Ike Boards General/Q&A Thread

[theeboredone]

Eid mubarak back to you Ussi. Abdul too. I'll toss in Slaps even though he's a Jew and my nemesis.

 

[Teh Brettster]

I'm everybody's nemesis.

Nobody likes agnostics. Atheists especially. Which is sad, because they're pretty much the ones to whom I most closely relate myself.

 

[theeboredone]

Brett, even though I've read on your FB page several times you're an Agon, you still give the appearance of a fun loving, Jesus loves you, let's have a picnic Christian.

Ussi is not helping by making himself look like a "I'm gonna blow you up any minute now" Muslim.

 

[san.]

Ussi's Facebook must be different than how I thought of him when I met him then.

 

[jamlosingthegame]

Heh after playing Ussi in Soku, I come here and click Bored's links and what's the first thing I hear? Piano arrange of Youmu's theme. Which reminds me, I need to add Ussi as a friend on Facebook. Why haven't I yet?

I also need to start delaying jabs.

 

[san.]

Thing about delayed jab2 especially, is that I think jab2 is harder to SDI out of compared to jab1, thus allowing us to continue the jab string even longer.

I used to time jab1s more and the opponent popped out too easily, but when I switched to jab2, they were stuck in there for much longer.

 

[Nysyarc]

Nobody likes agnostics. Atheists especially. Which is sad, because they're pretty much the ones to whom I most closely relate myself.

I take it the reason atheists dislike agnostics is that agnostics are ambiguously borderline and atheists are just like "come on it's all crap and you know it, why stay on the fence?". Or something like that. I don't care what other people believe, so I don't know.

I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist, because when I actually stop to think about religion, it just makes a lot of sense why humans would have made it all up at some point. I see no reason why or how a god would or could exist.

@San, I brought up that our Jab 1 at max range and mixing up the timing of Jab 2 is safe on shield in a debate on the ICs MU. An IC player said that it's not safe because of shield SDI, which allows the ICs to essentially teleport next to us during the shield lag. I told him that in practice in real-time that will never be a factor, and in my experience Jab 1 is perfectly safe on shield as long as you're not really close and you're not fighting DDD.

He insisted that this ISSDI when we Jab their shield is like, MU-changing stuff though. I've personally never even seen it done.

 

[Heartstring]

I'm everybody's nemesis.

Nobody likes agnostics. Atheists especially. Which is sad, because they're pretty much the ones to whom I most closely relate myself.

i dunno, i used to be heavily athiest, and now im sorta edging towards being agnostic, recently ive had too many moments wheres it seems like some higher powers been involved for it to all be passed as coincidence, so maybe there is something going on, but i cant tell
actually, the pursuit of if gods and stuff are real or not can be a debate someone else can continue, ive got ponies walking around on my screen and im happier now than i have been for quite a while

 

[san.]

I'm not sure if ISSDI has been a practical thing for any character yet, especially not for a frame 3 move.
+ You need to consider Nana's input lag.


There were times when a person was shielding and I just kept jabbing until they gave up. Unlike other jabs, we can stop whenever we want to punish rolls.

 

[Kimchi]

I'm not sure if ISSDI has been a practical thing for any character yet, especially not for a frame 3 move.
+ You need to consider Nana's input lag.


There were times when a person was shielding and I just kept jabbing until they gave up. Unlike other jabs, we can stop whenever we want to punish rolls.

Just to add to this, I think the only direction people can roll is backwards. They can't roll towards you if i'm correct, because the jab still connects, at least from what I've been trying against san.

 

[theeboredone]

Courtesy of Yink.

Spoiler

 

[Teh Brettster]

You're right, Craysyn. A lot of hardcore atheists think of agnostics as ****ies, pretty much. I believe in all the scientific proof and theories we have of the universe. But I can't say that behind all those processes wasn't, at any one point, a "god." Deism is an interesting philosophy to me.

@San. I dunno... only characters I think I'll ever feel safe jabbing on shield are Samus and Link, basically. I'd have to be on the receiving end of this spaced jab, and experience not being able to do anything, to believe it.

 

[Zatchiel]

Can't the initial hitbox on Samus's Screw Attack OoS catch Ike's leg during Jab2?
inkiepie:

 

[Teh Brettster]

Wouldn't jab2 her shield. Also I punish her screw attack when I get hit, lol.

 

[Blubolouis]

You can jab yoshi's shield all you want, too, poor thing.

ikes winning tournaments... only in america.

 

[theeboredone]

Haha, reminds me of how K-Prime was at around 200% and Poltergust at 100%. Unfortunately, Polt's shield broke and K-Prime won. What a crappy shield.

 

[XLR8TION]

shield is pro obv.

 

[Ussi]

Ussi's Facebook must be different than how I thought of him when I met him then.

grew a beard

Heh after playing Ussi in Soku, I come here and click Bored's links and what's the first thing I hear? Piano arrange of Youmu's theme. Which reminds me, I need to add Ussi as a friend on Facebook. Why haven't I yet?

I also need to start delaying jabs.

Wait what link? I must have missed it. Also just find me with my name from skype.

Found the link, i played it without any sound ahaha. That's funny. (Youmu is my avatar)

I'm not sure if ISSDI has been a practical thing for any character yet, especially not for a frame 3 move.
+ You need to consider Nana's input lag.


There were times when a person was shielding and I just kept jabbing until they gave up. Unlike other jabs, we can stop whenever we want to punish rolls.

Some ICs say they do it, but i haven't heard it from anyone else.

I take it the reason atheists dislike agnostics is that agnostics are ambiguously borderline and atheists are just like "come on it's all crap and you know it, why stay on the fence?". Or something like that. I don't care what other people believe, so I don't know.

I'm pretty sure I'm an atheist, because when I actually stop to think about religion, it just makes a lot of sense why humans would have made it all up at some point. I see no reason why or how a god would or could exist.

[collapse=Reasons why i think God exists, hidden for those who don't feel like reading it]

1. People felt a need to believe in a God or such throughout history.

2. Intelligent Design

3. People who claim God does't exist tend to believe in science like it's a god

Can't say anything about how, something I don't question since it's probably beyond any human's scope of understanding.

[/collapse]

 

[Nysyarc]

[collapse=Reasons why i think God exists, hidden for those who don't feel like reading it]

1. People felt a need to believe in a God or such throughout history.

2. Intelligent Design

3. People who claim God does't exist tend to believe in science like it's a god

Can't say anything about how, something I don't question since it's probably beyond any human's scope of understanding.[/collapse]

[collapse=Counter-reasons and stuff, hidden for etc...]1. Of course they did, because people fear death and don't want to think that there's nothing afterwards. Religion provides the comfort of an afterlife among other things.

2. Intelligent Design isn't an argument in and of itself, there is no actual evidence to support Intelligent Design. It's something you have faith in, not something you know.

3. Comparing science to religion in that way is like comparing apples to aircraft carriers (apples and oranges are way too similar for such a metaphorical comparison). Scientists don't follow science like a god, because religious groups follow their god(s) through faith and basically assuming he/she/it is real. Scientists painstakingly analyze things before even considering awarding it the title of a scientific theory.

It's perfectly within a human's scope of understanding, you just can't look at it as something so vast. There's really no other way I can put this and I don't mean to sound conceited or anything, I think it's just easier to understand from the outside looking in so to speak. I've looked a lot into the potential reasons why religion would have come about, and having an open mind about that sort of thing really allows for some interesting insights into human nature.[/collapse]

 

[Heartstring]

[collapse=Counter-reasons and stuff, hidden for etc...]1. Of course they did, because people fear death and don't want to think that there's nothing afterwards. Religion provides the comfort of an afterlife among other things.

2. Intelligent Design isn't an argument in and of itself, there is no actual evidence to support Intelligent Design. It's something you have faith in, not something you know.

3. Comparing science to religion in that way is like comparing apples to aircraft carriers (apples and oranges are way too similar for such a metaphorical comparison). Scientists don't follow science like a god, because religious groups follow their god(s) through faith and basically assuming he/she/it is real. Scientists painstakingly analyze things before even considering awarding it the title of a scientific theory.

It's perfectly within a human's scope of understanding, you just can't look at it as something so vast. There's really no other way I can put this and I don't mean to sound conceited or anything, I think it's just easier to understand from the outside looking in so to speak. I've looked a lot into the potential reasons why religion would have come about, and having an open mind about that sort of thing really allows for some interesting insights into human nature.[/collapse]

[collapse=my reasons for not believing in either]
no set belief makes perfecet logical sense, even the scientific reasoning-which i usually follow-has a massive gap in its explanation when it comes to the dawn of the universe, the concept f 'nothing exploded' just doesnt sit [/collapse]

 

[Blubolouis]

Ok, plane ticket bought... I'm now 100% confirmed for apex o:

Just need to fill in some forms and register at apexsmash.

 

[Ussi]

[collapse=Counter-reasons and stuff, hidden for etc...]1. Of course they did, because people fear death and don't want to think that there's nothing afterwards. Religion provides the comfort of an afterlife among other things.

2. Intelligent Design isn't an argument in and of itself, there is no actual evidence to support Intelligent Design. It's something you have faith in, not something you know.

3. Comparing science to religion in that way is like comparing apples to aircraft carriers (apples and oranges are way too similar for such a metaphorical comparison). Scientists don't follow science like a god, because religious groups follow their god(s) through faith and basically assuming he/she/it is real. Scientists painstakingly analyze things before even considering awarding it the title of a scientific theory.

It's perfectly within a human's scope of understanding, you just can't look at it as something so vast. There's really no other way I can put this and I don't mean to sound conceited or anything, I think it's just easier to understand from the outside looking in so to speak. I've looked a lot into the potential reasons why religion would have come about, and having an open mind about that sort of thing really allows for some interesting insights into human nature.[/collapse]

I'll have to get back on this, need to find my icna CDs.

 

[Teh Brettster]

Scientists painstakingly analyze things before even considering awarding it the title of a scientific theory.

Whenever people say "Evolution is just a theory; it's not a fact," I counter by asking them to walk off a cliff for me and disprove the -theory- of gravity.

the concept f 'nothing exploded' just doesnt sit

I think it's more a concept of EVERYthing in the amount of space nothing would fit into. Blowing up.
Though either way doesn't change the fact that it's hard to understand.

 

[Nysyarc]

Yah, the universe in that state wasn't nothing, supposedly it was a singularity. Like a black hole except many many times denser. Although even the existence of black holes is sketchy due to their apparent nature, so that's not a great example.

Random fun fact: If you assigned one "zero" digit to every sub-atomic particle in the known universe, you wouldn't have nearly enough zeroes to write out a googolplex.

 

[Teh Brettster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn7-fVtT16k#t=1m17s
Lol

 

[theeboredone]

I love those rap battles. The Billy Mays one is genius for it's one key moment.

Nys, what's the counter argument to when religious people ask how the first atom, black hole, big bang, whatever it's supposed to be that started everything existed without a supreme being?

And I find this a bit funny. Evolution shows that belly buttons didn't initially exist. Yet you always see paintings of Adam and Eve with belly buttons. Of course, it's not some big renown fact, but everytime I see one of those paintings, I laugh inside.

 

[Nysyarc]

Nys, what's the counter argument to when religious people ask how the first atom, black hole, big bang, whatever it's supposed to be that started everything existed without a supreme being?

Well, it depends how religious this person is. If they're zealously religious then there is no argument that would suffice to convince them a supreme being wasn't behind it all, regardless of how much evidence is presented.

Even the counter argument when an open-minded individual, religious or not, asks such a question out of interest is hard to say. From what we understand right now, it was one of two things:

Either the singularity was simply there and time was not a factor, since nothing was happening and there was nothing else but the singularity, therefore no way of measuring time. So you can't even say it was there for all of eternity or since the beginning because a timeless state implies no beginning and no duration.

The other idea is that the singularity was only in existence for the briefest of fractional seconds, after a past universe finished collapsing. It collapsed to a point where it literally had nothing else to do but explode and begin expanding outward once again.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to prove either theory. Given the fact that the singularity was supposedly a point where all matter in the universe was compacted, with no unique or separate types of matter at all, it's currently impossible to measure anything before that time. Again, assuming time even exists when there is only one singularity and absolutely nothing else to compare it with and no movement at all.

So TL;DR, there is no good answer yet. However, you can then ask what makes them think that a supreme being existed at that time, and it's not like they'd do a better job explaining how that alleged supreme being came into existence from nothingness.

 

[Ussi]

So TL;DR, there is no good answer yet. However, you can then ask what makes them think that a supreme being existed at that time, and it's not like they'd do a better job explaining how that alleged supreme being came into existence from nothingness.

this is why i said how God came to be is beyond the scope of human comprehension. The beginning can only be speculated, so i don't really think too much about it.

 

[Nysyarc]

I think my favorite thing about religion is how every one of the tens of thousands of religions throughout history all believed that their religion was correct. I guarantee you nobody thinks Zeus exists these days, and probably in a thousand years religions will have changed sufficiently that the new groups will shake their heads at our current beliefs.

We're in a dream that we'll never awaken from; future generations will see our dream and only then realize how absurd it seems... but they'll be unwitting victims of their own dream and so the cycle will continue.

 

[Ussi]

I think my favorite thing about religion is how every one of the tens of thousands of religions throughout history all believed that their religion was correct. I guarantee you nobody thinks Zeus exists these days, and probably in a thousand years religions will have changed sufficiently that the new groups will shake their heads at our current beliefs.

We're in a dream that we'll never awaken from; future generations will see our dream and only then realize how absurd it seems... but they'll be unwitting victims of their own dream and so the cycle will continue.

history doesn't always repeat itself. Humans have also progressed too much to start believing in "new" religions due to who starts the "new" religions (cults more like it) nowadays that they would most likely turn to the ones that exist now if they had a yearning for that.

The only way for a new religion to occur, is a miracle. Which is just how the current religions started.

 

[Teh Brettster]

history doesn't always repeat itself. Humans have also progressed too much to start believing in "new" religions due to who starts the "new" religions (cults more like it) nowadays that they would most likely turn to the ones that exist now if they had a yearning for that.

The only way for a new religion to occur, is a miracle. Which is just how the current religions started.

Mormonism, starting less than 200 years ago; Scientology, starting less than 60 years ago.

 

[Ussi]

Mormonism, starting less than 200 years ago; Scientology, starting less than 60 years ago.

Mormonism is most likely a sect of Christianity

Scientology has a big controversy behind it, but I guess this is a legit point.

 

[Berserker Swordsman]

Mormonism, starting less than 200 years ago; Scientology, starting less than 60 years ago.

Church of Tebowism, starting less than two weeks ago.

 

[Ussi]

Ok i realized what i said needs a bit of rewording:

In order for a new religion to become a major religion, it needs a miracle.


My class just got canceled, -______________- well now i got a nice 2 hours till my next class now

 

[theeboredone]

Scientology had a miracle. They got Tom Cruise to support them.

 

[Ussi]

Scientology had a miracle. They got Tom Cruise to support them.

 

[Heartstring]

Yah, the universe in that state wasn't nothing, supposedly it was a singularity. Like a black hole except many many times denser. Although even the existence of black holes is sketchy due to their apparent nature, so that's not a great example.

Random fun fact: If you assigned one "zero" digit to every sub-atomic particle in the known universe, you wouldn't have nearly enough zeroes to write out a googolplex.

well, apparently black holes are a singularity,this causing the fact that there nature forces you to divide by zero.
that doesnt sit either
also, i like the new title

 

[Nysyarc]

Well, I meant more along the lines of their inescapability. The fact that they have apparently unlimited gravitational force means that all matter and even light/sound is trapped inside them. Thus nothing about them can be measured in any way except the gravitational force, lol. Everything else about them is assumed based on roundabout studies.

Also approve of the new thread title. We're a diverse group of individuals.

 

[Heartstring]

fair enough, i like the sceince approach more than the others, but theres simply too much we cant account for for me to truly believe in it 100% besides, ive seen firsthand that religion can save a person from the brink. my aunt was well and truly spiralling into the depths of insanity with schizophrenia, and she claims that she did a deal with god, that if he helped her through mental illness she would promise to become a better person and devote her life to following him.
now, who am i to tell her that shes wrong? no-one in the world has that right

and yeah, not only that we can expres our various opinions without it descending into a flamewar

 

[Ussi]

Diversity is a good thing

How big a googolplex too?

edit: looked it up... dayum it originated as the term "1 and a number of zeros until you get tired of writing them" LOOOOOL