dorothy Murdock, seemingly the main source for this section of the movie) is not a reliable source.

    http://truthbeknown.com/

    Quote

    well to be fair absolute proof can never be delivered either way. with any claim ever made by any human being unless you were there and experienced the claim yourself everything has the potential to be lie (without exception)

    No one is claiming the need for absolute proof. What you should be asking is do the claims being made by the film have any factual basis to them.

    Quote

    i am gonna claim for arguments sake that: -religious people talk shit 100% of the time

    -politicians talk shit 99% of the time

    -business people talk shit 90% of the time

    This is nothing more than fallacious assertions but for arguments sake...

    Quote

    even if half of the "theories" that Peter Joseph presents in zeitgeist are wrong it would still give him a massive legs up over the opposition !

    No, he doesn't. As I said in my first comment, these are old arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey) that have been refuted, disbanded, and introduced to new people who don't know any better. In fact, they're so terrible only a handful of people would even attempt to use them to discredit Christianity. Unfortunately, we now live in an age of theological ignorance coupled with the view that science is the highest form of knowledge (scientism) which is a self refuting, metaphysical presupposition that has allowed the arguments to resurface.

    Quote

    where does the assumption come from that he has to be 0% flawed in order for anything he says to have value ! (no human is perfect)

    Again, no one is claiming nor asking for a perfect argument with no holes.

    Quote

    but as a self proclaimed follower of the scientific method this guy would love to be proven wrong and revise his theorys ( like i would too! )politician/religious-figures or businessmen ... are ... lets just say NOT known for this mindset ! that alone makes him more trust worthy by any standard.

    Complete non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that because some people who are religious don't like to be corrected on certain matters, all or even most religious people aren't trust worthy.

    It also does not follow that because someone is a 'follower of the scientific method' (what ever that means), they are trustworthy or at least, more-so than someone who is a believer.

    Quote

    so let me get this straight:- you dont think science is of more value to mankind than religion ?

    I don't separate the two in the context that you seem to.

    Quote

    even if presented facts are incorrect or numbers are taken from the wrong source in zeitgeist? how can you possibly disagree with its message and philosophy ?!

    I'm not sure what that message and philosophy would be. Deceiving ignorant people is easy?

    The parallel claims made are no where to be found in ancient source documents. It is up to those who claim that such parallels are in ancient source documents to show the evidence, no such person has come forward. We have no reason to think these parallels exist because not only is there no evidence for it, the evidence we have contradicts such assertions.

    What's more, many of the Biblical terminology used to link as descriptions of the Sun within the movie, such as 'Son of God' only apply if speaking in the English language. The word 'sun' sounds nothing like the word 'son' in ANE language such as Hebrew, Greek, or Egyptian. Neither are they spelled similarly. This was clearly a dubious attempt to get the viewer to associate such terminology as if it come about far earlier than Christianity and to make it seem as though they were originally used in an astrological sense or sun worship.

    I would like to go through the entire section but there's just so many areas where this film falls flat on it's face, it's too much trouble to refute an entire film section when others already have and people should look into this on their own, not wait for someone to tell them the film is incorrect and point them in every direction they need.

    Thankfully, others have already covered more than I could wish to:

    http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Zeitgeist_Part_I

    http://ct.grenme.com/index.php/Horus-Jesus_Correlations

    http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

    http://benstanhope.blogspot.com/search?q=zeitgeist (not limited to Zeitgeist)

    Warby, you really think Zeitgeist is a film worth watching because it reveals religion to be a farce? Less talk and more walk, show me ancient source texts that reveal the following:

    Here's some links to get you started, should you make such an attempt:

    - http://www.thenazareneway.com/index_egy ... k_dead.htm

    - http://www.sacred-texts.com/

    - http://www.pantheon.org/areas/

  • The random model thread!

    Quote from Jetsetlemming

    See, this makes no sense to me. Bake it? I don't have a clue what that means. I guess I haven't found the right tutorials yet.

    Baking is just a term used when you want to take all the lighting and depth info from a highpoly model and create maps (normals, AO, etc) that can be used on a lowpoly version of said model.

    Have a gander:

    http://www.game-artist.net/forums/suppo ... hread.html

    I've said it plenty of times already but Eat3d has the best tutorials for next-gen art, costly but so worth the dough:

    http://eat3d.com/pillar

  • What have you purchased recently?

    Quote from twiz

    It's pretty nice. I only use it for work though, so I can't comment how it does with gaming/movies/etc. There does seem to be one spot at the top edge of the screen that has pretty bad backlight bleed. I'd guess it is a manufacturing error, and I could probably get it replaced if I cared to. I never notice it when I'm working so I'd rather not be without the big screen for a few weeks.

    I thought I had a similar issue with the back lighting at the top, though I now suspect it's actually light from the screen being bounced back onto itself from the top, beveled edge. I can't notice it unless I really, really look for it.

    In all honesty, the only complaints I have about the monitor have more to do with LCDs in general, such as the lighting being different depending on what angle you're viewing from, less accurate color representation than CRTs, etc.

    Although the stand is a bit wobbly, that's probably the worst thing I can say about the monitor.

    Going from a 16' CRT, I'm definitely happy with it, especially considering I paid just over $200 for it.

  • Source engine rendering in... UDK ?

    Yeah, the HL2 and source materials are pretty beastly.

    I don't see any reason why you couldn't get a similar lighting setup in the UDK, or any engine for that matter. The big difference I think isn't so much the lighting but the materials. Source games such as HL2 are extremely diffuse driven, where the obviousness of a normal map is extremely subtle. Compare that to games made with UE3, which are very normal and specular driven, you get that overly glossy/shinny/wet look.

  • Crysis 2

    Quote from sarge mat

    Most fun multiplayer I have played in a good wile, feels like a tiny bit of COD in the mix. Really want to try the PC version interested to see how it plays. Looks really nice, impressed with how it does on console. Anyone know if Cry Engine 3 is shipping with it at launch?

    I would assume Sandbox 3 would be included, not sure when Crytek is releasing their version of the UDK though.