Bay 12 Games Forum

I play a completely vanilia game.  I've used Therapist in the past, but I usually prefer to set migrant labors as they come in and forget about it.  I like the strategic element of deciding how to use a dwarf when it shows up.  I'll sometimes tweak labors upon a mass die-off, if, for instance, I don't have any miners or farmers left.

I use stonesense and overseer to take screenshots of my fortresses, but I've never considered using them to actually play the game.  I think I prefer the pictures in my head.  I don't use tile sets for the same reason.  I visualize a world that looks a lot different than the ASCII, but I think I need something as abstract as ASCII to kick it off.

I modify the raws from time to time to fix blatant bugs.  The cat-grasp spam from 40d and starving kobolds for instance.  I've modded in some reactions in the past, but I actually prefer the limits of the vanilia setup.

Welcome!

I think Mrhappyface's comment was in reference to that old, big thread that popps up from time to time about a DF trailer.

It's the general idea of making an add that doesn't have representative graphics is not a bad or a new one.  See Olifurnace/Tim Denee's other work, which I suspect is responsible for introducing a fair number of people to DF and fostering even greater interest in those familiar with it.

The problem with a trailer is ultimately one of magnitude and follow through.  The other thread I meantioned earlier failed (repeatedly) not because of a lack of ideas, but because it was too grand for one person to do alone and too disorganized for a group to actually accomplish.

That said, if you're committed to the idea and interested in inspiration, I recommend you track that thread down and give it a read.  It'll probably be good not only for fresh ideas, but also as a way not to organize a project.

@Glyph: that's great.  I've encountered the general idea of ordered levels of reality before (e.g. Flatland, Heidegger, Anathem, these SMBC's), but I haven't seen that take on it.  I'll have to think about it a bit.  One question that occurs to me right away is what distinguishes "natural" from "artificial" universes, but I'll have to consider it a bit more.

Quote from: Fenrir on May 30, 2012, 02:58:16 pm

You have not actually told us why you believe though,

If God did not create us, who did?

Ninja'd by Fenrir, but here is my take.

Is an agent (a "who") necessary for our creation?

Order does, under some conditions, arise out of chaos.  The laws of our universe are such that spontaneous organization does occur from time.  For example, the condensation of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc... all occur as a result of fundamental physical laws.  On a terrestrial level, we see the formation of water vapor into clouds and the crystalization of organic and inorganic molecules into gems.  Very plausabily, naturally occuring amino acids might have latched onto one another, as they are wont to do, which triggered further latching and replication of this patern.  Ants form colonies capable of greater feats than the sum of its parts, fish and cows gather to form heards, and people organize themselves into artifical entities like corporations and states.

I do not see the necessity for a personality to "create" each of these things, the rules and order of the universe are sufficient to allow the emergence of clouds, people, and nations.

On the other hand, the beauty of these laws, the regularity and knowability of the universe seem to indicate a deeper design.  Perhaps physics can explain people, but how do we explain the regularity and beauty of physics itself?  This seems a much more compelling argument to me.  However, this type of "watchmaker" god also seems inconsistent with the miracles and divine intervention of the Christian God, and so this idea has done little to draw me in that direction.

Quote from: Graebeard on May 30, 2012, 12:27:17 am

Quote from: Megaman on May 29, 2012, 11:54:57 pm

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

This is frequently true, but we're usually a pretty well behaved bunch and I hope we can keep things positive and interesting.

Well, we turned a thread about a TV-show about horses into... that thing

Quote from: Graebeard

If you're interested in sharing, I'd love to know what your opinion is on the provability of the existence of god and the importance of that question.  For instance, the role of faith in giving meaning to belief has been fundamental to some I've spoken with, while others approach (or justify) belief in other ways or on other grounds. 

God's existence is often said to be disproved by lack of evidence saying that He does exist, but there is also a lack of evidence that He does not.  Whether he exists or not, however, will not change the fact that religion gives people morality and meaning in life. Certainly, so many peasants a long time ago refrained from killing themselves because they believed God was there to give them a reason to exist. As for morality, which I will acknowledge has oft been abused, can stop people in positions in power from abusing it to such an extent they would have. Will you torture political prisoners for laughs if God himself tells you (indirectly, perhaps) to be merciful?

Thanks for the response.  I agree that faith is a path towards morality and meaning.  I think athiests and agnostics too frequently overlook that aspect of it.

A lot of people above mentioned that the burden of proof lies with the person making an affirmative statement.  I think that same principal applies here: if someone finds a basis for morality or meaning that doesn't have to do with faith, then the burden is on them to demonstrate how morality and meaning arises from that basis.

This is frequently where I stumble.  I find the concept of a creator distasteful for many of the reasons people have already provided.  But when I have tried out different ways of saying my life has meaning without relying on theological concepts, none of them have been satisfying to me in a permanent way.

@ kaijuu: I'm definately on the same page as you regarding the empirical and assumption of truth points, but let me push you a bit farther.

What if the big invisible elephant doesn't ever interact with the world unless it wants to.  It is a fickle elephant.  There is no way to provoke it into action for sure.  Sometimes it decides to trample people (who never see it coming) for no reason, but it doesn't like people who curse, or people who are mean, or people who wear jnco's, and tramples them more frequently.  In that event, doesn't your belief in the invisible elephant have real consequences?

I myself believe in god(s) through a rather convoluted but structurally sound assortment of logic and evidence, with approximately 60% confidence (Similar, in form, to the drake equation - meaning it's quite capable of varying wildly with new discoveries). You think this would end up with me on the theistic side in debates! But when I calmly present my case, the response is always along the lines of "How can you even call that a god?"

Glyph, I'm quite curious about the logic and evidence you've experianced, if you're inclined to share.  I've found, during the relatively infrequent times that I've been inclined to believe in a god, that the my conception of god was pretty unorthodox.  I've had religious experiances where the existence of a universal mind, almost a pantheism, seemed aparant to me at the time.  Once that time passed, though, I had little reason to continue believing in such.

Edit: pantheism, not pangeism

Ok.  It's been asked before.  It's been asked before on these forums.  But I am feeling inquisitive, so I will ask Bay12 for its opinions again:

Is the existence of god (in the way you choose that to mean) an antimony?  That is to say, do you believe that either the existence or non-existence of god is more rational than the alternative?  If so, why?  If not, upon what do you base your belief or non-belief in the existence of god?

Rules:

• Be nice.  I'm serious.  Actually be nice, particularly to those who disagree or might disagree with your position.
• Support your opinions.  Acknowledge unsupported opinions.
• Don't condemn others' opinions.  Acknowledging inconsistencies is great, but don't demean anyone's beliefs.
• Be clear.  Keep arguments short.  Let your sentences be unencumberd by superfluities.
• Be nice

---

I'll start.

I don't believe that science or rational thought can or will prove the existence or non-existence of god.  I vacilate between agnosticism and atheism.  When feeling particularly atheistic I find myself thinking of this question Nietzsche posed: "If there were gods, how could I endure not to be a god?"  When feeling agnostic I don't know what to think, and solicit opinions on the matter from the internet.

Your turn.