The question poses numerous questions itself before you can even begin to answer it.

Questions like, which deity are we discussing? Given that you're posting on an English-language site, you're likely assuming a Judeo-Christian God, so I'll assume that is what you mean. Which one though? The Old Testament and New Testament descriptions of God are almost entirely at odds with each other. In the Old Testament, God is described as a jealous, vengeful, destructive deity which doesn't flinch at ordering murder, genocide, misappropriation of others' lands, routine living sacrifices, and approves of the insitutions of slavery and sexism.

By comparison the New Testment God is relatively minor with not many killings, only one human sacrifice, and its' chosen representative is all about peace, love, and non-violence (so long as you believe in him, otherwise it's to the ovens with you). Neither of them sound like something I would want to exist, which is of course irrelevant as I regard them as so unlikely that it makes no sense to live my life as if they do exist.

Now the Buddhist concept of reincarnation? Again, I consider it incredibly unlikely but that I really do wish existed.

Aidenfury19

If death meant just leaving the stage long enough to change costume and come back as a new character...Would you slow down? Or speed up?

I'm an agnostic atheist but personally I would be indifferent. If God is so fickle that because I didn't choose the right religion I am damned then f*ck it. Really, I feel a twinge of pity for the poor souls who succeeded in getting past the Pearly Gates. One can't help but picture the lackluster VIP lounge in Heaven, a kind of nonalcoholic ice-cream social starring Harriet Beecher Stowe and Mahatma Gandhi.

The fact that the first two pages still have a couple people talking about gas prices and the bad economy is frightening. People give our presidents far too much sh*t when something goes wrong with gas prices and the economy and give them far too much praise when things go well. If Newt could wave his magic wand and make gas $2.50 a gallon then great go for it. And while you suspend the law of supply and demand how about you give us $2.50 steak and booze.

Strong Atheism is common on gaming boards. Same arguement always unfolds between the two sides: blind belief in God with weak factual backing v elitist atheist trolling comments with some factual evidence pulled off of the first google search result.

I believe in God, go to church, base my life and relationships on Christain principles and feel happy and better for it. But I'm not going to damn or attack non-believers, because that is not what a Christain does. Christains get a bad name now from all the TV evangelist/agressive ignorant people who don't ever read their bible and just listen to what their parents/pastor tells them. To all the atheist/believers of other religions, I'm sorry that BAD CHRISTIANITY is so rampant now days.

LEGEND_725

Let's not play games now. There are elitist people on both sides and always will be. There will always be that one advocate on each side that comes across as truly believing they are better than you because of what they believe. There will always be the atheist that says "Your just being ignorant to believe something so foolish, how can you be so moronic! " And then go to blather on about said google search. Then there will always be the Christian/religious person that says "Your just being a typical athiest, the proof is in the teachings itself! At least if I am wrong nothing happens and if im right I don't burn in hell." Then go on to say lord help you or God bless your soul if you don't believe this or that. That alone is an elitist thing to say because they are implying the person needs help. Not to mention the fact that they know said athiest doesn't share their belief in god but they insist that they are the better person because they believe and that said athiest is somehow in need of God's help. I am not saying that you are this kind of person at all or that you have insulted anyone in this topic. But I will say the fact that the Christian elitist was left out of your comparison is upsetting, and maybe even showed a bit of elitist in yourself?

Since you are a bit of everything stat scaling isn't going to help very much if at all, so drake sword is a good one to use. I find the jack of all trades characters to be gimped in Dark Souls. After Blighttown you will find the drake sword losing it's oomph. At this point I would make the switch to an elemental weapon unless you dump enough points into something to make use of scaling and even then it would probably be worse than an elemental just because of the low level your probably at. I would say wait until you get the lightning spear and use that for a while. (It's in the place you go after Blighttown). It's a shame you picked up the drake sword because it is a cheap and dominating weapon for the first half of the game. Not to mention looking at a guide pretty much ruins this game, a game made mostly about sense of discovery. But to each his own, I know some people just like to casually play a game instead of pull their hair out.

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Most things that are considered classics are pretty good. They are deemed classics for a reason.

VanHelsingBoA64

And then I read an article about a famous violinist playing the worlds most expensive violin in a public place and hardly anybody stops to watch. If people knew who he was they would have swarmed around him to listen, but because they were left to themselves they simply walked by. I believe the same could be said about classical things like music, books and movies. Someone may like them on their own, but when they are considered "classics" it will positively sway the opinion that someone has about them.

You can't let that influence your opinion in a negative way either though. Which has also shown itself in this thread. What happened to being able to like or dislike a movie solely because you enjoyed or did not enjoy it? I didn't know we all had to be mindless drones that follow every trend we see. That argument works for all the people who dislike it because it is a classic as well. Some people are so afraid that they will be jumping on the bandwagon that whey just don't give it a chance. Others are afraid not to like it. It works for both. Just realize that some of these movies are "classics" because they really are great movies. The Godfather and Goodfellas for example are two "classics" that are commonly swooned over. I really enjoy Goodfellas, yet The Godfather just isnt for me. I can respect it for being an alright movie and what it was for it's time, but for me there is just too much filler in the movie, even for a dialogue heavy movie. Just remember that some of us still have minds of our own and don't have to jump on everything the media/social stigma says.

EDIT: One more thing. I don't see that violin example as a good one. Most people who are walking have somewhere to be. They don't have time to stand around and applaud a street musician for his efforts let alone even listen to it. A lot of people walking are multitasking in some way whether it's being on the phone or just thinking about what they are having on their hour long lunch break. Most people just don't have time to appreciate something if it cuts into their day. I wouldn't even notice it personally, but I also have no taste for violin or classical music in general. Classical music is a genre and much different than a "classic". He may be a classic musician in his genre but it is still a much more specific taste than a movie, or even most music.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

Well I find if a girl looks at you, talks to you, laughs near you, hums near you, looks to the left or right of you, bumps into you, or walks next to you or in the same three mile radius, it usually means she wants the cock

metroidprime55

Come on now... I thought the walks within a three mile radius one showed the sarcasm enough.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Or perhaps people should learn to not be f*cking morons.

groovdafied

Lets be realistic here. If you want to troll go elsewhere.

Apparently the sarcasm was not as obvious.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

That airport and beach have been there for years. Crap like that happens there all of the time.

worlock77

Well, considering the frequency of such incidents, perhaps accommodations should be made in order to minimize or eliminate their occurrence.

Or perhaps people should learn to not be f*cking morons.

Lets be realistic here. If you want to troll go elsewhere.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="MathMattS"]

President Obama has drastically raised our deficit by 4 trilliion dollars in less than 4 years (even after calling deficit spending by Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" in his 2008 campaign). It's the most rapid increase in debt under any president. I think that's a price too high for trusting him in a 2nd term.

KC_Hokie

So the first graph is from a place called hyscience.com and at the bottom if you enlarge the graph in that fine black print it says:

Sources:OMB historical tables, SBC Republican calculations

For presidents Clinton and Bush, only debt added during their first terms is included.

Compares average annual rate of growth in debt under Obama to the average rate under George W. Bush and Clinton.

The second graph is from http://www.westernfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/budget-create-deficits-850-570x289.jpg

A republican site that is just a less professional Fox news wannabe.

The third graph is from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obama-hockey-stick-e1312806903899.jpg

Even worse site than the second. But the main problem is the graph itself. You are holding the president accountable for spending that has little to do with him.

The federal budget is divided into three major categories. Mandatory spending, which is funding that continues without Congress having to approve it each year. Three programs, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, comprise almost 70 percent of all mandatory spending. Discretionary spending which is funding that Congress must reappropriate anew each year. And then Interest payments which are the annual costs associated with the federal debt. As the federal government runs deficits and borrows money, it builds up an accumulated level of debt. The government, just as any other borrower, has to pay interest on that debt. The amount of interest it pays on its publicly held debt is a function of the size of the debt and interest rates.

There are two broad categories within discretionary spending: spending that is related to national defense, especially the military, and spending that is not. Now, non-defense spending usually makes up less than half of discretionary spending and includes things that you may find are less painless to cut spending on then you make them out to be. This includes:

Income security

Education, training, employment, and social services

Health

International affairs

Veterans benefits and services

Administration of justice

Natural resources and environment

Transportation

General science, space, and technology

Community and regional development

General government

Commerce and housing credit

Agriculture

Energy

Now if you want to argue with graphs and charts like you so love to do, at least make sure you are analyzing them thoroughly and understand what they are showing before you try to use them in a argument. And also make sure they do not misconstrue the facts to support your agenda. (looking at you graph number one.) Now if you find out what Obama has signed to spike an increase in government spending then by all means present it, but otherwise there is no reason to waste time talking about this with you, especially with the type of "sources" you're looking at, and a failure to analyze your own information.