The old thread was getting full, so here's a brand new one!

As an aside, I'm thinking of clearing up our cast list. To do that, I'll be deleting all characters who haven't posted in the past six months. If you're still around and haven't posted in any other threads, just say 'hi'. If you get deleted and want back, don't stress, just say such and I'll put you right back.

Hi (better safe than sorry).

You might consider instead deleting all people who haven't "logged in" to the game in six months, since that implies they haven't even been looking at the discussions.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:00, Thu 28 Apr 2011.

So, I haven't been in here for a while. I'm at a loss on how to contribute.

Some of us look, we just prefer to lurk for the moment....

@Caine Which is why the log-on has better accuracy than the last post, since as soon as you even click on the game to look at what threads there are, you get logged as having visited the game.

Oh <_< and because my comedy radio station is now talking about the Royal Wedding instead of presenting stand-up comedy audio like it should, Down with the Bloody Red Queen.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:51, Fri 29 Apr 2011.

I thought 'log on' indicates the last time they logged onto RPoL.

That is what I had figured as well.

Katisara, what we do in another forum I play in is take anyone who has not posted in one year and put them as NPC and in Group Z.  Then nothing is lost (private messages, etc.).  That's what I would suggest here.


Also, I haven't been real active latetly due to schedule and have not even had a chance to review postings since my last flurry of posting.  Schedule's not letting up anytime soon, but I'm really not trying to ignore anyone...

Looks like the CCR Archive has been removed, so all plans to archive old threads are for the moment cancelled.

I was not given a reason why, but I'm pretty certain after reviewing the rules and reading a recent general discussion thread, I see that we can't host the archive for the community chat on this site.

So everybody ready for the rapture tomorrow? I've been seeing billboards for it all over town.

What the hell is that?

And you thought real estate prices were bad before, imagine what happens when 10% of the population vanishes.
Maybe less...
Oh sure everyone *says* they are so christian and they will be gone in case of rapture, but pride is a deadly sin isn't it?
BUt hey, I gues anyone not posting after tomorrow can prove me wrong :)

Um, sure, Rapture.  If you pull out the bible and start thumping it, you find that it says God comes for his children after the 7 plagues hit, not before.

I remember a whole bunch of people sitting in the bleachers of the local stadium looking up at the sky when I was jogging one day a while back.  Might have been another one of these.

Ah, another apocalypse.  Seen them come and seen them go.

Come to the Rapture thread and talk about it. Because actually, the Bible says we will be with Jesus to be caught up in the air with him during the 7 years of Tribulation before Jesus returns to the Earth.

Ha, now he (Harold Camping) changed the date to October 21st 2011.

Ok well technically now he's saying the rapture did happen...but the spirited away events will be taking place in October.

Wait, what? People were raptured, but they just haven't been raptured yet? Are they on layaway?
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:19, Wed 25 May 2011.

I'm thinking the process is run much like the DMV.  Number 53?  53?  Anyone got 53?  No?  Okay, number 54.  54?

Yeah, everybody who's getting into Wonka's factory has already been given the Golden ticket.  and October is when they get in.

I saw this video and thought it ... telling:
http://www.boingboing.net/2011...-who-filmed-cop.html

A woman gets arrested for filming a police traffic stop. She's not otherwise involved, and is standing in her front yard for the entire thing.

Who watches the watchers indeed. Clearly the answer they don't want is 'us'.

My sister used to live in Rochester. Things have, from what she has told me, been getting more and mor eintense between residents and the police since a speeding police car *not* responsing to an emergency ran over a teenage girl, killing her, and there was no investigation or disciplinary action taken.
The problem is that constitutional rights only go as far as the people willing to protect them.

Not posting for a debate on this one.  It is just an article on research about children and the concept of possession.

http://www.sciencenews.org/vie..._own_up_to_ownership

Just to let you guys know, I'm off on holiday for the next week, so won't likely get a chance to reply to anything until I get back.  So if you don't hear from me, it's not because I'm ignoring you! :)

In reply to Tycho (msg #25):

Real life always trumps arguing with us.  Enjoy your holiday.

Thanks, will do!

Okay, so I have a question (mostly to katisara, as I'm interested by Catholic take on these issues, but I won't mind others weighing in):

I've been reading about "Left Behind" books lately and I've learned that a lot of the things mentioned there are, apparently, tied to a specific branch of Christianity called "pre-Millenial dispensionalism". That came as a bit of news for me as, back when I was still a Catholic Christian, I was told that Rapture, the rise of Antichrist etc. are things mentioned in the Bible... And the youth group at my parish was screening "Thief In The Night" movie to its members. Which, now I learn, is not presenting Catholic teachings, neither...

So, katisara: what is, actually, the proper Catholic take on the End Times?

We don't have a lot of information on the end times. We have some prophetic dreams in the book of Daniel, which are pretty clearly metaphorical, and the book of Revelations which is considered to be mostly metaphorical. Without consulting Catholic Encyclopedia, I can tell you broadly that the beliefs I'm familiar are:

We won't know when the end has come
It will suck mightily
It ends with everyone dying
Everyone will be judged, with the good getting new, perfect bodies in a perfect world, and the evil will be damned

I don't think the RCC has taken a hardline stance on how to interpret Revelations (which is probably a good idea), so I've met Catholics who believe in the rapture and the sea turning to blood, and I've met ones who figure the world will end in a conventional war turning to nuclear holocaust, and they all seem to fit into the same church.

I'm not Catholic nor am I an expert on Catholic teachings, but here's what I can contribute.

The Rapture isn't mentioned by name.  It seems to stem from something Jesus said, about how the faithful would rise to heaven within their lifetime.  I believe the term was coined by Cotton Mather, but I'm not sure.  There's a general consensus that there will come a "time of Tribulations", the faithful would be gathered up and brought to heaven, and the rest would left behind and the world destroyed.

There's considerable doctrinal argument over rather or not the Rapture will come before, middle, or after the Tribulations.  Nearly every era has complained that their time was "the Tribulations", so I don't know how much of this is actually biblical.

Revelation deals with the end times, but it also reads like a bad acid trip.  If you read John's work, he was always a bit florid and odd in his writings.  At any event, he describes the rise of the evil beasts.  One of them looks like "the Lamb" and convinces people to follow him.  This is where the idea of the antichrist comes from.

I met one person who was raised Jewish and turned Christian who believed that Revelations was a retelling of the gospel and later parts of biblical history presented in metaphor and prophecy for security. Acording to him the three beasts had already come and gone, along withthe false Lamb, nearly 2000 years ago.

Thank you, people. That clarified some things for me...

By the way - you know, these "Left Behind" book sound pretty awful. The final parts apparently feature scenes with Christ ripping unbelievers apart etc. This is supposed to be Christian literature..???

I glanced through the back cover about Buck Williams, Ray Steele and his smoldering hot daughter, Chloe Steele and picked it up thinking it was some deviant soft core porn. No, apparently 'left behind' isn't referring to a single butt cheek. Its plot and internal consistency is about what I'd expect from pornography, but I got to the end with no money shot. I was rather disappointed.

Water powered car, can run for about an hour at 50 MPH on a quart of water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...0&feature=relmfu

How? Unless you are talking heavy water this is pure fantasy. Water has no extractable energy to run on.
It says it generates power by extractig hydrogen from water, but it takes more energy to do this then you can get back out of teh water- laws of thermodynaimcs cannot be casually suspended.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:50, Sat 02 July 2011.

I'm not a physicist.  Here is the original inventor back in the early 80s.  After he signed a contract with the Pentagon, he was murdered the next day by poison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSS1ZMdt3FQ

That's not quite true.  Non-pure water has a lot of random stuff floating around in it, including free-floating hydrogen.  I really doubt, however, that there's enough free-floating hydrogen in a liter of water to make a huge difference, though.

Even if you did it woudl still take more energy to extract it than you could get from it.

Looked at the older footage- this is funny. It talks about a fuel cell but you can clearly hear an internal combustion engine in the video. Seriously just because someone posts a video on youtube doesn't make it legit.

Hmm, learning about Ions in chemistry these couple weeks.  Don't know quite enough to comment on it though.

H₂0, while composed of two very highly flammable gases, together are not flammable (and have one of if not the highest calorie-costs for changing its temperature).

Using it as a fuel would be very inefficient size-wise; I could see hydrogen car, but even if they could make facilities small enough to break the compounds inside the engine, it would still be really inefficient compared to the benefits of economies of scale.

But then again, I'm not a Chemist nor do I have any special knowledge regarding the mechanics, so this isn't really any more than skeptical opinion.

This is a hoax and an old one at that. Water is indeed one of the most stable molecules you'll find. Yes, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen does 'free ions' (those ions are hydrogen and oxygen respectively), but the process of separating them takes energy. So if you get 1 joule of energy, you spent at least 1 to get them apart, and thanks to inefficiencies, probably 2. Notice the video never mentions what it uses to remove those hydrogen atoms. They don't just come apart. Something needs to be done. At minimum, that implies it takes a secondary source.

You'll actually see this very often when people are showing off their tremendous 'energy from water' technology; there's almost always a car battery or power plug nearby. As an observer, your question should be 'what happens if I unplug it'? If it's generating power, the thing should continue to work fine without a battery or power plug once it's started. If the inventor can't run the generator without, that's a sign that there's chicanery afoot.

Some other hoaxes you might be interested in; magnets to 'align' molecules in fuel, tablets you put in the gas tank to increase efficiency, special filters, rubber balloons to inject more whatever, hydrogen injection systems. These have all been marketed and sold to unfortunate rubes. They don't work. At best, they do nothing (magnets). At worst, they will permanently ruin your engine (injecting hydrogen).

Here are a link:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/...salt-water-fuel1.htm

actually hydrogen is an extreemly effecient means of energy storage, if you get 1 joule of energy out you probably only had to put 1.01 Joules in.
But yes the amount in will always exceed the ammount out.

That depends on how you're getting it out. If you have a big facility, sure. If you have a small device in the back of a car ... I'm not so sure. You're taking battery power, running it through electrolyzation, then collection, storage, and pumping it around for burning. Plus every weight added subtracts from fuel efficiency too, since you're moving more mass.

Even hydrogen as an actual fuel source has hit some roadblocks owing to inefficiencies caused by the atom's inherit properties. It needs to be compressed, so when you're fueling up, you need to be able to maintain that compression. It's not just a gas pump. It rises in air, so you can't carry it around in a jerry can. The containment adds weight, and that containment has to be included all the way from the fuel tank to the ignition chamber. Plus our limited experience with hydrogen means we can't burn it as efficiently as gasoline or diesel. All our technology like vaporizers, spark plug types and so on doesn't really apply, so there's an efficiency gap as the technology matures.

From what it looks like, it burns the Hydrogen like it is normal gasoline.  So an Internal Combustion engine would burn it.  Then the alternator keeps the power flowing.  The battery is used int he beginning to provide the separation process before the engine is started.  It might be inefficient, but at least I wouldn't need 64 bucks to fill up my entire tank for a week.

Using the same reasoning that you have brought up Katisara, what would happen if I were to take the battery out of your car and then asked you to start it?

While you can use an internal combustion engine to burn hydrogen, you can't use the same sort of engine you use to burn gasoline. Gasoline is a liquid, heavier than air, not stored under compression, and requires a different fuel/air mix. If you think you can replace one with the other, I have an experiment for you. Find a way to hold a glass that can alternatively hold water or helium. Of course, the answer is you can't. If you hold the glass upright, the helium floats out. if you hold it upside down, the water falls out. You need different machines to burn hydrogen to account for those physical traits.



You're right. It would cost infinity dollars a week. For every point of energy you put in, you're getting .8 out.

Think about it like this. An engine takes stored energy (gasoline, diesel, electricity), then converts it into mechanical motion. So if you have say 10 'points' of energy in your gas tank, you lose a little to other things but it converts to 8 points-worth of movement.

The hydrogen car idea costs 11 points to separate the hydrogen and oxygen (from where? Battery, I guess.) From that you get 10 points of energy in hydrogen. You burn 6 points to move the car forward, lose 2 points to inefficiency, then put those remaining 2 points around to splitting hydrogen which gets you 1 point of energy and ... it dies.

That's the point. If you are putting in more energy then you're getting out, that is inefficient. It's also unworkable. That energy you're getting from burning the hydrogen is the *exact same* amount of energy you'd have to spend to split it, except that you're losing energy to things like heat, and ultimately your goal i to actually have some energy left over to move the car. But you can't -- all your energy goes back into separating more hydrogen. There's none left over.



Ah, that's not what I asked. I said *once it is started*. I'm willing to accept you need a jump to start any hydrogen machine. That's a given. If you were to run out the battery *while the car was already running* my car would continue to run as long as they're fuel in the tank. It generates its own electricity from the burning of diesel. And this is why people need jumps to START their car, but never to keep it running (your car won't die on the road from the battery dying, it just won't start again).

I do happen to be back yard mechanic.  This is true that a few items would need to be changed out in order to get this to work.  Lets do a quick run down of how a Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Works.  When the engine is running, fuel and air is sucked into the engine due to a vacuum being created when the piston lowers.  Normally Air would mix with the fuel through a corroborator.  At normal atmospherics conditions you are still inefficient so to boost this air we would force air into the engine using a turbo charger or a supercharger.   Regardless of these different efficiency means.  Heat is always a bi-product of energy not being used.

From the engine alone, only about 18% of the potential fuel energy is harnessed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Now, an alternator from a Dodge Ram produces 136 amps.  This is stock but you can get more powerful ones and normally do if you are going to put a sound system into it.  In the video shown, 55 amps were needed to split the hydrogen from the water.  A compressor would not be hard to rig up either.  This compressor would pressurize the system.  With the Hydrogen hooked up to the fuel rail, which normally hold the pressure of fuel at about 40 PSI but these all differ on make model, and other requirements.

Using electrolysis on water to produce hydrogen then converting it to power via fuel cell has 98% effeciency
burning it in an internal combustion engine ha s a maximum of 36% efficiency- 45% if it uses diesel ignition.
What that means spoonk is that if you use 10 W to seperate the hydrogen from teh water then burn teh hydrogen in an Ic engine, you will only get  3.6 W of power out of the IC engine. Water is not fuel. Ever. Even with electrolysis it is effectively a storage medium, not a source of energy.
And yes, it can be hard to store, which makes it a difficult medium for storage *transport* even if it is effecient.
And while you may be a back yard mechanic I am an engineer.

Yeah, generally what I consider "Free Energy" isn't really free.  You're losing energy in the system, but if you can make it so that the energy you're harnessing to perform the procedure is "Free to you", or of a nature that is less useful/valuable than the energy you're obtaining, that's all that matters.

Solar-powered Hydrogen separation, for example, isn't going to produce more energy than it takes in.  But you can do a lot more with the stored hydrogen (port it to another device unconnected to the solar generator or sell it to someone else, for example) than you can the solar energy, which is going to be released as heat whether your use it or not.

To be fair, though, that's not what he said.  Hydrogen is an excellent energy storage medium, since it converts into energy at a very good rate.  Certainly better than fossil fuels.

Now, you're kinda right that getting it out is a problem.  We can mass-produce hydrogen quite easily; even on a small scale, you can do it with stuff around your house.  We used to do it in my middle school science class.  The problem is as you say: we have to get it to the car, and since it's a gas very similar to helium, you can't just fill a can with it.  It'd be like trying to fill your tank with helium balloons.

Spoonk: the biggest problem is that in order to use hydrogen as our primary fuel, we'd have to change everything over.  Every car, every gas station, everything.  There isn't any real way to convert a gas-powered engine to hydrogen, you'd have to replace the engine.  By the time you've gone that far, you'll need to replace most of the cars innards as well, since the engine won't be the same size or shape.  At this point, you may as well build a new car from scratch, since you've had to change just about everything except the chassis.

I'm done debating this.  I'm the only nut here who thinks that this is not impossible.  So, I'm just going to drop it like with every thing else I bring up.  I brought it up and that is all I really wanted to do.

It'd probably be a slow process, to be sure; but most gas stations take into account a secondary fuel (usually Diesel, since it's what Tractor Trailers use).

If hydrogen fuel is a better cost-per-mile, it'd be worth it investing the capital into revamping our infrastructure in respects to the Trucking industry; cheaper fuel means cheaper goods.

It would take some government effort through regulation and/or construction, though, for the reason that even if it is cheaper in theory, in practice it may be impractical if only a few gas stations decide to supply hydrogen fuel.

More effecient does not mean cheaper. To begin with to create hydrogen you have to get the initial power from somewhere. Currently most power in the US comes from teh burning of fossil fuels, so any fossil fuel used in power generation could be used more effeciently i running automobiles than hydrogen because it would be, in esssence, skipping steps. Even coal can be put through a fuel cell- interestingly when it is processed thsi ay one of the byproducts of teh initial stages is a fuel which can be used in transportation, and cheaply if our power infrastructure were to convert our current steam driven generators to using coal fuel cells, as well as reducing the consumption of coal.
Hydrogen really becomes usefull when the power grid is being run by hydro-electric, wind, solar and nuclear power.

Silveroak is correct. It's easier to consider hydrogen as 'energy storage' than 'energy source' (unless you're running a RAM scoop in space or something).

As for the ease of upgrading ... I'm dubious on that. Diesel in fact preceded gasoline by several decades, is a fully mature technology used around the world, with consumption at the same exponential level of gasoline, using the same technology for storage and pumping, and I STILL have trouble finding diesel in most areas. Hydrogen shares none of those traits.

I'm apart of the "Climate Change, my ass" group.  When I come upon articles that support that fact I like to point it out.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-dat...rmism-192334971.html

I don't subscribe to the "global warming" crisis myself, but climate change is a fact.  It's just part of the cycles of Planet Earth.

I guess my question is where is that line drawn between 'alarmist' and non-alarmist models? The word itself is highly charged, even saying 'than some of the most dire predictons' would have been as accurate and less inflamatory, as the word 'alarmist' paints those who used teh model as having an agenda and being wide eyed fanatics as opposed to simply having guessed wrong on their models- and at least the question of indirect heat trapping was raised by these mistakes. It seems to me that the 'anti-alarmist' rhetoric about attempting to secure conformity of thought and compliance to the norm which, as a matter of social or political pressure is anathama to real science.

Great, they raised the Debt Ceiling.  Cutting it awfully close, but at least I only have to worry about whether the VA check is going to be late, rather than it not coming at all.

As a head's up, I'll be at GenCon for the next week, so I probably won't be hangign around here. Try not to kill one another!!

So it does not inturupt the flow of the conversation in the global warming thread I am posting this here- glossing over the libel spouted by GMC does not resolve my objections, and if an apology is not forthcoming, or if alternately some administrative action is not taken in response to his litterally criminal behavior, I will be departing what is rapidly becoming a hive of scum and litteral villainry for more civilized partners in conversation. This is not a matter of hyperbole, GMCs comments broke the law and are injurious, and if those who claim to eb keeping conversation civil on this forum cannot offer anything beyond 'now settle down kids' and there is no appology forthcoming then I see no point in continuing here.

A person makes a strawman attack (perhaps not even intentionally) against your anonymous online account on a forum with no more than 50 readers and you feel that is injurious? Not speaking as an admin, just as a user, but I guess I can't see the argument there.

You are, of course, welcome to stop engaging any particular user or topic. I've done so a few times, and generally when enough people stop taking the bait, the offending user disappears. I'd recommend that before leaving the entire forum. You're certainly a valuable contributor. But if you decide you'd like to leave altogether, that is of course your choice, and you are always welcome to return.

Once again, this is not an issue of a strawman attack. I posted a specific statement, multiple times, then he posted that my belief was the direct opposite than this, and that this belief reflected poorly upon my professional skills. A strawman is not ad hominem, which his attack certainly was, but instead relies upon anonymous people espousing a belief which in fact nobody espouses.
GMC repeated use of straw men and ad hominem attacks have already poluted this forum the point that it's value and basic decency are comprimised, but this latest went beyond this and crossed a clear legal limit in which he made specif false claims about me in order to besmirch my reptation.
Now at this point there are 4 possible resolutions:
1) GMC can appologize and retract his statement.
2) He can be kicked out of the forum for repeatedly violating its terms as well as crossing the line into criminal behavior.
3) I can sue RPOL. Despite their claims of non-responsibility courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that moderation is all or nothing- they would therefore be liable for GMC's libel. That principle, BTW, also applies to the moderators of this forum, should I pursue such a suit RPOL's best defense (once they spoke to an actual lawyer) would be to throw the forum moderators to the wolves.
4) I can alk away and wash my hands of what is rapidly proving itself to be a worthless forum easilly dominated by a vile troll despite claims of it being moderated.

So in short if you aren't going to actually moderate, don't pretend to. If you don't agree what he did is libel explain what part of the definition you don't think applies. Because he did not simply present a straw man argument, he specifically claimed it was my belief despite the fact I hd already posted the complete oppositw, then went on to claim that my clients should be wary of me for espousing such a belief, insinuating criminal behavior (fraud: that I am attracting clients by making promises based on impossible claims).
If you are unable to moderate such extreem behavior then as moderators you are not worth the dirt your bodies will eventually decay into.

A defamation suit requires a few things.  First of all, it must be an injurious statement presented as fact, not opinion.  Second, you must be able to prove actual damages occurred.

The statement I made regarding silveroak was an opinion.  It wasn't even an argument, it was an opinion.  (It wasn't even a strawman either,or an ad hominem: those only apply to fallacious arguments, not opinions.)  Also, I can't see how any actual damage occurred, even to his reputation; even if he had a client on here, this is an anonymous forum.

Now, you don't have to like the opinions I hold about your erroneous statements.  That's your choice.  And you can certainly walk away from this forum, if that's your desire.  But repeatedly demanding that I apologize because you can't handle my *opinion* on an erroneous statement you made?  In my opinion, that's childish.

You stated specifically that I believe that solar cells are a source of infinite power. I had already stated that they could not be. As such that is a statement of fact, not opinion.
As to damages: from http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html


note there is notrhing in there about damages occuring.

also

Guys, we really don't need to have a big legal argument about what's libel. The only person who is in a position to actually comment on that is Heath (or, if silveroak cares to take a gaming website to court, silveroak's lawyer).

I gotta admit, still just speaking as a person and not a moderator, this whole argument seems, frankly, a little silly. Silveroak's feelings may have been hurt, but he's not going to lose any business over what one anonymous internet guy said to his anonymous internet account on a gaming site. GMC ... I don't know what you were trying to do. Silveroak is clearly upset that you misrepresented him. Why don't you just apologize for accidentally causing bother, and silveroak can apologize for upsetting you, and you two can shake and move on with your lives.

Actually, the offensive statement was: "If you didn't know that, I felt worried about your clients."  And :"worry: is a statement of opinion, not fact.

At any event, your google-fu is weak, grasshopper!  Try reading more than one site for what you're looking for: http://www.expertlaw.com/libra...jury/defamation.html





Sorry, missed this until I was midway done with my post.  I'm no more than mildly annoyed at anything silveroak has done, and normally I apologize for giving offense.  However, his demands that I retract and apologize for what was, at best, an unclear (and at worst, erroneous) statement really strikes me as childish.  It strikes me that he only really wants the retraction, to prove he was right, and IMO is throwing a temper tantrum to get it.  If he shows me that's not the case, that my statement was actually offensive and not just a sore reaction to being caught as wrong, I'll apologize for hurting his feelings.

Since I have a feeling this isn't going to just get dropped, I've bumped the metadiscussion thread for you two.  Please keep any further discussion of the he-said-I-said stuff, and legal issues there rather than here in the OOC thread.

Crud, I was tidying up the user list and I totally just accidentally deleted rubyslipper's account! I'm so sorry, that was totally on accident! I'm going through the private messages though and I can't find your RTJ. PLEASE please please just send a new RTJ and I'll put you right back in right away! I feel so embarrassed :( (there's a USER with the name 'rubyslippers' as well, so I was looking at the wrong column and clicking too fast.)

If I accidentally deleted anyone else, it wasn't anything personal, I promise! There's just a lot of names. Send an RTJ and I'll put you right back in :) :)

I'm going to go out on a branch and guess that the rubyslippers user name is ALSO the rubyslippers player name, and re-add you like that. (In which case, you're a rascal for having two user names!)

Wait! Found you! Wow, you've been around here longer than I have! You deserve a gold star or something!

I think the whole defamation thing is a non-issue because everyone here is anonymous.  You can't hurt the reputation of an anonymous person, except within this community and under the assumed name.  That doesn't mean it's not wrong to misrepresent people, but bringing legal issues like that here is not proper either and seems more of a threat than an argument.  If I made that claim every time someone misrepresented what I said, I'd make it after most posts...

The best you can do is call it out for what it is and move on.

Ugh, saw something today that made me really upset until I looked into it further.

Something about Home Makeover; White House edition.

The way the advertisement was going on about it, I thought they were going to start tearing down walls in the White House.

But it's just a First Lady Cameo.  Very relieved.

Just to let you guys know, I'll be on holiday next week, so probably won't get a chance to post anything here.  Will try to catch up when I get back.

When I look at these subjects now, it feels like they are almost all political.  I miss the days of the religious debates.

Well start one :P I think we got into politics because we've already covered so much ground in religion.

I think it's because the people here are more fired up about politics than about religion.  I've tried to get some of the threads going again in the past, but they didn't really go anywhere.  Instead, homosexual marriage or some other controversial subject takes over again.

Hmm...We could start Justification by Faith or Works as a thread for those who know about it.

There's already a thread about that in here somewhere.  I think it's a more general "faith" thread.  We went over that area with significant fervor a few years back.

Started a new thread for it.  I looked for the old one(s), but after a bit of searching, I figured we may was well just start fresh.

It was a debate that rogue and I went into great detail about.

The concept was this:

Rogue:  All you need is faith to be saved, and if you have faith you will naturally have works; but even that is inconsequential since Jesus will forgive your sins.

Heath:  Faith is required, but faith without works is meaningless because you must live what you believe, and Jesus only forgives those who are truly penitent, meaning that faith without works is worse than no faith at all; forgiveness is not premised on faith but on desire and effort to live that faith.

Saw this today and thought some might be interested:
http://online.wsj.com/article/...594872796327348.html
Basically, after all the hoopla of "climate gate," some non-climate scientists decided to check if the story of global warming was just a product of group-think or data-fudging.  At least some members of this group were "climate skeptics" and had been pretty harsh on their attacks of some "main stream" climate scientists.  They rounded up funding (including a big check from the Koch brothers) to do their own analysis of the temperature data, and try to find instances of bias in the climate research.  And, after crunching all the numbers, taking into account all the problems the "climate skeptics" kept pointing to, they got...pretty much the exact same result as the "main stream" climate scientists.  (You know, the ones who the media made such a big deal about a while back, and people were saying were frauds and the like).

Will it change anyone's mind?  I have no idea.  Most of the folks who still deny that the earth is warming are a pretty die-hard group, who I'm guessing aren't going to be swayed this (including folks who said they would accept this group's findings even it it contradicted their views...will be interesting to see how Watts ends up reacting to this).  I'm guessing the people who call climate change a "hoax" are going to still be saying the same thing even after they hear about this.  There might be a few legitimate skeptics who will now say "okay, you've addressed my concerns, and now I'll believe it," but I'm guessing there won't be many of them.  What do you guys think?

I haven't read the article yet, but there are two different issues that should not be confused:

1) Is global warming occurring right now?
2) Is that global warming due to man, and if so, how much?

Most of the skeptics I've read about question that the global warming is due to man (or that we can do much to change it) but admit that global warming is happening based on its normal cycles.

In reply to Heath (msg #81):

Yes, definitely the study only addresses the 1st question.  And while many "skeptics" say warming is happening but it's not due to man, many others said the whole idea of warming is a hoax, and the people who are claiming that it's warming are frauds.  If you look back over the headlines during the whole "climategate" affair, you'll find lots and lots of people who questioned the idea that the earth is getting warmer.  Some people were calling climate scientist criminals, and saying they faked and manipulated all their data.  And in my experience, even those who think the earth is warming but not because of CO2 are much harsher on those who say humans are the main cause of global warming than they are on the folks who say it's not warming at all.  They put far more (ie, all) of their effort into arguing against those who think humans are responsible than they do arguing against those who say it's not happening at all.

My reading on the subject indicates that, whether or not it is happening right now, it is not to the level of alarm raised by Al Gore (who has a financial stake in "green" projects and the scare tactics and whose movie has been proven to be full of problematic facts), nor are humans the primary problem.  Rather, humans provide some of the problem, certainly, but the earth will go through its global warming stage regardless of what we do related to our environmental "footprint."  In other words, being "green" is great, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how much good it'll do related to global warming.

From my reading, Heath's position has some merit. Looking at the geological history of the Earth, most of that time the Earth has been several degrees hotter than it is now. While we're not in an ice age, we are in a period which is statistically much cooler than the average. So eventually, of course, that must change.

And indeed, Gore does personally stand to benefit if people agree with his position, and his book (which Tycho was good enough to purchase and mail to me!) was not a technical document by any stretch of the imagination.

HOWEVER, the majority of scientists in the field do not stand to personally benefit by global warming, and in fact stand to benefit individually by disproving it. And while scientists are generally prone to understatement (or at least, not much hoopla), if you read the actual articles, the results could be significant, costing easily in the trillions.

And while the Earth does have its own natural cycles, the recent shifts have been at a pace which are clearly breaking that pattern in regards to speed alone. What is most unfortunate is that, while we have benefited from a few millenia of depressed temperatures, that is not the point of stable equilibrium, and it may be that a little nudge from any cause is enough to push the planet onto a relatively sudden trend back to its much hotter 'normal' condition. This is documented as happening at least once during the early rise of mammals, when some circumstances caused a sudden spike in temperature, and that resulted in ANOTHER, massive spike, lasting thousands of years and causing tremendous loss of life and ecological harm.

I don't know how much impact humans can reasonably have on the situation at this point in the technological curve. There are ideas to definitively solve the problem, but they require technological jumps we just haven't achieved yet. However, as it is a feedback loop, even a small change now will most likely result in a significant impact later on.

What would be very useful is more economic data. National Geographic has touched on this, barely. But something more concrete of '$100B spent in these cuts will result in $X00B savings in 5 years, $XT in ten years, $XT in fifty years'. Something so we can make educated decisions beyond just 'panic, shut everything down!' and 'eh, we can't effect it anyways.'

Here is an article that more clearly demonstrates my understanding of the topic to date:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ral-say-experts.html

It's conclusions:
1) The current global warming cycle is caused by the sun's activities, not human, and
2) In past history, global warming has always done far more good and killed far fewer than global cooling, and the "doom and gloom" naysayers are just plain wrong.

I remember reading once that the flatulence of cows does more harm to the ozone than all the cars in the world, so it would be better for the ozone to become vegetarians and stop breeding cows...

Beware the Daily Mail, although I agree with what it's saying, I would use a more credible source.

That's not my original source.  It's just repeating what I read elsewhere last time I looked at this issue a couple years ago.  There are many sources that say the same thing.

Here's one about MIT scientists saying roughly the same thing:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...t-team-says-yes.html

I found it interesting that a judge in Great Britain found that Gore's an "Inconvenient Truth" contained 9 key scientific errors and ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.  The errors resulted in "alarmism and exaggeration."  What's funny is that the judge ruled that the film was politically partisan, and for that reason could not be banned despite the scientific inaccuracies.  He ruled it is a "political film."

And the judge was certainly correct. It is a political film. However, that doesn't mean that global warming isn't a real concern.

And I do agree with you; global warming may have positive effects. No one has really looked at that. But we KNOW it will have negative effects (and I'm not talking about on all animals overall. Just on people.) And it will most certainly have expensive effects, in the transition if nothing else. If the question is 'pay $1bn in LA for more stringent pollution controls' or 'pay $100bn in LA to literally move the city when it becomes too dry to support its population', I think the math is pretty clear, even when San Diego suddenly finds it's a paradise on Earth.

Greetings everyone.

I'm back to check in.  Once I find an appropriate thread I thought I'd share a bit of my own recent journey through the world of Christendom and where I am now.

New guy here.

Just thought I'd give everyone a wave.

*waves*

Welcome back Dolous, and welcome to Kagekiri.  Always good to get some new voices in!

Hello everyone!

Merry Christmas to those celebrating it, and happy other holidays to those who aren't!

And Happy Sunday to the atheists.  :)

:)

(was going to just leave it at that, but rpol apparently wants "some meaningful text" so...er...smiley face!)

Just finished reading 'Is God To Blame?' by Greg Boyd.  Fascinating book dealing with Open Theism and the Warfare model for those into that sort of thing.

Pretty easy read considering the subject matter. And really only an intro into the topic.

Hi. I joined a month or so ago but I've been busy moving house, so I'm just getting to read the forum now.

I'm Pagan (with Buddhist leanings) and live outside of the US (I live in Ireland specifically, though I'm from Australia originally), so I expect I'll have a quite different take on some of the topics discussed here.

A series of videos starting with part one that enlightened me on the subjects of Sexual Biology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP7EBESQTQY

"Lithodid-Man" has a background in Sexual Biology, Crustaceans in particular.

In reply to adrasteia1 (msg #97):

Hiya adrasteia1!  Always good to have another point of view on board.  I look forward to seeing what you have to say.  Conversation has slowed down here a bit the last few months, so we could use some more ideas to talk about!

In totally unrelated news, I saw this today:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...-for-limbaughs-show/
and Poe's law jumped into my mind.  Sometimes the world is just too close to satire.

Thanks for the welcome. :) I'll likely read the threads for a while before I respond, but I will eventually.

Wow, a lot of new people! Introduce yourself, guys and girls, make yourselves at home!

Hi I'm me.

I rub most authorities the wrong way.

Those I don't, I tend to work harder on the next time we meet.

I'm a civil rights activist and a marketing trainer.

Ironically, I've almost assuredly engineered the compliance out of one or more of  you with various ads, marketing campaigns and publicity stunts I've crafted, written, or lead.

I'm a strong anti-theist and consider "tolerance" to be one of the most despicable positions that can be reached.

My hobbies include ...roleplaying, CCGs, mentalism, and confidence games.

Hi!

I'm zibzub. I'm a student of religious studies, and so it seemed to me like it would be reckless of me not to make some effort to be involved here.  I consider myself a humanist atheist (an agnostic atheist, at that, if you want to get picky), but I acknowledge that religion is an important part of the human experience, and I think of myself as being pretty open-minded.

I look forward to my time here! :)

I've actually been here for a while but never post.  There is a politics "game" that draws most of my non-orc-killing attention.

My superhero name is habsin4, but in real life I'm mild mannered Redacted.  I'm an atheist, but my parents are/were respectively active Sufis,  both converts from other religions, Catholicism and Judaism.  My dad suffered a horrible accident and lived the last year of his life in a hospital bed up until he died last year.  That experience gave me my first real appreciation of the value of a spiritual/religious community coming together to help him and help my mom for an entire year in a way I can't say my non-religious social group would.  Maybe I'm just unlucky in my choice of friends, but I don't think I could expect the same level of continuous, self-sacrificing assistance they got over the course of that last year.  Of course, all the social benefits in the world will ever make a non-believer believe.

Also, I have the sad fate of growing up a Redskins, Canadiens, Orioles and Capitals fan.

Beng a Habs fan is not so great recently, but can't complain about cheering for one of the greatest teams of all time. On the other hand the Capitals are sort of the opposite (sooooo bad in the 70s), but what a massive win for them tonight against the Rangers.  Game 7 coming up!  I'm no Capitals fan but I'll be wearing my Ovechkin jersey just because I think he's awesome.

In reply to Doulos (msg #105):

No kidding!!!!  Wooooo hoooooooooooo!!!  Beating Tim Thomas was sweet enough!!!  Imagine, to go from the President's Trophy/swept in the playoffs last year to barely making the playing/getting to the conference finals this year.  Holtby is going to make me forget Kolzig.

Although, I should also note I am about to have my first baby and spent the evening at Baby Care Basics class, so I hadn't even checked the score when I wrote that.  Thank god iTunes has full games to download and replay.

Also, as a Caps fan, I'm starting to sour on Ovie.  But at least he has a team this year.

Holtby has been amazing for sure.

Ovechkin's jersey has hung quietly in my closet all season as I was tired of his antics, but has he even bought in this postseason.  Blocking shots and really doing what it takes for the team to win games - awesome!

In reply to Doulos (msg #105):

I remember my grandfather's delight last time the Habs won the cup, but it was in French, so I don't know what he said.  But they haven't been good for most of my hockey-aware life.  I think it's been more about my French-Canadian roots/my family than any success for the team.  I hate the Yankees, for instance.

In reply to Doulos (msg #107):

You should see the crowd at a Caps game.  #8 jerseys are farther and fewer between these days.  It's all Backstrom, Semin, Green and the occasional old Bondra jersey.  Though I bet a few Holtby jerseys are going to start showing up.

It's been a while since I've introduced myself, so I suppose it bears repeating :)

I work in computer security. I also do some free-lancing for RPGs. I'm the forum's local Roman Catholic (although not a very good one). I'm interested in all things science and technology, especially posthumanism and cyberpunk. I'm also very interested in mythology and literature.

In reply to Doulos (msg #107):

Oh, heartbreak!!!

Yeah, next year should be interesting for the Capitals.  Wonder what direction the team will take...

The proof of God thread reminded me of a joke.

A university dean is bemoaning the expense of the physics department. "Your equipment is so expensive! Why can't you be more like the Mathematics or Philosophy departments? All they need is pens, paper, and a wastebasket, and sometimes the philosophers don't even need the wastebasket."

I hate doing this to you ... but I honestly don't get it.

It means even when they come up with "the wrong answer" (or more directly metaphorically "garbage") they print and publish it anyway.

To go through the long list of relevant terms, I am a humanist, a naturalist, a freethinker, a scientist, a bright, secular, a secularist, and a Christian. Just about the only terms I see as contradicting my Christianity are skeptic and atheist (and I get my fill of being a skeptic at work). I was raised RC, but am not a good Catholic, and see myself as a more generic Christian.

I am a mathematician (with a full wastebasket to prove it), design/operate weather satellites, and publish in engineering journals. My results are grist for climate scientists, but I am not one myself, and I am not going to get involved in any climate discussions.

In reply to hakootoko (msg #116):

Hakootoko, I wanted to be a mathematician, and by my second year of uni work, it was clear to me I didn't have the "wiring" and instead got my degree in Physics :)

Nice to have you aboard.  I'll not pick at your self-description, because my list people find puzzling too... :)  Just know that I'm puzzled at how you can add Xian to Bright and a few others.  (I take you to mean Bright in the Daniel Dennet sense of the word).

I only add bright because I'm not "a dim". If people choose to invent misleading or unfair terms, I reserve the right to misuse them. "Bright" had an established meaning before Daniel Dennet came along :)

A humanist is one who cares about humans, or one who studies the humanities. Erasmus, the great humanist, was also a Christian.

A naturalist is one who doesn't believe in the supernatural. Regardless of what you believe in, there is no such thing as the supernatural. If ghosts exist, they are natural; if God exists, he is natural; if unicorns exist, they are natural.

A freethinker is one who reasons things out, sometimes coming up with different answers than the established authorities. I would hope everyone here is a freethinker, willing to listen to other contributors and willing to change their minds on occasion.

I put both secular and secularist to this, because of the odd usages I've seen for these terms. To be honest, I often have no idea what people mean when they use the term secular. Its classical usage (when applied to a person) is someone who is living "in the world", not under monastic vows. A secularist is one who is in favor of a secular country (one with separation of church and state); it benefits both to be separate.

I'm glad you explained those, because my most common definition for many of those words do not at all match yours.

Hi all.  Sorry I've been quiet recently.  Was on holiday, and didn't get any computer time.  If there are any posts waiting for a response from me, I'll try to get to them in the next couple days.

I'm hesitant to call a week without computer access a 'holiday' ...

In reply to katisara (msg #121):

Heh!  Was actually very nice to get away from email and such for a while.  Much easier to relax when I didn't feel I needed to "keep up" with everything.

Hola people. I'm an Agnostic with humanist and, yes, spiritual leanings. Lawyer and financial advisor by profession. Is it true that both atheists and orthdox religious folk can't stand agnostics because they can't "make up their minds"?  :)

Naw.

Agnosticism is a different axis from theism/atheism.

It's like Lawful/Chaotic and Evil/Good (only without actual moral implications like that)

You can be a gnostic theist. "It's possible to know whether God exists, and I know that he does."

an agnostic theist: "It's ultimately unknowable whether God exists, but I believe that he does."

a gnostic atheist: "It's possible to know whether or not God exists, and he clearly doesn't."

an agnostic atheist: "It's not possible to know for sure whether or not God exists, but I don't believe that he does."

I'd count myself as the last one.

I think that's a good way of describing it, AG. :)

And now for something compleetly different!

Did you know that this forum contains over 1.5% of all the posts on RPoL? I did the math a minute ago and out of over 4000 games this one acounts for more than a percentage point of all posts... Kinda makes you think; doesn't it?

There is more nuance there than I had thought about.  Thanks.  I guess I use the term in a more "layman" [hehe] sense in that I "don't know for sure, but am open to the possibility." In other words I haven't drawn a concrete conclusion.

I am interested in discussing spirituality vs. religion, if anyone else is.  Basically, I know a few quite religious folks who basically say "you can't be spiritual without religion, because that is like morality without God."

I disagree.  What I want to know is what can atheists, deeply religious people, and everyone else who cares agree on as far as Big Ideas go? Maybe those are the things we should focus on as a species.

I have to admit I did a poor job on my introduction post. I didn't even state the point I was trying to make by using all those terms.

There are many terms bandied about as near-synonyms of atheism, such as those I used above, but the concepts they entail don't have to be specific to atheism. Some (not all) theists can fit into the these categories.

I most regret throwing in the term bright. Some of the rhetoric in religious debate is so biased that it irks me and I overreact. Defining your own side as smart (and thus the other side as stupid) is about as biased as one can get.

It's an interesting take on the term agnostic, AtomicGamer. I always thought of it as "the nature of God is unknowable" rather than "the existence of God is unknowable". I checked a couple of online dictionaries to make sure I wasn't flat out wrong here, and they are giving ambiguous answers (don't they always?)

The farthest I agree with towards that definition of agnosticism is that the existence or non-existence of God currently appears to be unprovable.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the term bright used in that context before. What exactly did you mean by it?

---

The main reasons I haven't commented in the debate threads yet are because:

1. There are just so many posts/so much to read, and
2. I tend to see the topics discussed more from a personal viewpoint than from the context of their ties to American politics and policy.

I'm not in America so don't have the same background knowledge to work with. I'm from Australia but have lived in Ireland for around 13 years, and have noticed that in many ways this is a more conservative country.

I tend to live in a reasonably detached way and have adopted my own philosophies and opinions on things. I consider myself pagan, so I'm used to my religion being viewed as a minority, if it's recognised at all.

As for politics, I don't vote here because I'm not from Ireland, and I don't vote for Australian elections because it's not required of me living out of the country. I've long been of the opinion that voting for a particular party won't necessarily be voting for the best person to do the job. However, in the recent past my views have become somewhat more liberal.

Mostly this is just a post to say I'm still around and reading from time to time.

Don't be intimidated. Yeah, there's a LOT of old posts, but the majority of the people around right now haven't read them :P It's all new to us.

Posting about your personal view, or even better, about something other than politics, would be awesome, really. If you want to share something about Paganism, or discuss philosophy or whatnot, those are all great topics I'd love to participate in.

Naturally. But it's also because the term is so ambiguous.

I think it's kept like that for a reason, people who base their life in faith, don't want what they have faith in to be nailed down to a single definition that can then be proven or disproven.

But it's not that simple, of course, who could agree on how to define 'God' anyway. Who's to say that would be the correct definition.

I myself completely reject the term 'supernatural' if something exists and can affect the natural universe, it is part of the natural universe in some fashion and can be quantified, or it's interactions can be at any rate.

It surprises me that people can even hold a serious discussion while maintaining ambiguous terms. Everyone will come out of it not understanding what the others are saying. Perhaps that's why I went into mathematics: for the rigorous definitions.

I've seen theists and anti-theists offer very similar, simple definitions of God that I find a good starting point for discussion. The definitions that fail, IMHO, are the ones that try to say too much. I don't doubt that there are people unwilling to give a definition, but perhaps such people aren't really willing to discuss religion at all.

A monotheist is someone who believes in the existence of an omnipotent being. There cannot be more than one omnipotent being, because if you take two of them and they contest, at least one of them will fail to win the contest and thus is not omnipotent. So there is at most one omnipotent being, and in English the most common proper name for this being is God. (I was tempted to be more terse and say "God is the unique, omnipotent being", but uniqueness doesn't need to be part of the definition, so I went for the more long-winded version.)

In reply to hakootoko (msg #133):


I know I'm being pedantic here, but there's a lot more to it than that.  A monotheist is not someone who merely believes that there is a singular omnipotent being; they believe that you should worship said being.  Theism specifically refers to gods, as in divine beings, and not a mere creator of the universe.

This distinction becomes more clear when we examine the term pantheist, or pantheon.  A panthiest worships multiple gods, and a pantheon is a group of gods.  Those gods may or may not be responsible for the creation of the universe, but they are still divine and worthy of worship.  For example, take the Greek pantheon: Zeus was not the creator of the universe, but he was the leader of the gods.  None of the Greek gods were omnipotent either.

(Honestly, I'm a little confused as to how the Hebrew god was assigned omnipotence as an attribute.  The god of the Old Testament was anything but; he wasn't even listed as a singular god.  There were several other gods referred to in the bible, YHVH was just the one for the Jews, and they weren't allowed to worship other ones.  They acknowledged their existence, though.)

I have heard this theory before but it takes a great deal of stretching the OT to make it say this.  Other gods are acknowledged but never as true or real, but rather an implied man-made object/god.

However, explicitly the OT does mention there being only one god on numerous occasions such as:

Isaiah 44:6 "I am the Lord all powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God."

What about the Ten Commandments?
"1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 ¶ I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 ¶ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 ¶ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

If you're an only child, you can't be jealous of your other siblings.  How can you put other gods before him, unless there are other gods?

The old testament does make it clear that YHVH is the central god, and the only god for the Hebrews, but not the only god in existence.

To segueway to my favorite topic du jure, my issue with religion vs. more general spiritual tenets (mathematician's gotta love this) is that religions espouse dogma (maybe that is what defines a 'religion' vs. a 'philosophy').

The bottom line on this from my view is that dogma makes no sense. We can certainly get into that. But my larger question is, why don't atheists and believers of different stripes first focus on agreeing on some core values that we should work towards before going down the road about arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin?  It seems like we could make a lot of progress towards helping humanity if we started there.

I am singling out the existence of God, leaving the nature of God to other propositions (such as "Should God be worshipped?" "Is God good?" "Is God the source of morality?" "Do heaven and hell exist?" etc.) By examining atomic questions separately, one come to a clearer understanding of what one believes in.

I personally believe in a number of propositions about the nature of God, in addition to belief in the existence of God. I don't know any monotheists who profess to only believe in the existence of God and not in any facets of his nature, but perhaps there are some. I wonder how such individuals would describe themselves; as Deists, or perhaps as Unitarians? (No offense intended to anyone in either group.)

In reply to Kertook (msg #137):

I would be interested to hear your views on spiritualism and how they differ from religion. I have heard people use the phrase "spiritualism without religion" before, but haven't had the chance to ask anyone what they mean by that. I would also enjoy a topic on commonality between believers and non-believers. I have no intention of debating about angels or the existence of God (presenting a simple definition when asked is as far as I'll go down that path).

As to your other points, most organized religions espouse dogma, but not all aspects of an organized religion are dogmatic. Not all religion stems from organized religion, even among those who were raised in or currently attended the ceremonies of organized religion.

The first definition I find online for dogma is "principles laid down by an authority", and as such I don't think anyone can readily reject all dogma. No one has the time or aptitude to re-derive all of human knowledge to date. Perhaps you only mean to reject all religious dogma and start from a clean slate. Even this I would have trouble doing, because smarter individuals than I have spent their lives working on these principles and I can't just assume they were all wrong and I can do better single-handedly.

I went ahead and split up the conversations into their own threads. That helps with the organization, and keeps people from talking over each other until everyone is confused.

Since some folks were having trouble getting quoting to work:


<quote Tycho>
Blah blah blah.
</quote>


ends up looking like:


If you leave out the "Tycho" part


<quote>
Blah blah blah.
</quote>



You get


Also, if you're reading a message, and press the quote button, it'll wrap the whole thing in the quote tags.  I usually do that, cut the first <quote So and So>, paste it before all the bits I want to quote, and type the </quote>'s in by hand.

Hope that helps!

Good evening friendly folk.

   I guess this is the best place to drop in and introduce myself.

 I am a Bright, an Evidential Naturalist, Humanist, and very likely an Antitheist.

Earlier here I saw another person having some fun with at least one of the terms and I thought I would address a point concerning at least one term.

  A Bright. Amusingly yes Daniel Dennett did decide to co-opt a term to refer to people with a shared set of beliefs about the nature of reality. This appears to get done throughout history in one way or another and has a tendency to add to the language. Another example being the recent use of "Gay" to mean homosexual. A person who is not Gay in this sense is not considered a Dour, they are considered Straight. In much the same way a person who is not a Bright is not considered a Dim, the apparently chosen term has been "A Super".

  While I agree with Hakootoko that if a god, or ghosts or, unicorns exist they are a natural part of reality, to try and play with the term Naturalist in the way he has muddies the water in a manner that doesn't help a discussion. Unless he wants to advocate the complete change of the word to something other than it is (not adding a definition dissimilar from the original as has been done with Gay and Bright) what he has done is necessitate other people explaining they follow the first definition not the altered but similar second. Or Doing like I have done and put Evidential before Naturalist, which likely still will require more explaining.

  Words are funny that way. If we don't have a shared set of definitions for the arbitrary collection of sounds and symbols we use to communicate the transfer of information becomes nearly impossible. A change should be useful, it should add or clarify rather than, muddy or confuse.

  Of Course one has a right to misuse any term or phrase they want, but there should be a purpose to it.

Welcome, PookaJoe. I enjoy meeting people who disagree with me :)

Your point about Gay is well taken. I wonder how non-gay people at the time felt about it (it's certainly been in use since before my time). For myself in my own time, I feel that Bright was meant as a couched insult to those who didn't share Dennett's take on reality.

Mostly what I was trying to convey by all those terms is that people use them as euphemisms for atheism, which muddies the water, because we already have a word for atheism. Life is too full of buzzwords whose meanings are not what they explicitly say. To give more examples, a person who is "pro-life" may not be against the death penalty of in favor of socialized medicine, and a person who is "pro-choice" is not necessarily in favor of free markets, drug use, and prostitution. It's much more clear and direct to call such people anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

  Having read up on Dennett and his reasons for the term "Bright" he does mention the fear some people will take the term as an unintended insult. Which is part of the reason that the term Supers is used for those who are not Brights. To choose a term that doesn't have the same negative connotations as say "Dims".  I would argue that the term Supers has a kind of belittling feel in the same way calling a Child "Big Man" does but I do know from the written works related to it that it was not the intention. (of Course Stated and actual intentions may vary, we seem to be a species enamored with deception after all)

 Another specific intent with the re-branding of the word bright was to make it a noun. In the sense that a person who happens to look at reality in a manner consistent with the new definition are not necessarily bright in the adjective sense they are a Bright. So a Bright can still be very dim.

 The noun Brights as intended by Dennett doesn't include all Atheists. It precludes those atheists who still believe in magic, ghosts, gene manipulating aliens who control society, fairies, a soul, or other concepts That do not mesh with an evidential based Naturalistic world view.

Can't keep up to all the good questions. Don't think I don't want to be challenged, but I'm done for tonight, and when I get back on tomorrow, I'll probably focus on my game games. So until tomorrow, I'll see what I have time left for.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 145):

I don't doubt you TitL

if possible, please don't think that.  I may be very "direct" bu nothing like that.

I'm off to GenCon! Don't burn the place down while I'm away.

Color me jealous!  Have a good time, katisara!

Just wanted to vent this morning, so sadly you guys get it in this thread...hahaha.

My wife decided to bring out kids to a church bible camp thing this week.  It's fun for them an we don't feel too threatened by the strange stuff they might pick up in one week since we talk a LOT in our family about everything.

Anyways, we used to support a young woman about 5 years ago who lived with us and had a disability.  Eventually she decided to move out with her boyfriend and ended up with a child the same age as our youngest.  My wife has kept in touch and this lady decided to send her daughter with our kids to this church thing as well.

This lady is now living alone (her boyfriend was sleeping around and she gave him the boot - good for her, though a difficult choice for her as well I am sure given her lower level of functioning) with her 4 year old daughter.  They live with VERY little money and she has no job and no connections.

Her daughter is clearly wanting human contact and after one day was just LOVING her time with other kids and adults.

Jump ahead to today and my wife (who has been driving this little girl since her mom does not have a vehicle and does not feel comfortable going to the church, but still feels comfortable letting her daughter go) shows up and realises that the little girl did not have breakfast in the morning.  This is not surprising at all, happens all of the time with lower income families etc.

So my wife asks if she can take the girl down to the kitchen to get some food.  This is where things get infuriating.

First, it's only after some sighing that the reluctantly agree to let a person who does not attend the church (my wife) and this outsider little girl enter the kitchen to use up precious church food (like cheese, milk, and some fruit they found).

Second, the little girl brought a piece of cheese up into the sanctuary and dropped some on the floor and the same lady that made a bit of a deal out of letting people into the kitchen got all upset about food being on the sanctuary floor.

Third, the lady starts in on how horrible the mom must be to not have given breakfast to her daughter in the morning.

My wife, through gritted teeth, suggests that education and finances are an issue with this young lady and the response back was "Yeah right."

My wife was livid, but maintained her composure and merely said 'Well hopefully this a good chance for your church to try and love some people in the community.  I need to go now."  And turned and walked out of the building.

She was irate when I talked to her on the phone and used words that she hardly ever uses.

I just don't get how people can be so clealry unaware of their own ignorance in areas like this.  This is exactly why people despise the church and the people inside it and why many of the buildings are withering up into shells of what they used to be.

Honestly, what is wrong with people?!?!?!  ARGH!!!!!

Okay end rant.  I know not everyone is like this, but it's so typical and it's just one of the reasons why we basically stepped out of the organized church - because it's disease ridden like that.

Uff da, yeah, that would be frustrating.  I guess just try to keep in mind that the woman didn't know the whole situation, and was probably thinking more about the church (as in the building) than about the people she was dealing with.  Not the idea, nor an excuse, but presumably she wasn't trying to be deliberately malicious, but rather just wasn't thinking.  Not trying to defend her, I just find it's easy to get over frustrating people if you can come up with a reason to be a bit more lenient of their frustrating ways!  ;)

No, I've known her for 8 years now.  This is expected, though no less infuriating, behaviour.

Oh well, already moved on but just wanted to vent...hahah

I see that all the time too.

I often laugh about it rather than get angry. Usually I'm the one making jokes whether appropriate or not. And I tend to find alot of stuff funny.

However, at the end of the day, I'm glad they are at the church. After all, if a sinner isn't welcome at church, where else will they go?
;)

To people who will welcome them.

I'm sorry, but without a doubt, I see *more* judgementalism and shunning coming from churches than I see welcoming and kindness.  There are churches that are welcoming, but I don't see them nearly as often as I see indifference or outright judging.  And we all know what christ said about judging, right?

Individual christians aren't so bad.  But organized churches?  They tend to be far worse.

Now, to be fair, not all christians or churches are like this.  I can't even say what percentage of them are like this, statistically or anecdotally.  But even one is too many.  There are many nonreligious groups and people who will help, without judgment, without reservation.  In my mind, that makes them better than the greatest of churches.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:28, Fri 17 Aug 2012.

I get what you are saying, but my context was that the sinner was the person already in the church that was negative.

The church is full of sinners. (And that is a good thing) That is where they need to be.


Anyway. I am heading off camping for the weekend with one of my sons tomorrow for the weekend. Should be fun.

I will try and catch up on unanswered threads and posts next week.

No, they need to be where they need help.  All too often, the church isn't that place.

Wouldn't want people going to those awful churches. All sorts of bad stuff going on in those buildings. Like raising money to help orphans, feed the hungry, help those in need of clothes, housing, a warm place, a safe place to get out of the cold, or rain, somewhere children can play, gang members to leave their gang, Where teens can associate and hang out without drugs, or alcohol, where people can confide in their fears, etc

But watch out for some of those christians who aren't perfect, they just might judge you while others are providing those services sincerely. It's better to risk going hungry, cold, join a gang, find a place in an alley near the dug dealers, etc than possibly have someone judge you.

It's tongue in cheek. ;)


I don't know about you, but everywhere I go, work, play, church, I can hear negative comments. That's the world. The organized church is not a monster. It falters due to the same reason every single company in the world does, because of the people that are inside.

Just wanted to add-
Doulous
Thank God your wife was there and was able to serve as an example to that woman. I think everybody won there.

The rude lady can be one step closer to understanding what her role is, your wife grew in experiences and will probably be more prepared to deal with this in the future, and the child was fed.

And it served as a topic of vent discussion. Knowing God, I wonder if that was all for someone reading the posts someday, or someone reading the posts who goes off and influences someone else.

Congratulations, you just described the local community center.  I don't know of a single church that actually does all that, and you don't either. I know individual christians who do some of that, and churches that do a few of those, but only community centers do all of them.  Non-christian community centers, at that.


No, and if you'll stop and read what I wrote, you'll notice that I haven't actually said any of that.  So, dismissing your red herring, the point is that churches are not perfect places.  It isn't a huge leap to realize that the right place for everyone might not be a church.  For some it may be; but for many, it's not.

Yes, I do. Salvation Army for one (though I'm not a member). I've attended different churches not of the Salvation Army as well, and all three are active supporters of numerous causes. Children, education, safety, children groups, teen groups, Food banks, homeless, families in need, etc. I guess I kind of accept this as normal, as that's what I've always seen since I have been going to churches. (Started 14 years ago). Perhaps your experience is different than mine when it comes to helping the community and internationally, but I don't think it should take long to look at your local churches and find they are helping out a number of groups and persons in the community as well.


I'm not saying you did. I was being tongue in cheek about the church not being a good place for many people. I'd have to say that the church, despite it's members. succeed in helping out a lot of people.

I know churches are not perfect. However, the physical needs are temporary, the eternal needs of the soul, that is something that the church is focusing on. In the end, there's a lot of people looking out to provide all the help, physical, and spiritual that they can help to offer.

The reason that is, is because they love people, and they want to share Jesus for eternity.

There's a Salvation Army church not two blocks from my home.  While they're a good place, they have no kids program, no gang outreach program, no teen program, no counseling program-- basically, they don't have half of what you mentioned.  No church does.  Community centers do, however.

I'm sorry to shatter your rose colored glasses, but while churches can be good places for some, they can't offer everything to everyone.


I know far more people who love people who actively help others, without the need to ram a message down the throats of the needy.  Now, to be fair, not all christians who actually help people actively preach to those they help.  But while I know a fair number of truly selfless human beings, a fair number of saints, very few of them are christian.

No Really Cain. There are churchs they do reach out to all those causes. I'll take your word that you know of a church near you that doesn't do it all. I'm not claiming that every single church can do it all. However, you made a statement that no single church does.

I know of multiple churches.

http://www.salvationarmy.ca/20...-cupboards-are-bare/


To be honest, me too. No need for ramming at all. Just serving, helping their needs.

Christians can preach in many ways, sometimes they can even use words.

Look, while I acknowledge that the Salvation Army does a lot of good, they don't even come close to doing everything you describe.  They don't do gang outreach everywhere (or anywhere that I've personally seen).  If you know of multiple churches that do it all, provide a link to a few of them, instead of linking again and again to one that does not.

I freely admit that the Salvation army does a lot; but even they do less than the average community center.


I know many people who serve others out of the goodness of their hearts.  They don't preach at all, with words or otherwise.  They are just kind, generous people.  And yes, a few of them are even christians.

In other words, your assumption that christians only help as a stand in for preaching is actually insulting to christians everywhere.  True saints are not out to preach by example.  True saints help, regardless.

In the city I live in the Salvation Army blows every other community centre, service, and church out of the water when it comes to tangibly helping people in the community.  It's not even close.

The people that work there kill themselves to help the community and regardless of the fact that their understanding of theology does not match mine, I have nothing but massive respect for their willingness to do the tough things to help those who have great need.

Perhaps it is different in smaller centres though - I live in city of under 15,000 people.  The community centre here is decent, and they need to be applauded as well, but the breadth of services they provide is nowhere near the level of the local Salvation Army in town.

From a budgeting standpoint the Salvation Army performs miracles as well (pun intended)  I worked in Social Work in a larger city community centre and I had nothing but money to do whatever I wanted with. So much of it, throughout the system, went to waste on useless things.  This also happens in religious organizations, but the Salvation Army is consistently rated among the top 'thrifty' organizations (in Canada anyways, I can't speak for the USA) when it comes to managing the money they have been given and using it on actual people.

Again, I don't attend a church there, have zero affiliation with them, and have had other interesting experiences with folks running the SA, but I have nothing but positive things to say for how they do actual good work in communities from a tangible help aspect.

Anyways, I am sorry I got folks started on this with my little rant.  Lesson learned.

The salvation army does do a lot of good.  However, even they aren't a one-stop center for all your poverty needs.  They don't have a gang program (that's the community center), a medical clinic of any size (again, community centers or public health centers), or many of the other things that Titl claims they do.  No church has it all, and not even all community centers do.  However, most community centers can and do offer a wider degree of services than the churches can.

I really believe you're discussing things from your own experience, which is fair.  However, I can only speak from mine, and there simply is no place (including the Community Centre) that does everything here.  There is one health centre, but it's a stand alone program.  There is zero support for gang outreach, but we're not big enough that there is a need.

If you need food you get referred from several sources (including the Community Centre) to one of three places - A local Lutheran Church, the Salvation Army, or the Food Bank.

If you need shelter only two places in town provide it, and both are churches.

If you need counselling services then there are several sources, some religious and some non.

There simply is no place that provides everything needed in town, and nor should there need to be.  With local churches and other resources working together, the city has the ability to connect most people with the services they need.

No need for an us vs them, but rather a working together.

True.  But the point is, compare the number of churches to the number of places actually doing outreach to the needy, and you'll see a deficit right away.  Very few churches actually go out of their way to help others.  Some do, and that's a wonderful thing.  But far more do not.

I fully agree there.

I do not think this is a critical issue here. This is not a community center versus church concern. The needs of the people need a church according to God.

I know from experience that there are churches who help so many groups as I have mentioned. This does not seem like a critical issue to prove how much churches help out. Churches are good places, and are generally quite helpful to many needs, physical and spiritual.</quote>




Not my intention to suggest that. I was intending to suggest that christians can preach through people seeing them be christian, and sometimes christians can even preach using words as well.

The research shows that it is people who go to church regularly that are providing the most help financially, and time wise. I do not think this all that shocking though, is it...
This message was last edited by the player at 01:58, Mon 20 Aug 2012.

Churches *can* be good places.  That is true.  They can also be toxic, as the Westboro Baptist Church proves.  And I don't think I'm saying anything shocking when I say that some churches are more helpful than others.

My point is, churches are run by people, and people are not perfect.  What's more, no single church can help with as many needs as a good community center.  And at a community center, there's no risk of self-righteousness masquerading as help, which can and does happen at some churches.

100% incorrect.  There are full on judgemental assholes at community centres as well - working as Social workers or otherwise. I worked with some of them.  They just don't wrap their judgement in religious clothing.

Oh, I didn't say they're judgment free, only free of self-righteousness.  You can't have that unless you believe you're somehow morally or religiously superior to those you're "helping".  You can be a judgmental asshole without being a self-righteous, judgmental asshole.

I don't agree at all.  They have very high horses in which they love to ride on...hahah.  Those folks are 'better' than the clients they serve in their eyes.

You have some sort of odd view of Community Centres that seems really optimistic when my experience with them is like any other place. You have some good people there who will kill themselves to serve the community and then you have some real pieces of work who are there to collect paycheques and see the others around them as clients who are bloodsuckers of the system and not hard workers like 'they' are.

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing my distinction.  In a public community center, they can't pretend that god made them superior to the people they help.  They can still be arrogant, judgmental assholes; but they cannot be self-righteous, arrogant, judgmental assholes, because righteousness is a religious belief.

I don't see how righteousness is only a religious belief.  Atheists are just as self-righteous as the god-believers on many an occasion. They just base their 'righteousness' on their own merit rather than any god given merit.  There is a distinction but I don't see it as any kind of significant one.

All right, shall we say that there's more ways to justify being an asshole in the religious world than the secular one?  There may be no difference in the actual asshole percentage, though.

Hahah perhaps.  Though really it's either 'because God says so' or 'because I said so'

Not sure if I posted it before, but I'm back from a week at Gencon :) Good to see debate is going on. I hope everyone has been good to one another :)

An interesting post on debating. It's aimed at parents teaching their kids, but it really explains the basis of making an argument well:
http://www.figarospeech.com/teach-a-kid-to-argue/

In reply to katisara (msg # 179):

Nice article.

A good example of my thread on Religion and Rhetoric in practice, and a good primer.  I also recommend the book "Thank You For Arguing," by Jay Heinrichs.

However, I have to draw one distinction; this article fails to account for a very important aspect present in these discussions:  audience.  Use of pathos, ethos, and logos must always be focused on the intended audience.  That is, who do you want to convince?  In debates like we have here, the audience could be the person you are arguing against, but more likely the audience is the group of people reading but not participating in the debate.  They will read both sides and may change their opinion (or at least come away with a winner in their heads) based on the facile use of these concepts.

That's why "pathos" has a very different function here.  You are not trying (necessarily) to work on the emotions of the person you are arguing against as much as the emotions of those reading the debate.

That's why politicians attack each other in debates.  They are not trying to convince their opponents, but the audience, who has the better ethos, by appealing to the voters' emotions (pathos), and by showing how their plan will work while the other's will not (logos).

LOL.  I was just looking at that article as I was going to close out of it and saw it was written by Jay Heinrichs.  I didn't even notice that while reading it, even while I plugged his book.  Coincidence?

Can a brother get a thread on the "Simulation Theory" of the universe?

Like ... the Matrix?

In reply to Doulos (msg # 184):

Conceptually, if that helps you, yes.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/ is much less suggesting dream inside some "deep" reality, as it were.  While I suppose there may be an implication of deep reality, it makes not claim to it.

I wuld think we would be far more likely to be annihilated as a species before being advanced enough to run simulations such as the ones proposed.  Interesting theory, though not sure how practical it can ever be (though many could say the same about almost any philosophy/religion)

Quick comment.  I really enjoy all of you a little...and some of you a LOT.

Thanks for this forum and I apologize for being so "focused on work" right now that I can't dig in as deeply as I'd like to argument or proof.

Grrrrr then...no replies :(

I'm not sure what you're grring about?

I think everyone is understanding that we don't always have time for the full arguments we'd like to make. We just make do with what we have time to post :)

Revolutionary:  You use the term "Xian" in a lot of your threads to describe a group of people.  Maybe you put this somewhere, but what the heck do you mean when you say "Xian?"

Xian is short for Christian.

Although short for Christian, to me it's lazy spelling, and more importantly, makes me think the debater is speaking in Chinese.

I don't like to type the phrase "chr*st" as I don't accept the concept of "anointed ones"

I dislike it too, but I settle for not capitalizing the word.  Using an X does seem to be lazy grammar in my mind.

"Xian" as Christian comes from the same idea as X-mas for Christmas.  X is the symbol for the cross, and that's where it comes from, or so I've been told.  I actually had an hold housemate who's name was Christian, but often signed his emails and notes and such as Xian, which confused me a bit for a while until I figured it out.  So for me now it doesn't seem odd to see someone use it all, but I do remember back when it did.

My understanding ...and this is hearsay... it is using the Greek letter Chi to stand in for the first sound?

I see...

I agree with Kathulos that it seems Chinese.  In Taoism, for example, Xian means "an enlightened person," but that wasn't the context I was getting from the posts.

It is offensive to some Christians (or christians, if you prefer) to substitute "X" for "Christ" as derogatory, but since they're Christians, they'll probably forgive you.  :)

While my initial inclination was once to see 'Xmas' as someone denigrating to the season, I was informed, like Tycho was, that it has historical precedent as a normal and respectable representation of Christ's name (similar to the P-X hybrid character you may have seen). There's nothing insulting or anti-Christian about 'Xmas' nor, I suppose, about 'Xian', to those who know their etymology. Xian is, however, quite confusing, and it took me a bit to realize what Revolutionary was talking about.

You and I both agree.  I don't find it offensive personally, though it comes across as unempathetic and abrasive, sort of "I don't care what you think; I don't believe so I'm not using it at all.  So there!"

I'm just saying there is a sector of people who do get offended, and if offense is meant, so be it, but I wouldn't want anyone inadvertently offending anyone else.  The historicity is not really relevant when you are talking about whether it offends someone.  The schwastika is another example of something with a positive history that was turned to something else later.

But as for me and my house, I will keep the "Christ" in Christian and Christmas. ;)

EDIT: To put it another way, some people are offended, but regardless, it is discourteous (to most Christians).  If I want to convince Christians to listen to me, I will not be effective if I am denigrating their beliefs through symbols and lack of respect for their core symbolic references.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:35, Tue 02 Oct 2012.

Xian (Hsian) is the modern name for Chang'an, the capital of China during the Zhou dynasty.

But isn't that spelled X'ian?  Xian means "enlightened person."

Could be. I don't speak Chinese, but I've seen it referenced in history books and maps without the apostrophe. Maybe they were just being lazy and leaving it out, and maybe the language is just rich in homophones.

Google maps is spelling it Xi'an.

I bet that written in Hanzi, the two are quite distinct :)

Revolutionary, i hope you don't mind but since you double-posted I just went ahead and deleted one of the duplicates for you.

Not at all!  Thank you

I never mind housekeeping.

I'm not sure if anyone else is in the area to be affected by the hurricane, but how is everyone? We had a mighty wind last night, but our yard has already been cleared of trees from the past three big storms and we're on a hill, so mostly we were just playing the waiting game and enjoying free days off.

It's starting to sound like you're in my area, katisara.

We federal employees in the Washington DC area got bonus holidays yesterday and today due to the storm, and I responsibly stayed home reading books and the internet. There was a lot of wind and some rain, and as yet I don't know how bad the neighborhood looks because I can't see much of it from my windows.

Things look a lot worse in NYC and NJ, but I don't have any first-hand knowledge of that, and I'm sure you're reading the news for those places just like I am.

I hope the casualties due to the storm are minimal. Lots of property damage is to be expected, but so long as people are well, they can rebuild. I hope FEMA has learned how to help people, and hope we will not be seeing post-Katrina-like news stories in the coming days.

http://www.180movie.com/

It's an online video. It makes a few claims, like 33 minutes that will rock your world. A comparison of the holocaust compared to a modern day holocaust.

Of interest was at the beginning of the video, and it was asking people who Hitler was. And they didn't know. There was even one who couldn't point out his picture among other people.

It does have a few graphic images, such as showing dead bodies and the like from the holocaust. I think it should be something that should encourage some discussion and possible alter your view on life.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 207):

Great Godwin batman!

For those who want a little more info on the video, it's an anti-abortion film, in the "interview on the street" style, with a bonus "become a christian" message at the end, and plenty of "please don't vote for anyone who thinks abortion should be legal"  lines throughout (the "because if you do you're a nazi" part is strongly implied, but not stated outright).  It relies heavily on the "these random people we interviewed on the street couldn't answer our questions, therefore no one can" school of debate.  The basic overall argument seems to be:  Hitler is evil because he killed millions of jews.  Therefore abortion is wrong.  Also, become a christian.

Street interviews?  "Totally Legit" conversions caught on film?  I haven't checked the vid out, but is it a Way of the Master episode, or otherwise organized by Ray Comfort and his ministry?

I'm going to refrain from watching the video until I get a confirmation on that (don't want to spoil the double-blind test).

I remember "Expelled" pretty much being the same thing, "Hitler Believed X, therefor X is bad/false".

Considering that the Nazi party implemented the death penalty for abortion, the whole narrative comes off as extremely dishonest in its very premise.

In reply to Sciencemile (msg # 209):

Full points for that guess, sciencemile.  Ray Comfort it is.

Yeah, I always find it a bit odd when christians try to use the holocaust as a talking point, since what happens to the Jews (at least those who weren't christians, which is nearly all of them) after the holocaust is actually much worse according to protestant theology (ie, they go to hell).  Hell is basically like a never-end concentration camp, but (we're told) God sends the jews there for pretty much the same reason the jews were sent to the real concentration camps: for having the wrong religion.  Does no one else see the irony of calling Hitler evil for his treatment of the jews, and then calling God "loving" for treating the jews even worse in the afterlife?

Then it gets weirder, since he goes into the whole "have you ever told a lie?  have you ever stolen anything?  have you ever used the lords name in vain?  Oh, really?  So you're saying you're a lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer then?  So you deserve to go to hell, right?" schtick, which sort of undermines the whole "Hitler was evil for killing these innocent people" idea, since, oh, no one is actually innocent, and we all actually deserve much worse than Hitler dished out apparently.  If we all agree the people who died in the holocaust didn't deserve that treatment, why then do some people think that absolutely everyone deserves treatment infinitely worse than that from a "loving" deity?

There's a darker bit to the movie than all that, though, which was somewhat subtle, and possibly not even intended, but I find rather chilling.  At the start, before they get to abortion, and it's only about hitler, they ask people "imagine you could go back in time and you were a sniper pointing a gun at hitler before he carried out the holocaust.  Would you shoot him?"  Most (all?) of the people they ask say they would.  The interviewer never actually gives his position, or tells you what he thinks people 'should' do in that hypothetical, but they video seems to imply that everyone thinks it would be okay to kill hitler to stop the holocaust (which, by itself is a questions worth investigating and I can see arguments on both sides, all complicated by the fact that you're forced into the binary 'kill hitler now let the holocaust happen' option, but whatever).  Then they start switching the topic to abortion, and never really link back to that question about killing hitler, and whether it's right or wrong to do so.  But if people who provide abortions "are just like hitler", what message is that meant to send?  Like I say, I'm not entirely sure they intended that message (I'm also not sure they didn't), but it's easy to see how someone could take that message away from it, and see it as their moral duty to go out and start killing people who provide or get an abortion.  We've seen people do this in the past, and everyone knows that passions run very high on this issue.  I don't think it's responsible to encourage that sort of behavior, and people who make videos, even ones that are intentionally one-sided like this, need to take care not incite people to violence.

There's way too many issues in your response to discuss at once, so I'll just grab a couple of them. Feel free to accuse me of "picking and choosing" :) And, no, I'm not going to bother watching the video; it's probably so slanted that it will piss me off and I'll quit halfway through.

Abortion is only similar to the holocaust in that it is a state-sanctioned killing of people who haven't committed crimes. In no way are abortion supporters comparable to nazis, because they support it from a human rights perspective.

I agree that asking the question about killing Hitler sends a dangerous message because it can put people into the erroneous mindset that it's okay to kill doctors who are obeying the law. Vigilantism isn't justified; there is a peaceful way to change, through legislation and the courts, and that's where people should democratically take these issues. Personally, even if I could go back in time and kill Hitler before the holocaust, I wouldn't do it. Firstly he isn't guilty of murder before committing it, and secondly I accept a biblical prohibition of the death penalty.

I can't say for sure that every single one of the people he "interviews" in his propaganda pieces are actually payed actors, but quite a few of them are; one of the most notorious examples is when you can see the script one of them is reading off of the reflection of her sunglasses.

Quite a few of these "random people" have histories in the porn industry, interestingly enough.

But hey, from his point of view it's perfectly okay to lie, because we're all liars.

EDIT:  It's one thing to be against abortion; it's another to support dishonest little pukestains like Ray Comfort and his Banana Buddy Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron as if they're a pair of stand-up, legitimate voices.
This message was last edited by the GM at 13:00, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

I always have to pause and reflect on this position.

Is it okay to kill in order to protect "non-humans" who are:
Black slaves?
Jews?
Russians?
Fetuses?
Animals?

If you honestly, after deep reflection and consideration, believe that something is a human, with all the natural rights (sorry sciencemile) that humans possess, and that they are being killed in massive numbers, at what point IS it justified (or not) to kill to protect them?

In reply to katisara (msg # 213):

In answer to the question, my view tends to be that if there's a non-violent way of changing the system, you should take that approach, with the caveat that if that way is too slow/difficult for you, and you do decide to take the violent approach, that you accept that you are declaring open war on the system itself.

I can understand people pushing to get Roe-v-Wade overturned through the various legal channels.  I disagree with them for the most part, but I can accept that people will disagree with me, and that we have to have some system for deciding who gets their way, which sometimes will go my way, and sometimes not go my way.

I can also understand people going into violent revolt when they view their government as so corrupt and immoral as require it being taken down and destroyed.  If the anti-abortion side were to launch a revolt against the US government over abortion, I would still disagree with them, would view them as killers, but would could at least understand that they felt it was the only way to get something they considered more important than peace.  (This is sort the civil war situation--the south felt strongly enough about their right to slavery that they were willing to toss out the government and go into revolt over it.)

What I don't really get is vigilante killing of someone who's not breaking a law.  That sort of a "I want the system to protect my beliefs when I get my way, but I want to be able to ignore the system when I don't," which isn't really how democracy works.  Non-violent breaking of the law can be a more valid form or protest or disagreement, but killing/violence to me says "I reject this system, and there is no other way for me to get my way than to kill people who disagree with me."

Going back to the movie TitL linked to, if they had come right out and said "abortion doctors are like hitler, so we should kill them," I would have found it horrifying, but at least honest on their part.  As it was, it sort of seemed like a sneaky message they were sending.  Like they were trying to say "go kill abortion doctors" without coming out and saying it, and thus avoiding the reaction most people would have to such a message.  It seemed either slippery (if it was done on purpose) or irresponsible (if they didn't realize how that message could come across).  And that's sort of independent of (or in addition to) the badness (in my view) of the message of killing abortion doctors itself.

Don't know if anyone else has seen this. but i have no idea on how i actually feel about this or which side is in the right. Although a cash award wa a little steep, a divorce should have been enough

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...warding-120-000.html

If an individual honestly believes that what is being aborted is a person - an individual with full rights - then killing a mass murderer to prevent the mass murders actually makes a great deal of sense.  In fact it could be seen as the absolute best decision under that line of thinking.

I am really unclear on the issue myself (regarding birth control, rights of women, abortions etc etc), and lean far more towards being non-violent in general, so that line of thinking doesn't work for me AT ALL, but I can absolutely see why it makes complete and logical sense from one certain specific standpoint.  I do think it ignores so many other logical issues of course.

Also the issue of Hitler vs God - Hoolocaust vs Hell, isn't quite as clear as Tycho might want to lay out (though I actually agree that the God of most evangelical thought is an horrifically evil individual).  It could be argued that Hitler killed the Jewish people for being Jewish, an act that they don't have a choice in, but that God is sending the Jewish people to hell, not for being Jewish, but for the intentional act of not giving their lives over to be ruled by Him.  Again, I think it's complete garbage on SO many levels, but there is a distinction there that individuals can make.

Just to be clear, Comfort puts on the video that they condemn violence to protest abortion.

What if the Jews were Saved before dying? :/

One need not have someone available to confess to before dying to reach Heaven. You can bang against the oven your burning in for Jesus to save you and he'd listen.

Some churches helped jews during the holocaust by issuing fake baptism certificates, so that the jews could claim to be christians, and thus avoid being taken to the concentration camps.  This seems to indicate to me that it was something jews did have a choice in it (at least in the same "do it my way or you die" sense of the word choice that God/Jesus is said to provide).  Granted, I could easily believe that the nazis wouldn't honor a baptism certificate if they could prove the person was of jewish heritage, and I'm certainly not trying to paint them as tolerant or anything.  I can agree, though, that "we'll kill you for being the wrong religion," while still evil is arguable less evil than "we'll kill you for being the wrong race."

In reply to PushBarToOpen (msg # 215):

Does sound pretty absurd to me.  Though, since it's a story in the daily mail the they picked up from a fox outlet, I'm guessing there's a few details missing.  But who knows, I guess.  China's a very different place, and I'm certainly no expert on their culture, so can't really guess how outlandish such a result would be viewed over there.

According to most protestant views, the same thing would happen to them that would happen to any of the nazi's working at the incinerators who happened to repent on their death beds: they'd go to heaven.

But, I would put more or less the same question back to you:  What if instead of converting to christianity as they burned, they instead prayed to the God who they had followed their whole lives?  Or prayed to no god at all, since they felt abandoned?  Or converted to Islam at that final moment instead?  Does it make sense to you that an eternity of torture worse than what they were going through at that moment (!) should result from whatever theological decision they made in the throws of agony as they died?  One decision, out of all the decisions they ever made in their lives, and one made under conditions as horrible as possible for good decision-making, and the most horrible punishment imaginable (or, beyond imagining, really) rests on it.  To me that doesn't make any sense.  It doesn't seem "good" or "just" or "loving" at all.  It seems capricious and malicious.

Funnily enough, you don't get natural rights until you're born, according to how people usually phrase the meaning.  But I personally find it irrelevant to the situation, as I've mentioned before.

And of course Ray Comfort, slimy weasel that he is, makes it clear that he's not going to take responsibility for all the doctor-killings he's trying to inspire.  But no matter what he says, his propaganda is the very example of blood libel.



Is it okay to kill to protect human beings like doctors?  Should we start going into churches and shooting preachers who encourage the murdering of doctors?

If these people are willing to murder and lie for their beliefs, what reason do we have to take the position seriously, rather than just labeling the whole movement as a terrorist threat to the nation's medical infrastructure?

As soon as you start using violence in lieu of reason, you invite violence back.  The fact that the other side of the argument isn't using the same tactics as the pro-life movement says quite a bit about both side's scruples or lack thereof.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:23, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

This is a very good point. Violence only leads to a vicious cycle of escalating violence.

They'd likely go to hell. But that's why the Word of God has spread across the world, and is preached even with risk to life. God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, and that's why He made a way to save as many people who want to.

Hell is what we deserve, because of actions, we are sinful, and desire evil.

God has made a way through Jesus Christ, to save any who choose it.

Imagine for a moment you were on deathrow for a crime you committed. The Governor could pardon you, but he doesn't. Does that mean the governor is being unfair just because you would rather be pardoned?

Plain and simple, God is not unfair just because you say He is. More so, He's provided a way for everyone, regardless of what they have done or said to get to heaven.

We're all failing at being good on our own.

This is almost my exact sentiment. I know God is completely just and loving. The problem is, that we don't know how God saves every person, we only know the one way that God saves all of those who believe in him. Some are being saved through visions and dreams, others by word of mouth. The end result is the same.

If there's some mystic way that people are born again in the spirit of God, it's still through Jesus and their acceptance of him as Lord and Saviour, whether or not it's at the moment of death or sometime previous.

Whether you're good or evil has nothing to do with it.  It's whether you believe in Jesus. God isn't punishing anybody for any actual crimes.  That's what makes it unjust.

If I was a mass murderer (and let's just say I was sorry for what I did), and the Governor called up and said "Hey, I'll pardon you and my son will get the death penalty instead.", If I had any sense of justice at all, I'd refuse.

You can't shift your crimes off onto somebody else, and it's wrong for somebody else to take the punishment you deserve.  To even accept an offer shows cowardice and a lack of respect for justice.

If he wanted to save everybody, he could just get rid of Hell.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:45, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

Yea, you never know what those christians will do next......There's just so many bible studies that turn violent already....

Seriously? Are you that angry that someone is trying to do everything he can to help people out? Literally trying to save people's lives.

I don't get this attitude? I don't agree with everybody, but I get when people are trying to help others, even if I don't agree with them. I don't go out of my way to close down atheist food banks, or muslim women shelters just because I don't agree with them.

Generally, just arresting them would work.

Strangely enough, every person supporting abortion is already alive......

He's not trying to save lives; he's trying to get money for his ministry.  Ray Comfort is a slimebag.  The fact that he allegedly holds a position that you also hold seems to have blinded you to that fact.

The only person he's helping is himself.

You're Human. God is divine. He knows more about justice and love than we ever will.

Might makes right?  I don't think so.

Perhaps you can explain how Hitler's in Heaven and Anne Frank's in Hell and somehow that's "Just" just because God did it.

It seems that I know more about what is Just and Good than God does, because I don't throw Serial Killers and "people who get angry once in a while" in the same camp.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:53, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

Uh-huh, because when involved in moral discussions on the reality of God, divinity always = power in the mind of the debater. :|

What else could you have meant?  What does divinity matter to the nature of Justice?  It doesn't.

Well, according to God, that's not true.

No one is righteous.
Romans 3:10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”

I understand you don't believe God is real, but would agree if God is true, then your beliefs wouldn't matter on this, right? So the common ground between the ideas are it's true or it's not, but simply stating yes or no, doesn't make it true, right? It's true or false, regardless of what we say, right?

Yea, no. Let's keep this similar to the reality. Let's say you don't believe there's a governor, and so you won't accept any offer, regardless what he says. And you're still on death row.

Now, the governor isn't calling you to let you know His Son is willing, He lets you know this is His jail, and He makes the rules, and His Son has already paid the fine, regardless of what you want.

Now imagine a whole bunch of people coming to see you, reminding you that the governor has left a book for you that tells you all about it. This book shows history, and prophecy that can be verified.

And you tell the guards that you think the Governor is being unfair for providing a way out from deathrow, and that everyone should be let out of dethrow because it's unfair to everyone who didn't accept the Governor's offer?

Or you will recognize that parents do this all the time for their children across the world. They pay fines, lawyers, and attempt to help in anyway they kind. That's just what parents do, every single time.

What about people who reject God? What about punishing the Hitler's out there? Isn't there a need to punish those who are in the wrong?

I still would refuse; I cannot with good conscience condone the Governor's actions by going along with them.



How is the way the system is set up now punishing the wrong?  This argument for Hell doesn't make sense, because everyone's just as bad in your version of God's judgment.

What's worse, all the really bad people have to do to avoid punishment is believe in Jesus and they get away scott free.

I cannot condemn a truly bad man to hell if it means his victims get sent there as well on the same conditions.  So yes, even if Hitler gets to go to heaven (which he does anyways, unless you think Roman Catholics aren't true Christians), at least all the good people he killed get to go too.

Yea, some people do make that choice.

I'm not sure why all people failing at being good means that doesn't make sense? Why would some people have to be good, and some bad? Why couldn't all be bad, or all be good?

Yea, that's the point. Everyone can get Heaven, because of God, not because of ourselves.

Just to be sure you're aware, not everyone who claims to follow Jesus will be a true follower.

What definition of good are you using?

Would you be good according to God's standards?

God's standards of good are not good standards; they lack nuance.  My state laws are better standards of good than God's.

I can run through Ray Comfort's idea of what God's idea of Good is right now.



So if I tell the truth once, I'm a truthful person?  So somebody telling their wife that the pants don't make her butt look big is just as bad as, say, Blood Libel?



So in this case, someone who steals a cookie out of the Cookie jar is just as bad as killing someone and taking their stuff.



Ah, thought crimes.  Nothing's more just than Thought Crimes.
---

I could go on, but I think it's pretty clear that this standard of Good is a horrible standard.

So to answer the question:
 

I'm using the definition that our reasonable society has built, and not the one that Ray Comfort invented for his chicanery.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:36, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

And that's why it's flawed;  it has nothing to do with how good you are.  Even if I was purely good, I'd still go to hell if I didn't believe in Jesus.  Therein lies the flaw.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:40, Mon 05 Nov 2012.

Interesting that you say this. Do you believe Ray comfort has God's word mixed up?

But you kind of have to admit it's circular to say the laws you grew up with are good.


Just to be sure, I'm reposting this from my previous post. If you're not answering, I understand, but if it was overlooked, I'd like to discuss further.

Uh no. Everyone who is good gets to go to Heaven, plus everyone who is not good and accepts Jesus as their savior.

I'll just have to agree to disagree. Divinity is not the same thing as being an X-Man.

Still have a problem with that.  Your argument for hell was so that bad people could be punished.  But if a bad person can avoid punishment, then hell is pointless.

Worse than pointless, because good people have the possibility to go to hell.

Maybe not good by the definition proposed by Ray Comfort's God, but that definition is designed so that nobody falls under it.  The definition makes the word meaningless.

You may not believe Hitler was truly Christian; whatever helps you sleep at night.  Everything he said seems to contradict your assertion, however.

  But if a man murders and rapes someone, something is wrong with your justice system if he goes to heaven and the victim goes to hell, no matter what the circumstances.

God (aka you) don't get to change the rules on what's good and what isn't; I know what good is, you're not fooling anyone.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:02, Tue 06 Nov 2012.

The point of being Saved is so God can change you into a new creation. Someone who is his son or daughter.

Thus, there is no Hell even needed anymore. :/

If hell isn't needed, he should just get rid of it and save everybody.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:08, Tue 06 Nov 2012.

Actually, I asked you about "what about bad people"

I don't think bad people need to be punished, God does.

But I get the impression that no matter what, there will always be a problem that you'll find with it.



So my next question is you used to be a christian. Did you know Jesus?

Dude, do you not see how badly you're contradicting yourself?

Dude, do you not see how badly you're contradicting yourself?
</quote>
How is that a contradiction? It's true.

Think of it this way, a man goes out to find workers in the morning.

He needs more workers and goes out at lunch time, collecting more workers.

And he end of the day, he goes out again, collecting more workers. They only work an hour.

He pays the people by the way they came in reverse order. He pays the people who worked the last hour a full days wage.

The group that came at lunch time were paid next, and they were paid for a full day. They are thinking they should have been paid more, since they worked more than the last group.

And then the owner paid the group who came in the morning, and paid them a full days wages. They were upset because they thought they should have been paid even more.

But the owner points out, he paid a full wage, and what difference is it to them if he pays more than they should have received? They got their value or more.

Where's the contradiction?

Yeah, I've heard that one before.  As usual, it completely misses the point.

Problem is, you are the one who goes on to say that good works are meaningless, and salvation is all you need.  So you can be a total jackass, be saved, and go to heaven while a Buddhist saint goes to hell.

See the problem?  If salvation doesn't make you a better person, then what's the point of it?

Well, it DOES. :/

But you can't lose your salvation.

I don't say salvation is all you need. I did say works are meaningless when counted towards salvation.

Faith = salvation + works

Salvation is about being with God for eternity. There's no reason you can't get started getting better right now, and for eternity.

I think I may have missed what the actual contradiction you first mentioned though? Is that a dead or non point now?

Your contradiction is that you say that faith is all you need, and yet all good people will go to heaven.  Clearly, not all good people are christians, and not all christians are good people, yet all christians by definition have faith and are saved.  Hence, you've contradicted yourself.

The word of God says no one is good. :/

No, it says we are all sinners.  You said good people go to heaven, so this is your contradiction.

I'm not the one who allegedly said that.

Yeah that was TITL; I don't think he'd agree with all good people going to heaven if anybody was actually good by his definition.

It's a slimy way of trying to get around the fact that according to his interpretation you only get to heaven if you believe X, and good and evil don't enter into it.

Since it's already been brought up, the nazis justified the extermination of the jews because they were inferior, imperfect, and thus were evil.

I'm still not following. If all good people go to heaven, plus all the bad who accept Jesus as their savior, where is the contradiction?


I'll try and be clear here. If I say you need to pay money for a house, and the only way to get a house is with money, that means people with mopney can buy a house, plus everyone that can go to a bank that can borrow money.

So people with money, and people without money who go to a bank can get a house. Obviously not as many people with money, as there are without money.

And in the this world, there are a lot of sinners. Far more sinners than good people.

If you have the power to create infinite houses, and supposedly want people to have a house, then charging them any amount of money for the house that exceeds the amount you would know they can pay is a dick move.

Because *YOU* keep saying that it's faith, not works, that gets people salvation.  Now you're backpedaling, discrediting yourself even further.

Additionally, sinners are not inherently bad people.  According to the bible, we're all sinners, "saved" and non-saved alike.  Thus, it's entirely possible to be both a sinner and a good person.  You're trying to distract us from the fact that you've killed your own argument.

You say there is a contradiction, but you're not showing there is one.


I'm not backpedaling at all. Could be clear where there is a contradiction?

I think you really believe that I said a contradiction, but at this point, you have not shown why it is a contradiction. To be honest, I'm kind of wondering if you're just making this up, because it seems really clear to me what I said, and it's not a contradiction.

OK, we'll play your game.

Did you, or did you not, repeatedly state that faith is all you need for salvation?  Citing Romans, I believe?

Don't bother answering.  The answer is yes.

Did you, or did you not, state that works were irrelevant when compared to faith?  Citing similar passages?

Don't try denying it, the answer is yes.

Now you're saying good people go to heaven, even if they're not saved.  Good people are good because of the works they do, not the faith they hold.  So, you just contradicted yourself and completely discredited yourself.

You can try and weasel all you like, you've been caught in your own rhetorical trap.

I thought he was saying that good people can go to heaven, but there is no such thing as good person according to the Bible (even though, yes, theoretically a good person would qualify).  However, in light of no one being able to be good there is the ability to still pass go by having faith.

I could be wrong, but that doesn't seem contradictory if that's what he is arguing.

The bible doesn't say that no one is good, it says everyone is sinners.  Thus, you can be a good person and still be a sinner.

We're talking specifically about TITL/Ray Comfort's god, however, who says that being imperfect means you're evil.

I'm aware there are plenty of other interpretations that paint a more reasonable, more loving god.

But the purpose of Ray comfort's aims is to use arguments based solely on emotion that just a moment of reasoning would destroy.  Like scavengers they seek to prey on those who are weakened by emotion or ignorance, and will attempt to create that weakness if they have to, like a vulture poking out the eyes of a man dying of thirst to hurry his death along.

Yes, that is correct.

A good person would qualify into heaven, but according to the bible, there wasn't anyone else that was good other than Jesus.

Incorrect!  At stated repeatedly, there are plenty of good people in the bible and in the world.  Everyone is supposedly a sinner, but that doesn't stop people from being good.  Additionally, you keep saying that it's "faith alone", and not giving an exception for a good human being.

Sorry, but you've fully discredited yourself this time.

LoL

 Even though I pointed out how what I said wasn't a contradiction, and other people reading could figure it out, what left do I have to fall back on.

I suppose the other problem is you didn't actually show what I said was in contradiction, we're at an impasse.

But whatever Cain. I won't be addressing this any further. You had several posts to show there was a contradiction.

Usually failing to see a contradiction so blatant as this one is a sign of compartmentalized thinking.  Usually when the two concepts are as simple as these ones are compartmentalized however, either compartmentalization is a result of severe indoctrination, or blatant dishonesty.

You can't show how the two don't contradict or argue against Grandmastercain's evidence that they do, so you'll simply make a mere assertion that they don't and then retreat into the shadows until you think everybody's forgotten about it.

But we never forget, TITL.

Actually the Bible does say quite specifically that no one is good, not ONLY that everyone has sinned.  It says both in places.

I disagree with a LOT of what TitL has to say and believe but I am really confused at what people are seeing as a contradiction here as well.

The Bible says 'No one is good, not even one.  All have sinned and fall short.'  TitL also argues that IF someone was good enough then they could gain salvation.  However, there is nothing illogical with saying that while it is theoretically possible to obtain salvation through 'goodness' that it is practically impossible since no one is good enough due to the sin of Adam etc etc.

I don't see how that is contradictory at all.

Refusing to admit you contradicted yourself after several people have weighed in on it is arguing in bad faith.  You can retreat if you like, but since silence is assent, we will take it to mean that you're admitting you can't defend your position.


Titl's position has always been that it is 'faith alone'.  We've gone round the bend with him more than once, showing the importance of works and "goodness", but he has refused to budge an inch.  Now he's saying that it's not faith alone, that there is an exception for good human beings.  That is his contradiction.

Additionally, that verse you cite translates to "perfect", not "good".  We could go around and argue translations of the bible, but I think you see what I'm getting at.

It makes no sense to use the word good at all as a qualification of getting into heaven if it applies to nobody; it doesn't even apply to Jesus.



It's logical thing; if conditions make a statement unnecessary, it is de-facto irrelevant and discarded.

You get X if

You are Good
You believe in Jesus

Nobody is Good

Thus, you get X if:

You believe in Jesus

Hmm, well I still don't see it, but that's fine with me.

I just wanted to point out that the interpretation of Luke 19 that you are giving, while common to groups such as Muslims, is often interpreted simply as Jesus asking the question as a way of allowing the man to think about what he just said.

In other places Jesus calls himself good - "I am the good shepherd."

I think the sticking point here is whether it is even theoretically possible from a Biblical standpoint to be good enough to obtain salvation, even if in a practical sense it is not.

Moving the Goalposts, Bait-and-Switch, False Advertising, that sort of thing.

Mathematically,

G+J = S

if G = 0, then De-facto J = S  (if S > 0, then G =/= S)

In reply to Doulos (msg # 272):

Yeah but wouldn't "Good" in the sense of "Good Shepherd" simply refer to the skill one has at the profession?

I don't think "Nobody is Good except God" refers to his skill at Bowling, for example.

EDIT:  And yeah, that's usually used by Muslims and Non-Trinitarian Christians to reference that Jesus isn't God.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:17, Wed 07 Nov 2012.

I agree with your logic here for sure.

I can't speak for TitL at all, but only that if he argued that salvation through goodness is also theoretically impossible then he seems to have contradicted himself.  If it is theoretically possible, but not practically possible then I can see how it could be a theoretically non-contradictory statement, but perhaps according to logic (I am no philosopher) it is contradictory in some way.

I just don't see it being a big deal, but some of that is probably because of my own history of being 'in that corner' in the past at one point.

It could be Good in that sense, though traditionally it has not been interpreted that way by mainstream Christianity, but rather as a statement on the character of God himself.

The difficulty here is that if you already believe Jesus is God then it is easier to interpret it one way, if you already believe that Jesus cannot possibly be God then it is easier to interpret it another way.

Welcome to the world of religion...haha.

Yep, fair enough.  A priori assumptions control our interpretations, and I highly doubt I'm going to change anybody's A priori assumptions by arguing over the consequences of them.

People aren't generally willing to offer up their most foundational AP's anyways.  Those are usually pretty personal things that you wouldn't even tell your Therapist ;P

You may be able to make educated guesses on the AP's of others based on what they think will convince you, however.  The projection method.  Unless they're professional arguers, then that sort of botches this, since they aren't necessarily basing those guesses off of personal experience.

Miracles are a huge one for a priori assumptions.  If you believe that a resurrection is possible (a miracle) then the resurrection of Jesus could easily be argued to be the most likely thing that happened.

If you believe that miracles, by their very nature, are impossible, then the resurrection is completely impossible and even the most insane theory is more likely than impossibility.

It's why discussions on the historicity of Jesus, the Bible etc are pretty much impossible to settle because you have individuals who are coming at the same evidence with two incredibly opposite sets of a priori assumptions.

It's a wonder any discussion can happen at all sometimes!

What evidence? What about this is in contradiction?

I guess what he is arguing is that if the number of good people actually equals zero according to the Bible then it's pretty much a waste of time even adding that factor into the equation of salvation.

Maybe?

Your own arguments.  We've established that you've claimed, many times, that it's faith alone.  In fact, I believe that's part of the verse you like to cite: faith *alone*.

Now you're contradicting yourself by saying good people can be saved as well.  In other words, you've killed your own argument and are trying to hide it.

@TITL






He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as 'two and two make five' were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain.

I'm not sure what the quote is for? What did you mean by the quote?

As to the contradiction, could you explain what is in contradiction? Are saying what Cain and I said are in contradiction? Because the original claim I was discussing was Cain's claim that I was in contradiction with myself.

Post #245.

It's a quote from 1984 by George Orwell.

Yea, I don't understand the intent behind it. Science directed that post towards me, and I was wondering why he would put that there for me.

Ironically he "doesn't understand".

GMC explained quite thoroughly why he thinks you're in contradiction.

The response of an honest discusser is to address those statements, and show how GMC's contradiction is not a contradiction by means of additional information, like Doulos did.

The response of a dishonest discusser is to deny that any proposal of a contradiction has been put forward at all, despite multiple people showing you exactly what, where, and why GMC accused you of a contradiction.

The quote relays that we know exactly what you're doing; you're only fooling yourself.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:26, Wed 07 Nov 2012.

right, except those statements are not in contradiction.

Actually, I already did that.

Yea, as a gm, I'm expecting you to set the example for others. You're calling me dishonest. but can't back up your own accusations with a simple quote of the contradiction, or even the break down of why it's a contradiction.

Anyway, and again, I've asked for evidence where there is a contradiction in what I said. And both you and Cain keep saying there's one, somewhere.

You're saying I know it's a contradiction to say that every good person goes to heaven, plus everyone who is not good and accepts Jesus?

So then just prove your point, and show why it's contradiction.

I've already posted why it's not. post #263.

Right, every person who is good, plus those who aren't and have faith. That's not in contradiction.

Look, you're struggling here, and I'm not sure why. Look at my words, everyone who is good, plus those not good who have faith will go to heaven. That's two entirely different groups. How can two different groups be in contradiction?

I'm struggling?  How haven't even acknowledged the contradiction yet, while others have tried to save your hide.

YOU said that it's faith alone.  Multiple times.  Now you're backpedaling because you've been caught in a contradiction.  You've cited many bible verses, generally out of context, stating that works are irrelevant and faith is all that matters.

So, which is it?  Is it faith alone, or can good people get saved without faith?  Don't try to evade the question, you've cost yourself enough respect as is.  You're caught.  Answer the damn question.

I feel I am setting an example as a GM; someone who, despite being quite a bit irritated by your current fillibustering, and knowing full well your history of doing the same thing time and time again, I am able to put that aside and try to get through to you, in the vain hope that you aren't doing this on purpose despite evidence here and other websites left unmentioned to the contrary.



Edit:  Don't say you don't see the contradiction or that no contradiction has been put forward, even if you don't believe it is a contradiction.   Correct the contradiction, show it not to be a contradiction, and move on.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:06, Wed 07 Nov 2012.

Yes, good people can get to heaven, and so can sinners who have faith in Jesus.

You said that there was a contradiction between every person who is good, plus those who aren't and have faith going to heaven.

What is the contradiction in that statement. If there is one, simply show it.

Considering you can't show there's a contradiction,......

Dude, how many times shall I repeat it?

How many times have you repeated the same tired verse that it is faith *alone*?

Now you're saying good people, plus those with faith, can be saved.

The contradiction is right there.  Is it only faith, or is it faith and good people?  In either case, you need to recant one of your statements.

That's a warning, TITL  At this point I don't even care about the outcome of this argument, I merely want to stop the abuse of the Dialectic.



Even if it isn't in fact a logical contradiction, it can be called out and recognized as a contradiction in a debate when the accusation is made until presumptions are addressed and corrected by the accused party.

GrandmasterCain, although several people understood your reference to Trust in the Lord's statements, the unfamiliarity, willful or genuine, of others requires that you be more stringent in your quoting if you wish to refer to statements made in separate threads.

Fair enough.  Titl, do you remember posting this:


Or this?



Or this?


I could go on and on, but you've repeatedly stated that works are irrelevant, and that faith is all that matters.

Now, you say "good people go to heaven, as do saved people".  That is in direct contradiction of your previous argument, which is that it's purely faith.  That also contradicts the verses you like to spout.

Are you going to say there's no contradiction between "Faith Alone!  Faith Alone!" and "All good people get to heaven, and faith is for those who aren't good"?  Because that is what you are doing.

It would also be helpful to add the thread and post number in the quote-code if you're so inclined. (<z> Code used to demonstrate the code without bringing it into effect)



demonstrated:

<quote TITL Shoobedoo Shoo Shoo Bedoo msg #17>Text Here</quote>

Edit: Oops, made a goof on the RuBB;  <z> doesn't do anything.  [code] does
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:03, Wed 07 Nov 2012.

<Moderator Post>
Okay guys, two things:

1.  Things are getting overly personal here, so I'd like to ask you guys to tone it down a bit.  Remember, you can go after each other's ideas and statements, but please don't trying to bring the character of the person you're debating with into it.  I know when people disagree about things like this, it can be hard to keep that from getting into your posts (I've been guilty of it myself many times), but please try.  Some of the posts directed at TitL here have been overly personal, ad hominem stuff, and I'd like to see that stopped, okay?

2.  I think we've taken up enough of the OOC thread on this, so if the discussion is to continue, let's move it to another thread?  I'm sure we've got a salvation vs. works thread around here somewhere.
</Moderator Post>

Saw this link Its a pic basically trnasribing a church story and though of this site

http://lolspots.com/36324-if-t...an-there-be-atheists

its an interesting notion and i have to wonder how true the assupmtion that religious people only help others because god has told them to be charitable.

PushBarToOpen,

Is there some way I can read that without registering?

I will transcribe it.

Thanks for the transcription.

My take on this is that God has told everyone, theists and atheists, to help others, by writing it into our inner sense of morality. Religious teaching repeats this message, hoping to point out to its followers that which they should already know. I don't know where the article gets this quote from, but it's consistent with this view of religious teaching.

In reply to PushBarToOpen (msg # 299):

A nice story, but it sort of misses out the rather important fact that according to Christian theology, being an atheist is actually a sin far, far worse than not being charitable.  If God created atheist to 'teach us the most important lesson of them all," it'd be nice if he didn't treat atheists so badly when they die.  Most christians agree that God prefers that you die as a repentant child rapist than an atheist.  I feel the story doesn't really address the issue of why would God create a group of people He knew He would end up sentencing to eternal torture.  It seems to want to answer the 'how would this fit into His plan' question, rather than 'what kind of being would make such a plan, and why' questions.

I disagree with your presumption that being an atheist is a sin worse than not being charitable.

Being charitable (or not) is an action we make by choice by putting others above us -- a selfless act.

Believing or not believing in God is a mental state.  It may be influenced by our actions (exercising faith or not) and will vary based on the individual's perspective, history, and knowledge.  For example, even an atheist can try to exercise faith.

Perhaps what you are referring to is a believer who then casts aside his beliefs to become an atheist in order to excuse behaviors that are sinful.

In reply to Heath (msg # 302):

I was referring to the more mainstream versions of christianity above, and I realize that it might not fit as well for the Mormons.  For most non-mormon christians, if you don't believe in God, you go to hell.  Whereas a non-charitable person who accepts Jesus as their savior still goes to heaven.  For Mormons there's less 'going to hell', so it's not quite the same.  But isn't it still the case that if you don't accept Jesus, then you end up in the 'lowest level' of the afterlife?  My understanding was that the rewards weren't just for good behavior, but rather something more like "good behavior once you've met the faith-based prerequisites".  Am I wrong on that?

A more catholic perspective would say...

A believer who is genuinely sorry for his sins can be forgiven by Jesus, and sinless can enter heaven. A non-believer never asks Jesus for forgiveness, and thus dies with all his worldly sins.

Edit: I have to add that this does not match my own take on the afterlife. I see heaven and hell as ways of intimidating people into developing good habits, and those habits will make them better people who will in time outgrow concepts like avoiding hell or earning heaven. Are they real or metaphor? I'll find that out after I'm dead.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:22, Mon 19 Nov 2012.