Post Archive

Region: The Confederacy of Free Nations

History

Russkov Soviet wrote:Oy... Stayed up too late and slept to long...

Alright.. Cesorion! I'll get on that logo and figure out why my password is incorrect.

And Sulania has a date..at a certain labratory..with a particular machine..to turn him into a dragon. (I didn't forget)

Anyone is allowed to use this machine...with my permission.

OK.

What is that machine?

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia

Cesorion wrote:OK.

What is that machine?

An Experimental TRC-1200. This basically, over the course of a week, alters your DNA to the point where you can become anything. It was made to turn the rest of my human population into equines, but the international community had issues.... so it sat there unused til Sul proclaimed his dragon dream. If your tired of your current race/species/gender...lemme know.

Jaslandia, Percyton, Cesorion, Spanelsko

Russkov Soviet wrote:An Experimental TRC-1200. This basically, over the course of a week, alters your DNA to the point where you can become anything. It was made to turn the rest of my human population into equines, but the international community had issues.... so it sat there unused til Sul proclaimed his dragon dream. If your tired of your current race/species/gender...lemme know.

Interesting

Russkov Soviet wrote:An Experimental TRC-1200. This basically, over the course of a week, alters your DNA to the point where you can become anything. It was made to turn the rest of my human population into equines, but the international community had issues.... so it sat there unused til Sul proclaimed his dragon dream. If your tired of your current race/species/gender...lemme know.

Hmm, can we send you a few civilians that you could that technology on? we are interested in the results, the objective would be to make them feel as much pain as possible and make them abominations. For science reasons only!

Russkov Soviet

Totally not dreaming of making human abomination zoos.

Spanelsko wrote:Hmm, can we send you a few civilians that you could that technology on? we are interested in the results, the objective would be to make them feel as much pain as possible and make them abominations. For science reasons only!

Well.... The TRC-1200 isn't the best choice for that. We do have a... *one of my Generals whispers something* ..Ah, I see. We do have a machine that is FAR more painful and evil, but its in one of our most restricted, and very secretive areas... I'll consider it, but I need to convince my Military Brass.

Jaslandia

Russkov Soviet wrote:Well.... The TRC-1200 isn't the best choice for that. We do have a... *one of my Generals whispers something* ..Ah, I see. We do have a machine that is FAR more painful and evil, but its in one of our most restricted, and very secretive areas... I'll consider it, but I need to convince my Military Brass.

Thank you, if you actually will agree to it, we will send the civilians with a bit of a modification. (cut their tongue and their eyes) Our inquisition are professionals when it comes to silencing anyone i dont like....

Russkov Soviet

Oh btw world nations, if you think that we are evil, well you didnt see the true effects of our oppression and tests on civilians. All i can say is that in area 172 we have a lot of fun....

Russkov Soviet

Spanelsko wrote:Oh btw world nations, if you think that we are evil, well you didnt see the true effects of our oppression and tests on civilians. All i can say is that in area 172 we have a lot of fun....

Someday I'll show you what we do in Gulag 13... You'd laugh at the horror.

Spanelsko

Russkov Soviet wrote:Someday I'll show you what we do in Gulag 13... You'd laugh at the horror.

That will be a great fun, if you ever do that i would like to see it myself with my eyes, its better to hear screams when they happen rather then on videos dont you think?

Russkov Soviet

Spanelsko wrote:That will be a great fun, if you ever do that i would like to see it myself with my eyes, its better to hear screams when they happen rather then on videos dont you think?

True, but then we would have to kill you. That's how secretive it is. Eyes-only.

Russkov Soviet wrote:True, but then we would have to kill you. That's how secretive it is. Eyes-only.

Although.... I MIGHT be able to bend the rules a little... this time

Jaslandia, Spanelsko

Russkov Soviet wrote:True, but then we would have to kill you. That's how secretive it is. Eyes-only.

Well i was thinking of letting others do the work for me anyway... but even i am not that insane at least yet, well then for fun if you glorious leader want we can show you our area 172, its secret but someone will find it one day so i dont see a reason to have it extremely secret. Also your soldiers and people and people are doing fine in our nation, one of the best soldiers and slaves we have here, each one of the soviet soldiers already received the Great Killers Order medal for their great crimes against humani..... i mean great service to the state. Also as a small thank you for your help, we made you a special medal ´´Medal of the Holy Order´´ greatest honor medal anyone can have.

Russkov Soviet wrote:An Experimental TRC-1200. This basically, over the course of a week, alters your DNA to the point where you can become anything. It was made to turn the rest of my human population into equines, but the international community had issues.... so it sat there unused til Sul proclaimed his dragon dream. If your tired of your current race/species/gender...lemme know.

Is this going to be cannon for the MT RP?

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia

Cesorion wrote:I thought Nazis were forrbiden in Germany

Nuremgard wrote:Because they're not expressing overtly Nazi ideas or using Nazi symbolism, they were permitted. Although their "we must change our attitude to Germany's historic crimes in WW2" sounds quite Nazi to me.

"Article 21 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

[Political parties]

(1) Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds.

(2) Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.

(3) Details shall be regulated by federal laws."

The Federal Constitutional Court requires a unconstitutional behaviour of a party. A behaviour that is just against the constitution isn't enough for the court. The AfD might be against some values written in the constitution but they don't violate the constitution nor do they endanger the free democratic basic order. A aggressive militant behaviour is also a part of those requirements.

They might not accept or like some basic principles our nations is build out of but that's part of freedom of expression.

Andromitus wrote:Is this going to be cannon for the MT RP?

It's more of a "fun, but out of RP" idea. So... for example.. I'm a stallion. If I start an RP as a stallion, but use the machine to change into a mare, I still have to be a stallion in RP.

Jaslandia, Percyton

Finally you get to know what happens when you get the squids a n g e r y

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=axeldonia/detail=factbook/id=867432

Jaslandia, Lex Caledonia, Percyton

Vista Major wrote:If you're interested, I recommend watching Crash Course Philosophy and Theology (separate programs) for some good primers on God(s).

The Crash Course Guy (Phil?) is perhaps one of the most derivative people I have ever watched, he will give you a false and simple perception of understanding of the most complex issues imaginable.

Russkov Soviet wrote:It's more of a "fun, but out of RP" idea. So... for example.. I'm a stallion. If I start an RP as a stallion, but use the machine to change into a mare, I still have to be a stallion in RP.

hmm, so i was talking to a horse this whole time? i knew that ESSR is weird creation of god but for some reason i was thinking that i talked with a human... well since we have talking engines in this world i shouldnt be even surprised..

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Percyton

OOC just a question regarding the modern RP, is it against the rules to make racial laws?

Jaslandia

Russkov Soviet wrote:I'm a stallion.

G h e y

Penguania And Antarctica

Spanelsko wrote:OOC just a question regarding the modern RP, is it against the rules to make racial laws?

Not an RP mod, but as far as I'm aware, no. Just as long as the tech is reasonable.

Kalaron

Axeldonia wrote:G h e y

Boi, why u be stealing my phrase?

Axeldonia, Penguania And Antarctica

Jaslandia wrote:Not an RP mod, but as far as I'm aware, no. Just as long as the tech is reasonable.

maybe you misunderstood my question (or i didnt understand your answer) i meant like calling your people master race, ethnic cleansing

etc. not something like Soviets horses ruling USSR lands..

Lavan Tiri

more or less having people with mindset that all other humans are inferior and should be exterminated. (since i dont think my empire is evil enough)

Lavan Tiri

Spanelsko wrote:hmm, so i was talking to a horse this whole time? i knew that ESSR is weird creation of god but for some reason i was thinking that i talked with a human... well since we have talking engines in this world i shouldnt be even surprised..

"Equestrian" Empire? xD

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Axeldonia wrote:G h e y

Go fvck yourself

Lavan Tiri, Axeldonia, Penguania And Antarctica

Russkov Soviet wrote:Go fvck yourself

Covfefe

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Axeldonia wrote:Covfefe

Don't even know what that means, and don't care. If being an anthro is "G H E Y"... then I say GO F'UCK YOURSELF!

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Spanelsko wrote:maybe you misunderstood my question (or i didnt understand your answer) i meant like calling your people master race, ethnic cleansing

etc. not something like Soviets horses ruling USSR lands..

Yeah, that's fine. I'm just saying you can't use super-advanced tech (past-MT) to enforce your racial laws and rhetoric. You can't use a Death Star to exterminate an inferior race, for example.

Lavan Tiri

Russkov Soviet wrote:Don't even know what that means, and don't care. If being an anthro is "G H E Y"... then I say GO F'UCK YOURSELF!

My dude literally everything under the sun is Ghey (gay) in UCT's opinion

Fckin Kal said hello once and it was immediately Ghey

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri, Axeldonia, Penguania And Antarctica, Pirate Kingdoms

Axeldonia wrote:Finally you get to know what happens when you get the squids a n g e r y

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=axeldonia/detail=factbook/id=867432

That part about thermal baths'll be interesting considering my nation might as well be a thermal bath but we're also racist, xenophobic, theocrats.

Spanelsko wrote:OOC just a question regarding the modern RP, is it against the rules to make racial laws?

So long as it can physically done by your nation should it exist in real life your fine :D

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Lex Caledonia, Percyton

Andromitus wrote:That part about thermal baths'll be interesting considering my nation might as well be a thermal bath but we're also racist, xenophobic, theocrats.

Hiss

Lavan Tiri, Andromitus, Penguania And Antarctica

Andromitus wrote:My dude literally everything under the sun is Ghey (gay) in UCT's opinion

Fckin Kal said hello once and it was immediately Ghey

I'm not used to that due to this being the 1st time he did that. So... I reacted accordingly. I'll remember this for next time.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Andromitus wrote:That part about thermal baths'll be interesting considering my nation might as well be a thermal bath but we're also racist, xenophobic, theocrats.

So long as it can physically done by your nation should it exist in real life your fine :D

It's not against the rules...but if other people decide your nation is beyond cancer, you've no real recourse. Furthermore, with your exit from DAWN, you're in a much worse position internationally.

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Axeldonia wrote:Hiss

*bangs shield* Dewth to the surface dwellers!

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Andromitus wrote:My dude literally everything under the sun is Ghey (gay) in UCT's opinion

Fckin Kal said hello once and it was immediately Ghey

Thank you: not everyone understands the powers and sassiness I bring when I utter "ghey"

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Pirate Kingdoms wrote:Thank you: not everyone understands the powers and sassiness I bring when I utter "ghey"

How ghey

Lavan Tiri, Axeldonia, Penguania And Antarctica, Pirate Kingdoms

My reaction to this 'ghey' stuff: https://youtu.be/Qmb9cnx__hA

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Andromitus wrote:How ghey

Jaslandia wrote:My reaction to this 'ghey' stuff: https://youtu.be/Qmb9cnx__hA

Ghey figgernaggots

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Pirate Kingdoms wrote:Ghey figgernaggots

https://youtu.be/2aegP8j5al0

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Vista Major wrote:1) The assumption that God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Logically speaking, God cannot be all three of these things; furthermore, the Bible rarely, if ever, says that God is any of those three things. Moving along, there is a serious lack of consensus within Christendom on anything other than the assumption that God and Jesus are real.

2) This is more or less my personal theology regarding God, so I don't find anything terribly wrong with it, except perhaps the fact that we don't know God's intentions, and that we might actually live in a revelationist world disguised as science. We may never know God, so any position on the existence of God is on wobbly ground.

3) Refer back to 2, atheism is on wobbly ground because it assumes that God does not exist (at least in any meaningful manner), so they are on wobbly ground on how the universe even began (before the Big Bang).

If you're interested, I recommend watching Crash Course Philosophy and Theology (separate programs) for some good primers on God(s).

1) I don't understand how it would be incompatible for God to be omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Not to mention also being omnipresent. Logically speaking, it makes sense that God are those things, and more. Actually, it illustrates many times that God are those thing. It just doesn't use the words specifically, but in almost every book in the Bible, there is some sort of illustration that God are these things.

2) What do you mean a revelationist world disguised as science? I am intrigued and would like to know more about your thoughts on the matter.

3) Tbh, I find atheism to be the least logically sound of the three, as it is merely born out of sour pessimism, rather than any real thinking on the matter. It has far too many logical holes for me to think it is true.

Lavan Tiri

Auxillium wrote: 3) Tbh, I find atheism to be the least logically sound of the three, as it is merely born out of sour pessimism, rather than any real thinking on the matter. It has far too many logical holes for me to think it is true.

Really? Atheism is no more "born out of sour pessimism" than nihilism is--that is to say, not at all. Atheism is born out of people looking at the evidence around them and drawing the conclusion that there is no God and there are no gods. The sour pessimism thing is your personal bias.

God, I feel like I should teach a class on this stuff. Vis, do we still have a college?

Penguania And Antarctica

Jaslandia wrote:Yeah, that's fine. I'm just saying you can't use super-advanced tech (past-MT) to enforce your racial laws and rhetoric. You can't use a Death Star to exterminate an inferior race, for example.

Well, they can, if they possess a Death Star.

Hell, that's like, number 7 on a list of things I'd do with a Death Star. But with ugly people. That way, I would be an only child again.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Penguania And Antarctica

Lavan Tiri wrote:Well, they can, if they possess a Death Star.

Hell, that's like, number 7 on a list of things I'd do with a Death Star. But with ugly people. That way, I would be an only child again.

I may, or may not, have a space station with plans to do said thing. (We haven't touched the stations yet, due to them being from the now deceased USSR and Russian Fed.)

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri

Lavan Tiri wrote:Well, they can, if they possess a Death Star.

Hell, that's like, number 7 on a list of things I'd do with a Death Star. But with ugly people. That way, I would be an only child again.

All jokes aside, Death Stars are banned in MT RP, so you can't do anything with a thing that you don't have.

And if you don't mind me asking, what's number 1 on your list?

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Jaslandia wrote:All jokes aside, Death Stars are banned in MT RP, so you can't do anything with a thing that you don't have.

And if you don't mind me asking, what's number 1 on your list?

Well fvck.

Number one on the list is to zap Uranus, so that journalists will be forced to report on a gay man attacking Uranus with a giant laser-shooting ball.

Also, I made an RP. Y'all bitches should check it out. https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=424470

Jaslandia, Penguania And Antarctica

Lavan Tiri wrote:Really? Atheism is no more "born out of sour pessimism" than nihilism is--that is to say, not at all. Atheism is born out of people looking at the evidence around them and drawing the conclusion that there is no God and there are no gods. The sour pessimism thing is your personal bias.

God, I feel like I should teach a class on this stuff. Vis, do we still have a college?

Atheism is overly arrogant and ignorant. It has no basis in fact and the logical holes are huge. It is overly presumptuous as well. Not all atheists are like this, but I would say that it is true as a movement in general. There is no more or less evidence in favor or disfavor of there being a God, and the evidence presented by Atheists are typically anti-religious, but not anti-God. There is no current way to prove or disprove God, and Atheists simply believe that there isn't one, despite the same amount of proof, or void of such, being equally on the other side of the argument. At least with Deists, they are able to hypothesize with methods of science that intelligent design is the most likely conclusion. Atheists do not know if there is a God, and give up on finding answers, content with the lack of knowledge.

I think a lot of Atheists don't really think beyond their beliefs, and are just as sheepy as the devout. They mainly disbelieve out of hatred or not wanting to believe in certain principles. Even if there was undeniable proof that God was real, most Atheists wouldn't become religious, they would continue to rebel and live for themselves. Atheism is less about religious disbelief, and more about spiritual egoism, imo.

Lavan Tiri

Auxillium wrote:Atheism is overly arrogant and ignorant. It has no basis in fact and the logical holes are huge. It is overly presumptuous as well. Not all atheists are like this, but I would say that it is true as a movement in general. There is no more or less evidence in favor or disfavor of there being a God, and the evidence presented by Atheists are typically anti-religious, but not anti-God. There is no current way to prove or disprove God, and Atheists simply believe that there isn't one, despite the same amount of proof, or void of such, being equally on the other side of the argument. At least with Deists, they are able to hypothesize with methods of science that intelligent design is the most likely conclusion. Atheists do not know if there is a God, and give up on finding answers, content with the lack of knowledge.

I think a lot of Atheists don't really think beyond their beliefs, and are just as sheepy as the devout. They mainly disbelieve out of hatred or not wanting to believe in certain principles. Even if there was undeniable proof that God was real, most Atheists wouldn't become religious, they would continue to rebel and live for themselves. Atheism is less about religious disbelief, and more about spiritual egoism, imo.

What basis does faith have in fact? I acknowledge that I know very little about the universe, but the evidence for gods is a helluvalot weaker than the evidence against. I believe that, instead of an omnipotent being designing our universe, it came about because of natural processes acting in natural, mindless ways. Also, if there were a truly benevolent God, I would worship that entity--it would be illogical not to. But since I not only don't believe in any gods, but actively refute that they would be benevolent, I worship nothing.

They mainly disbelieve out of hatred or not wanting to believe in certain principles.

The problem with this reasoning is, there are so many religions that everyone could definitely find one that suits their beliefs.

Jaslandia wrote:All jokes aside, Death Stars are banned in MT RP, so you can't do anything with a thing that you don't have.

And if you don't mind me asking, what's number 1 on your list?

Awww...... but planetary annihilation! (I kid. Besides my marvelous TRC-1200, the only thing I have is a starship in the Urals. We suspect its a clue to our otherworldly existence.. And no, it doesn't work..yet)

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri

Russkov Soviet wrote:Awww...... but planetary annihilation! (I kid. Besides my marvelous TRC-1200, the only thing I have is a starship in the Urals. We suspect its a clue to our otherworldly existence.. And no, it doesn't work..yet)

Otherworldly existence? What do you mean by that?

Lavan Tiri

I have discovered perfection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew1AM8ZYDNU

Jaslandia, Penguania And Antarctica

Lavan Tiri wrote:I have discovered perfection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew1AM8ZYDNU

https://youtu.be/SBxpeuxUiOA

https://youtu.be/ts5af0aFcuw

https://youtu.be/Ac3K2FRmd0U

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Lavan Tiri wrote:What basis does faith have in fact? I acknowledge that I know very little about the universe, but the evidence for gods is a helluvalot weaker than the evidence against. I believe that, instead of an omnipotent being designing our universe, it came about because of natural processes acting in natural, mindless ways. Also, if there were a truly benevolent God, I would worship that entity--it would be illogical not to. But since I not only don't believe in any gods, but actively refute that they would be benevolent, I worship nothing.

They mainly disbelieve out of hatred or not wanting to believe in certain principles.

The problem with this reasoning is, there are so many religions that everyone could definitely find one that suits their beliefs.

Again, you're arguing from an anti-religion stance and not an anti-God stance. There is no more or less evidence in favor or disfavor of God. Therefore, all that is left is reason, so let's examine that.

While nobody can really prove or disprove the existence of God, it is in my view that the likelihood of there being a creator is far greater than there not being one. It is inconceivable to rationally think that something can be created from nothing. It is therefore, far more likely that there had to be something outside of our universe that did not operate by the same natural laws of time and space, and thus, had no beginning, and was what created natural law. Something had to always be, and for that to happen, it had to have existed outside of our laws so that it did not require a beginning. Seeing how everything in the universe is so finely ordered, or at least, has a process to order it, and it has a continuous theme of generation, decay, regeneration and growth throughout the universe, it only seems far more plausible that there was some intelligent design to have gone into it. There is no proof of this, of course, but it seems to me, far more reasonable than what the Atheist suggests and concludes at, which is, there is no way to prove God, so one does not exist and there is no reason to keep looking. Deists are merely agnostics who believe it is more likely than not that an intelligent creator created the universe, and through using the methods of science, seeks to prove that and understand the nature of God as rationally possible. The universe could not have come about in a natural manner, as that is logically impossible.

"Something that can always catch and something that can never be caught, cannot exist in the same universe".

Lavan Tiri

Auxillium wrote:Atheism is overly arrogant and ignorant. It has no basis in fact and the logical holes are huge.[sup][1][/sup] It is overly presumptuous as well. Not all atheists are like this,[sup][2][/sup] but I would say that it is true as a movement in general. There is no more or less evidence in favor or disfavor of there being a God, and the evidence presented by Atheists are typically anti-religious, but not anti-God.[sup][3][/sup] There is no current way to prove or disprove God, and Atheists simply believe that there isn't one, despite the same amount of proof, or void of such, being equally on the other side of the argument.[sup][4][/sup] At least with Deists, they are able to hypothesize with methods of science that intelligent design is the most likely conclusion.[sup][5][/sup] Atheists do not know if there is a God, and give up on finding answers, content with the lack of knowledge.[sup][6][/sup]

I think a lot of Atheists don't really think beyond their beliefs, and are just as sheepy as the devout.[sup][7][/sup] They mainly disbelieve out of hatred or not wanting to believe in certain principles.[sup][8][/sup] Even if there was undeniable proof that God was real, most Atheists wouldn't become religious, they would continue to rebel and live for themselves.[sup][9][/sup] Atheism is less about religious disbelief, and more about spiritual egoism, imo.[sup][10][/sup]

[spoiler=Sorry! I forgot Spoilers!]1. How exactly are we not based in fact? And while we have logical holes, I'd wager that any and all religions have much larger ones which I will explore in depth below:

2. Thank you :D

3. This is because the question of god is so intertwined with religion to the point of homogeneity. It also ties into the fact that there are so many gods to choose from.

4. Your speaking as if there is only one religion, which there isn't. This argument has its roots in Pascals Wager (With or without proof its safer to believe) however this wager quickly falls apart when considering the literal thousands of opposing religions and god(s). The simple point is, that no matter what you do there are 3 quadrillion other gods that have that same argument gunning towards them, ergo, there is no current way to prove or disprove Zeus, and Christians simply believe that he doesn't exist despite the same amount of proof, or void of such, being equally on the other side of the argument. Here is the entire wager (expanded-condensed edition) http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/im/aVSVQ.png

5. What scientific evidence is there that Intelligent Design is more probable than Evolution? And I'm also led to believe that Deists think themselves compatable with Theistic Evolution or am I mistaken?

6. We have most certainly not given up looking however the scientific and logical probability of there being a God and a one true Religion is lowering with each Religion you take into account. This also ties into number 2, that you somehow believe that Religion and God are separate when they should be considered one and the same in the spectrum of an argument. We're not content with lack of knowledge, there's too much knowledge to possibly account for alongside the fact that 99% of all world Religions (Such as christianity for example) look down upon the subject of Science and Scientific Theory.

7. Many of us are, however many of us are not. Think of it this way, why should I have to master the content of every religion (or even one religion for that matter) when there are scores of experts already doing it? The point of Atheism is to look at these experts, and decide for ourselves if we wish to believe in them or not. Say if Richard Dawkins suddenly started spouting that he had the answers for everything, and that we all had to look at him and nobody else, we'd drop 'im like a stone. Or better yet send some daring few in to tell us the scoop beforehand, then drop him like a stone.

8. Well this just contradicts number 2 ya dinklydoo

9. I hear this a lot, but the literal point of Atheism is that there is no undeniable proof and that Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed when considering the wider picture. So, my friend, if freaking Eden's Cherub flies in and lights the White House on Fire with his Magical Sword then you bet your arse I'm flying to Italy. This argument make you seem as if you've never talked/done research with/about an Atheist(ism) This also disavowes Number 2, stop clumpin' us ya Nididlynarbilynoodler

10. And the Church isn't? (And don't say "oh, but the church is the greatest non-profit non-governmental charity source ever when your most recent Saint committed near crimes against humanity and your central church is filled with Absolved rapists and a major money laundering scheme hididily hodidly)[/spoiler]

Lavan Tiri

Jaslandia wrote:https://youtu.be/SBxpeuxUiOA

https://youtu.be/ts5af0aFcuw

https://youtu.be/Ac3K2FRmd0U

"How to break up with someone"

'You're dimmadumb; we're dimmadone'

*puts finger to lips*

'Dimmadon't speak no more'

WWDDOOTDDD (What Would Doug Dimmadome, Owner Of The Dimmsdale Dimmadone Do?)

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Auxillium wrote:Again, you're arguing from an anti-religion stance and not an anti-God stance.[sup][1][/sup] There is no more or less evidence in favor or disfavor of God.[sup][2][/sup] Therefore, all that is left is reason, so let's examine that.

While nobody can really prove or disprove the existence of God, it is in my view that the likelihood of there being a creator is far greater than there not being one. It is inconceivable to rationally think that something can be created from nothing. It is therefore, far more likely that there had to be something outside of our universe that did not operate by the same natural laws of time and space, and thus, had no beginning, and was what created natural law. Something had to always be, and for that to happen, it had to have existed outside of our laws so that it did not require a beginning. Seeing how everything in the universe is so finely ordered, or at least, has a process to order it, and it has a continuous theme of generation, decay, regeneration and growth throughout the universe, it only seems far more plausible that there was some intelligent design to have gone into it. There is no proof of this, of course, but it seems to me, far more reasonable than what the Atheist suggests and concludes at, which is, there is no way to prove God, so one does not exist and there is no reason to keep looking. Deists are merely agnostics who believe it is more likely than not that an intelligent creator created the universe, and through using the methods of science, seeks to prove that and understand the nature of God as rationally possible. The universe could not have come about in a natural manner, as that is logically impossible.

"Something that can always catch and something that can never be caught, cannot exist in the same universe".

1. There is no difference when arguing from a Logical stance. This also ties into the fact that [most/all] Religion actively tell believers to shut their senses to outside interference while Atheism encourages internal argument and the discovery of what we came from. We actively support the fact that we simply do not know, and the point of Atheism and Science is to find out while Theism argues that we already know and to ask questions and to seek knowledge is sin

2. Pascal's wager, made mute when considering the trillion other religions left of albuquerque

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rsz_bugs_2_4558.jpg

Lavan Tiri

Andromitus wrote:[spoiler=Sorry! I forgot Spoilers!]1. How exactly are we not based in fact? And while we have logical holes, I'd wager that any and all religions have much larger ones which I will explore in depth below:

2. Thank you :D

3. This is because the question of god is so intertwined with religion to the point of homogeneity. It also ties into the fact that there are so many gods to choose from.

4. Your speaking as if there is only one religion, which there isn't. This argument has its roots in Pascals Wager (With or without proof its safer to believe) however this wager quickly falls apart when considering the literal thousands of opposing religions and god(s). The simple point is, that no matter what you do there are 3 quadrillion other gods that have that same argument gunning towards them, ergo, there is no current way to prove or disprove Zeus, and Christians simply believe that he doesn't exist despite the same amount of proof, or void of such, being equally on the other side of the argument. Here is the entire wager (expanded-condensed edition) http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/im/aVSVQ.png

5. What scientific evidence is there that Intelligent Design is more probable than Evolution? And I'm also led to believe that Deists think themselves compatable with Theistic Evolution or am I mistaken?

6. We have most certainly not given up looking however the scientific and logical probability of there being a God and a one true Religion is lowering with each Religion you take into account. This also ties into number 2, that you somehow believe that Religion and God are separate when they should be considered one and the same in the spectrum of an argument. We're not content with lack of knowledge, there's too much knowledge to possibly account for alongside the fact that 99% of all world Religions (Such as christianity for example) look down upon the subject of Science and Scientific Theory.

7. Many of us are, however many of us are not. Think of it this way, why should I have to master the content of every religion (or even one religion for that matter) when there are scores of experts already doing it? The point of Atheism is to look at these experts, and decide for ourselves if we wish to believe in them or not. Say if Richard Dawkins suddenly started spouting that he had the answers for everything, and that we all had to look at him and nobody else, we'd drop 'im like a stone. Or better yet send some daring few in to tell us the scoop beforehand, then drop him like a stone.

8. Well this just contradicts number 2 ya dinklydoo

9. I hear this a lot, but the literal point of Atheism is that there is no undeniable proof and that Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed when considering the wider picture. So, my friend, if freaking Eden's Cherub flies in and lights the White House on Fire with his Magical Sword then you bet your arse I'm flying to Italy. This argument make you seem as if you've never talked/done research with/about an Atheist(ism) This also disavowes Number 2, stop clumpin' us ya Nididlynarbilynoodler

10. And the Church isn't? (And don't say "oh, but the church is the greatest non-profit non-governmental charity source ever when your most recent Saint committed near crimes against humanity and your central church is filled with Absolved rapists and a major money laundering scheme hididily hodidly)[/spoiler]

[spoiler]1) Because the facts are equally ambiguous, no matter which side is arguing for what. Since there is no way to prove or disprove God factually, at least at the moment, Atheism can not be based om fact anymore than Deism or religions can. It must be based entirely on either reason or faith.

2) Your welcome :p

3) Fair point, but that is still just an excuse for the faulty position if Atheism.

4) You misunderstand. There is no more or less evidence in favor of proving or disproving God in the most general sense, not a specific God. So it really doesn't fall apart when you consider the various illustrations of God, as it is irrelavent to the central assertion. You cannot prove or disprove God in general. You may be able to disprove a certain illustration of God, but at the moment, not God himself.

5) So while I know intelligent design is used by Christians as another way of saying creationism, I mean it in favor of evolution. Evolution is logically and scientifically sound, and even more so, is further evidence of intelligent design. The laws of nature is evidence of a creator. Why? Because in our universe, there must be a beginning to set things in motion. Unless we are to believe that we are in a constant and never ending creation loop, something had to not have a beginning, thus being outside time and space. Something had to put forward in motion a set of rules that would cause things like evolution to occur naturally. Something had to, in a sense, create nature. To create nature, it must have been outside of nature, and seeing how sophisticated and orderly the universe is, I cannot see how there is not some sort of intelligence behind it.

6) Once again, the multitude of different religions are irrelavent to the discussion. God and religion has to be separate in a discussion like this because religion makes a specifically illustrated God. Deists do not have a specifically illustrated God, but rather assert a rational and scientifically sound creator. My original point on Atheists was a criticism of many Atheists who hold this unscientific view. As I said before, not all Atheists are like this.

7) The same could be said for the devout as well. Like I said, many. I am clearly generalizing, but the generalizations are true for the many.

8) How is it contradictory? I've already made clear that I am generalizing. I am not going to make a separate statement of every individual atheist.

9) Again, generalizations.

10) Religion isn't because they have beliefs outside of their self interest. Atheism is spiritual egoism because many atheists just want to do what they want to do, regardless of fact or truth. This, of course, is another generalization, but for the people who fall into this category, that is how I would describe them.

Should you choose to respond, you can leave out the generalizations I have done. I think we both understand one another by this point.

Andromitus wrote:1. There is no difference when arguing from a Logical stance. This also ties into the fact that [most/all] Religion actively tell believers to shut their senses to outside interference while Atheism encourages internal argument and the discovery of what we came from. We actively support the fact that we simply do not know, and the point of Atheism and Science is to find out while Theism argues that we already know and to ask questions and to seek knowledge is sin

2. Pascal's wager, made mute when considering the trillion other religions left of albuquerque

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rsz_bugs_2_4558.jpg

1) There is a tremendous difference.

2) Already talked about this.[/spoiler]

Lavan Tiri, Andromitus

REASONABLE DISCUSSION

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Auxillium, Axeldonia, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Jaslandia wrote:Otherworldly existence? What do you mean by that?

I'm a race of Anthro beings. Kinda had to make a more besides "we exist" xD

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Flynnvakia wrote:REASONABLE DISCUSSION

Not touching this with my meatpole

...

Or any pole for that matter

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Good morning friends <3

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Percyton

Russkov Soviet wrote:I'm a race of Anthro beings. Kinda had to make a more besides "we exist" xD

Oh? In that case, perhaps Percyton can get involved in your efforts? Us sentient engines and vehicles are in a similar situation as you are regarding the uncertainty of our origins.

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:Good morning friends <3

Good morning, Peng! How are you today?

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:Good morning friends <3

Morning Pengu <3

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Percyton wrote:

Good morning, Peng! How are you today?

I'm doing okayish. Have bit of a cold.

How about you?

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Percyton

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:I'm doing okayish. Have bit of a cold.

How about you?

Sorry to hear that. Hope you feel better soon!

I'm doing good. Just finished catching up on Season 21 of the Thomas & Friends TV series, and now I'm about to take my first goods train to Ffarquhar.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Penguania And Antarctica

Percyton wrote:Sorry to hear that. Hope you feel better soon!

I'm doing good. Just finished catching up on Season 21 of the Thomas & Friends TV series, and now I'm about to take my first goods train to Ffarquhar.

Nice. What do you think of Season 21 so far?

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Percyton wrote:Sorry to hear that. Hope you feel better soon!

I'm doing good. Just finished catching up on Season 21 of the Thomas & Friends TV series, and now I'm about to take my first goods train to Ffarquhar.

Isn't it sometimes a boring job to chuff along and pull goods from A to B?

I mean you follow the tracks so there isn't much you can do.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Percyton

Made a new Primary Banner! Lemme know what ya think.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Penguania And Antarctica wrote:Isn't it sometimes a boring job to chuff along and pull goods from A to B?

I mean you follow the tracks so there isn't much you can do.

Sometimes it can be boring, but having my crew, the other engines, and other humans who work and live along the line (like Farmer McColl and the Kyndley family) makes it better. Plus, once in a while I'll get an interesting delivery or a special, or something else interesting will happen (like when I had to take Farmer McColl's sheep to the Spring Fair, but they all jumped out through a hole in my cattle van before I got to the fair).

https://youtu.be/BU7GOuYYpQA

Jaslandia wrote:Nice. What do you think of Season 21 so far?

I really like it so far. Some nice funny episodes (like 'Dowager Hatt's Busy Day' and 'PA Problems'), some good use of characters (like 'A Most Singular Engine' and 'Runaway Engine'), and even some nice realism-based stories (like 'PA Problems'). They haven't blown me away like Season 20 yet ('Blown Away', coincidentally, is the name of a very good Season 20 episode), but it's still early, so things could change.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, James The Red Engine

Russkov Soviet wrote:Made a new Primary Banner! Lemme know what ya think.

I like it, Russ! I assume you designed it yourself?

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

[quote=percyton;27356044]Sometimes it can be boring, but having my crew, the other engines, and other humans who work and live along the line (like Farmer McColl and the Kyndley family) makes it better. Plus, once in a while I'll get an interesting delivery or a special, or something else interesting will happen (like when I had to take Farmer McColl's sheep to the Spring Fair, but they all jumped out through a hole in my cattle van before I got to the fair).[quote]

Speaking of engines, how is everyone? I've decided to pay Jerry a surprise visit... I managed to find my old Colonel uniform, but gave it a small rank up to Major General (A promotion in the actual Russian Army). The ship will sail in a few hours.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton, James The Red Engine

Percyton wrote:I like it, Russ! I assume you designed it yourself?

That I did xD

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

Russkov Soviet wrote:[quote=percyton;27356044]Sometimes it can be boring, but having my crew, the other engines, and other humans who work and live along the line (like Farmer McColl and the Kyndley family) makes it better. Plus, once in a while I'll get an interesting delivery or a special, or something else interesting will happen (like when I had to take Farmer McColl's sheep to the Spring Fair, but they all jumped out through a hole in my cattle van before I got to the fair).[quote]

Speaking of engines, how is everyone? I've decided to pay Jerry a surprise visit... I managed to find my old Colonel uniform, but gave it a small rank up to Major General (A promotion in the actual Russian Army). The ship will sail in a few hours.

The engines are well, I'd say; James is feeling a bit grumpy about pulling goods trains the past few days, but he grumbles so often we barely pay attention to it now. Jerry's also doing well. I haven't gotten a chance to see Jerry in a few days, but I'm told he's enjoying working on the Skarloey Railway, and he's getting along with all the other narrow gauge engines. I'm actually going to take some trucks to Crovan's Gate later today; I'll probably see Jerry then, so I'll tell him Major General Alex Coltsov is coming; I'll let you give him the Premier news.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, James The Red Engine

Percyton wrote:I really like it so far. Some nice funny episodes (like 'Dowager Hatt's Busy Day' and 'PA Problems'), some good use of characters (like 'A Most Singular Engine' and 'Runaway Engine'), and even some nice realism-based stories (like 'PA Problems'). They haven't blown me away like Season 20 yet ('Blown Away', coincidentally, is the name of a very good Season 20 episode), but it's still early, so things could change.

I can agree with that. On one hand, Season 20 set the bar so high (the first Railway Series adaptations since 1995, the Arlesdale engines, all-around great writing and characters, etc.) that Season 21 is bound to feel inferior by comparison. On the the other hand, there are a bunch of Season 21 episodes still to come, and a lot of them sound like they could be really good, so we'll just have to wait and see before we can really compare Seasons 20 and 21.

Lavan Tiri, Percyton

Percyton wrote:The engines are well, I'd say; James is feeling a bit grumpy about pulling goods trains the past few days, but he grumbles so often we barely pay attention to it now. Jerry's also doing well. I haven't gotten a chance to see Jerry in a few days, but I'm told he's enjoying working on the Skarloey Railway, and he's getting along with all the other narrow gauge engines. I'm actually going to take some trucks to Crovan's Gate later today; I'll probably see Jerry then, so I'll tell him Major General Alex Coltsov is coming; I'll let you give him the Premier news.

Well... I do hope James cheers up. And I really got to wonder how freaked Jerry's going to be when he finds out I told him he was hauling the bloody Premier of the nation! I'm all jittery just thinking about it. Hahaha.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Percyton, James The Red Engine

Hey guys! Does anyone of y'all live in London, by chance?

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Killdash wrote:Hey guys! Does anyone of y'all live in London, by chance?

Nope. I'm 'Murican, yet my family is from England tho.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Percyton wrote:The engines are well, I'd say; James is feeling a bit grumpy about pulling goods trains the past few days, but he grumbles so often we barely pay attention to it now. Jerry's also doing well. I haven't gotten a chance to see Jerry in a few days, but I'm told he's enjoying working on the Skarloey Railway, and he's getting along with all the other narrow gauge engines. I'm actually going to take some trucks to Crovan's Gate later today; I'll probably see Jerry then, so I'll tell him Major General Alex Coltsov is coming; I'll let you give him the Premier news.

You just don't understand. I'm a splendid and shiny red engine; I shouldn't be pulling dirty trucks! It's beneath me, you know?

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica, Percyton

James The Red Engine wrote:You just don't understand. I'm a splendid and shiny red engine; I shouldn't be pulling dirty trucks! It's beneath me, you know?

Gordon: Need I remind you, James, that you're a mixed traffic engine. You're built to pull both passengers and freight, and neither one is designed to be your specialty. You just happen to prefer passengers for vanity reasons. At least when I complain about goods trains I have an excuse; I was designed to be a passenger express engine.

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Percyton wrote:Gordon: Need I remind you, James, that you're a mixed traffic engine. You're built pull both passengers and freight, and neither one is designed to be your specialty. You just happen to prefer passengers for vanity reasons. At least when I complain about goods trains I have an excuse; I was designed to be a passenger express engine.

Rubbish! Design or not, passenger work is my passion, my calling! Anything other than that is simply disgraceful for an engine like me!

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

James The Red Engine wrote:Rubbish! Design or not, passenger work is my passion, my calling! Anything other than that is simply disgraceful for an engine like me!

Now, now James... we aren't turning into a self-proclaimed Prince now are we? Percy has seen how engines work here..you have it rather easy ol' chap.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

The various branches of Spanelsko’s military brought their budget petitions to your attention and, as usual, they are all asking for widespread increases over the rest of the military departments.

hmm, i want to establish racial laws and the first thing i get is that army wants more money, so either someone is plotting a coup or the army was preparing for the enforcement of genocide in our nation for a long time.... i am fine with both.

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri

oh btw OOC i wont be using anything that doesnt already exist to clear Iberia of the inferior humans. only chemical weapons, guns, tanks (when we actually finish building them) experiments torture and possibly feed them to the slaves to spare food resources. (since we have humans as farm animals we will also use them as livestock)

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri

yet i still feel as not evil enough.....

Russkov Soviet, Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri

Spanelsko wrote:yet i still feel as not evil enough.....

How about manipulating another world power into launching a massive, deadly attack on a civilization?

Lavan Tiri

Killdash wrote:Hey guys! Does anyone of y'all live in London, by chance?

I'm moving into London in a week if that's applicable?

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Russkov Soviet wrote:How about manipulating another world power into launching a massive, deadly attack on a civilization?

As much as i like that idea what not totally insane leader would let the psychopath nation manipulate them?

Russkov Soviet, Lavan Tiri, Andromitus

Post self-deleted by Andromitus.

Auxillium wrote:[spoiler]1) Because the facts are equally ambiguous, no matter which side is arguing for what. Since there is no way to prove or disprove God factually, at least at the moment, Atheism can not be based om fact anymore than Deism or religions can. It must be based entirely on either reason or faith.

2) Your welcome :p

3) Fair point, but that is still just an excuse for the faulty position if Atheism.

4) You misunderstand. There is no more or less evidence in favor of proving or disproving God in the most general sense, not a specific God. So it really doesn't fall apart when you consider the various illustrations of God, as it is irrelavent to the central assertion. You cannot prove or disprove God in general. You may be able to disprove a certain illustration of God, but at the moment, not God himself.

5) So while I know intelligent design is used by Christians as another way of saying creationism, I mean it in favor of evolution. Evolution is logically and scientifically sound, and even more so, is further evidence of intelligent design. The laws of nature is evidence of a creator. Why? Because in our universe, there must be a beginning to set things in motion. Unless we are to believe that we are in a constant and never ending creation loop, something had to not have a beginning, thus being outside time and space. Something had to put forward in motion a set of rules that would cause things like evolution to occur naturally. Something had to, in a sense, create nature. To create nature, it must have been outside of nature, and seeing how sophisticated and orderly the universe is, I cannot see how there is not some sort of intelligence behind it.

6) Once again, the multitude of different religions are irrelavent to the discussion. God and religion has to be separate in a discussion like this because religion makes a specifically illustrated God. Deists do not have a specifically illustrated God, but rather assert a rational and scientifically sound creator. My original point on Atheists was a criticism of many Atheists who hold this unscientific view. As I said before, not all Atheists are like this.

7) The same could be said for the devout as well. Like I said, many. I am clearly generalizing, but the generalizations are true for the many.

8) How is it contradictory? I've already made clear that I am generalizing. I am not going to make a separate statement of every individual atheist.

9) Again, generalizations.

10) Religion isn't because they have beliefs outside of their self interest. Atheism is spiritual egoism because many atheists just want to do what they want to do, regardless of fact or truth. This, of course, is another generalization, but for the people who fall into this category, that is how I would describe them.

Should you choose to respond, you can leave out the generalizations I have done. I think we both understand one another by this point.

1) There is a tremendous difference.

2) Already talked about this.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Sorry, i deleted my old post because I thought it was too ranty and was unacceptable for my personal standard :D[/spoiler]

Okay now I understand what your getting at; Pushing aside all religion we're left with a singular question, is there a Creator(s). You've pointed out several times that you cannot prove nor disprove God. However, with that logic, Atheism and Theism are equal as each have an equal chance at being true. The basic, fundamental bedrock of all religion has a 50/50 chance of being within Religions favor. The reason I kept wanting to bring Religions into this conundrum is because of this logical roadblock; Because if each side is equal, and there's no religion to dictate the nature of this God(s), than there's no reason to believe at all apart from piece of mind.

However, this ties to your initial question, the problems with Christianity. Because, while Religion has a 50/50 % chance of being true, the same cannot be said for Christianity due to the multitude of Religions at play on our Planet. Even if only 10 Religions had a chance at being true, that means that out of Religions 50%, Christianity only has a 5% chance of being true compared to Atheism's 50%. But as we know, there are far far more than 10 world Religions.

Lavan Tiri, Auxillium, Axeldonia, Kalaron

Yes, there are much more religions than being presented here.

Lavan Tiri, Andromitus, Penguania And Antarctica

Killdash wrote:Hey guys! Does anyone of y'all live in London, by chance?

Yeah what's on?

Lavan Tiri, Penguania And Antarctica

Spanelsko wrote:As much as i like that idea what not totally insane leader would let the psychopath nation manipulate them?

#HitlerMussoliniStalinLoveTriangle

Jaslandia, Lavan Tiri, Cesorion, Spanelsko

NS classed my Sultanate as a Father Knows Best State even though it's ruled by a woman. Granted, I haven't been able to specify a leader name in the settings page yet but it's a tad sexist to assume that a man rules the country.

Jaslandia, Axeldonia, Andromitus, Penguania And Antarctica

Nuremgard wrote:NS classed my Sultanate as a Father Knows Best State even though it's ruled by a woman. Granted, I haven't been able to specify a leader name in the settings page yet but it's a tad sexist to assume that a man rules the country.

The "Father" that is being referred to isn't your nation's leader, it is your nation's government as a whole.

Although nations are typically referred to as females i.e. "mother Russia" Tolstoy, it is typical to refer to actual governments as males i.e. "the British parliament is a beast that will not stop taxing us until he's had his fill." Samuel Adams.

Andromitus wrote:#HitlerMussoliniStalinLoveTriangle

Thank you, but unfortunately they are already dead....... even father Franco.

Andromitus

Spanelsko wrote:As much as i like that idea what not totally insane leader would let the psychopath nation manipulate them?

Ohhh.... I dunno.. *cough*

Russkov Soviet wrote:Ohhh.... I dunno.. *cough*

hmmm....... well another problem is that i cant really decide on a good target..... Andy cough cough.....

Russkov Soviet

South Hyder wrote:The "Father" that is being referred to isn't your nation's leader, it is your nation's government as a whole.

Although nations are typically referred to as females i.e. "mother Russia" Tolstoy, it is typical to refer to actual governments as males i.e. "the British parliament is a beast that will not stop taxing us until he's had his fill." Samuel Adams.

But when you change your nation's title to the feminine like Queendom or Matriarchy, or give your leader a woman's name, the classification changes to Mother Knows Best State.

but with all seriousness i dont see Andy as an enemy, but as friendly rival. The only 2 nations i hope will be occupied by others are Solla and Axel. And no this isnt a declaration of war, only stating the communists that i dont like. (heresy, heresy everywhere)

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.