>> ^schlub:

Huh? Is this supposed to be a game? If so, where's the actual footage of gameplay? Because there wasn't any in this video... Also, why does Lara look nothing like what she used to? -- and I don't just mean her chest...


Uhh... I'm pretty sure that was all gameplay footage, just edited together. It's a trailer for the game, not the first 5 minutes of the game.

Here is some gameplay footage from later on in the game.
http://youtu.be/NFhLS7DmLlc

I feel like I watched a trailer for a really good movie and just saw all the good parts. I'll be playing it. Loved Tomb Raider since my Diamond Monster 3D card, though I did skip over the crappier versions.

Rubbish. It's stuff like that that makes religious people dislike atheists.

I'm not an atheist--but neither am I Christian. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out some serious flaws in the argument here.

First, the literal interpretation of the Bible has never really been primary. Actually, this is almost universally the case for sacred writings. The Greek myths were to be understood as metaphor, and the Koran is considered by many Muslims to be a repository of spiritual truths which are not necessarily on the surface, and which require study to glean from the text.

Interpreting the Bible as non-literal--as metaphorical, analogical, etc.--goes back more than 2000 years. One of the first writers on the Old Testament, the Jewish scholar Philo, wrote a treatise that regarded the sacred books as almost entirely non-literal. He viewed it as encoded with revelations about Platonic truths, the structure of the spiritual world, and not necessarily a history book.

This viewpoint was carried through to the Christian period. The Church Father Origen famously interpreted the book non-literally. The 4th century Church Father St. Augustine even wrote a tract called "On the literal interpretation of Genesis," in which he excoriated the Creationists of the day, who believed the world to be flat and the sky to be a literal blue dome--and who believed, contrary to all observation, that the world was only a few thousand years old, when anyone with eyes could tell that it was clearly much older. Augustine cautioned the Christians against such interpretations because they were clearly wrong, and because they made Christians look like idiots.

Augustine instead proffered the interpretation that the world had been made all at once, in one instant. The "days" referred to in Genesis he instead took as referring to the distinct logical elements of the instantaneous act of Creation. Incidentally, Augustine claimed that this was, indeed, a "literal" interpretation--the term "literal" meant something very different in those days.

Of course, the ancients also viewed the world in a very different way. In those days, it made perfect sense to see an actual, physical object as also metaphorical or analogical in some way. A temple or a statue of a god could be, in a very real way, the instantiation of the god in the physical world. According to Aristotle, every object had its natural goal, its "telos." An object fell because it was its "telos" to be at its natural resting point on the ground. And so on. There was no such thing as dead matter, devoid of an intimate relationship to mind or spirit, in the view of the ancients.

It was not until the rise of the scientific worldview in the 17th and 18th centuries that the literal interpretation of the Bible became popular. Matter came to be viewed in Cartesian or corpuscularian terms, as pure mathematical extension in space, entirely passive unless moved from the outside. In Cartesian terms, things like the "telos" were unthinkable for physical objects.

Seeing the popularity and utility of this new viewpoint, the Protestant preachers began devising literalist interpretations of the Bible. Their goal was to vindicate the Bible in scientific terms. Their effort might have been laudable, but it became occasionally silly. Some theologians argued that Jesus hadn't actually died on the cross--he had just fainted, and then woke up in the tomb later and walked out.

Nonetheless, their efforts were genuinely honest and took the newest and best science to heart as they worked on their interpretations. Some of these theologians were scientist in their own right, making important contributions to biology and geology. However, as time went on, their efforts proved ultimately futile, leading the best theologians to gradually abandon the literalist approach the Bible.

Unfortunately, there are still a number of Christians who cling to 19th century literalist approach. So-called "creation science" comes out of this tradition, for instance. It should be remembered, though, that these Christians are not only rejecting genuine science--they are also rejecting centuries-old traditions within their own religion.

>> ^Asmo:
How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

I've yet to see one..that's why I invited you to come up with one. You say you don't have to, and I say, you don't have one. If you did you would have used it already.

>> ^Asmo:
No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

"How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist..."

>> ^Asmo:
There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity

abiogenesis and macro evolution - conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief

The atheist answer "we don't know, and we're working on it, but you're still wrong"

The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for the evidence, such as fine tuning in the Universe, and information in DNA. Scientists cannot explain why the Universe appears fine-tuned for life, so they postulate that we there are multiple universes, and we just happen to be in the one that looks designed. The problem with that theory, besides the complete lack of evidence, is that it violates occams razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. "I don't know" is not an answer, or a reason to reject a better theory.

>> ^Asmo:
He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

There is powerful evidence for the resurrection, even that skeptical bible scholars accept. The empty tomb is not as easily written off as many atheists who have never studied the matter imagine. My entire contention is that you can test the claim by asking Jesus to come into your life. It is not a matter of me proving it to you, it is a matter of God revealing Himself to you. He will give you the undeniable evidence that you're looking for. This isn't a game..God loves you and wants you to know Him. All you need to do is ask Him to come into your life and He will do it.

>> ^Asmo:
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

You say you've read the bible and this is what you got out of it? Or is it that you've read infidels.org? Are you honestly telling me this is what you've gotten out of your reading of the bible? Even Richard Dawkins respects the bible as a work of literature and historical resource.

>> ^Asmo:
I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Scripture tells us to discern all things. It's not a matter of blindly believing something, as you seem to be implying. If that was all it was, I wouldn't believe it either. It is because of the correspondence to reality, and the undeniable evidence I have received, that I believe it.

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

Craig has an article that says basically the following.

Jesus was Resurrected.
There are three accounts verifying this. The 2 wanderers/thieves, the women who saw his tomb empty and peter on the boat (or something like this).
Jesus said "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" (Matthew 19:16)
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21)"

This is the basis of Craigs argument. He is an exclusivist in as much as he believes that God knows all and everyone is prejudged so God knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. As such whatever we do on earth is what we would always to have done and is instrumentally inconsequential.

He's a dick but does follow things to their logical conclusion (IF you accept the premises)

>> ^BreaksTheEarth:

I can't wait until they find the tomb of Zahi Hawass. His self-aggrandizing rivals Ramses II.


Don't you just love his voice though?

I am amazed that anyone can view this nonsense as a beacon of light for freedom

and @MaxWilder since you've brought up something I've said in a separate thread despite my not having said anything in this one (and quite angrily for some reason), while law doesn't specifically say anything about not being hassled, in does work that way in some respects. For example, there are laws that prevent me from standing in front of your house blowing an airhorn all night. There are laws preventing me from defecating in the middle of the floor in the library, then disposing of it. neither of these things hurt anybody or their property, they just bother them. If you think people don't have the right to not be bothered, you should take a stance against noise ordinances and public defecation. Join me next thursday where I take a stance and attach a trumpet to my asshole and parade through the tomb of the fallen soldier shitting through my trumpet for freedom

aka crying because someone told me I was bothering people and making a big egotistical scene disguised as political activism

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

I saw Dave Attell in NYC and he was not very funny. Also, U.S. did not want to bury Osama to stop people from making a shrine out of his tomb; they buried him at sea the same day in accordance with Islamic law. But of course, ignorant people will understand half the issue and conspire the rest. I would downvote this video if I could.

This is great. People have such warped ideas of guns from Hollywood mythmaking - though a lot of video games don't help either.

I've seen guys come into the range, fire a 9mm for a bit, then brag about how much better the Desert Eagle is. Then a range officer pulls one out and they realize that it's hard for them to hold it steady, let alone fire accurately. A .50 pistol sounds impressive only until you realize that you only have 7+1 rounds, you can't aim for shit, and the recoil is a bitch. As my favorite range officer put it: "Angelina Jolie [a la Tomb Raider] would have trouble carrying one in each hand, but somehow she is firing two on the run?"

Some movies are getting better, more accurately depicting the proper usage of a gun and actually showing reloads, but even my girlfriend starts laughing at some of the more blatant mistakes in action movies (The Green Hornet has some whoppers).

@robbersdog49

No, there's something about "BI" that is different from "BE" for me, the way I form my words. The "BI" comes more from the back roof of my mouth, whereas "BE" comes more from the center. I like boids better...a little Jersey accent.

laughter daughter. tomb bomb tome foam. I'm a grammar/spelling nazi, but that's just because convention prevents confusion...not because I have any illusions that it all makes sense.

As you can see, however, I love overusing ellipses because I type how I talk/think, and they work better than hideous semicolons everywhere. I also care little for proper capitalization when typing informally.

I feel like his textbook scream is when he falls into the king's tomb in Conan the Barbarian.