April 28, 2017, 06:25:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: congress wants reveiw of the BCS on: February 04, 2010, 12:12:36 AM

Quote from: Gratch on January 31, 2010, 01:25:01 AM

Everyone knows the BCS system is a complete crock o' shit, but congress has much more important things to be doing.

Meh, I'm all for it.  There's lots of money involved, but more importantly, maybe it's something that Congress can actually make some progress on.
2  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Arrest an arrogant rich and uncooperative black man and you're a racist. on: July 24, 2009, 01:34:42 PM
Quote from: Blackadar link=topic=34974.msg573773
Yea, I think you're right AA.  I've learned enough about some other people to draw some pretty firm conclusions.  

Snideness is rarely a positive trait.  Additionally, indirect insinuations are pretty annoying.  If you're going to say things, then say them.

As to the topic, agreed with most everyone else.  The cop shouldn't have arrested the guy, so he was definitely "more wrong", but Gates wildly exacerbated the situation and should in no way be seen as a martyr here.  Both sides are at fault.
3  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Bible is based on forgeries? on: June 01, 2009, 05:23:05 AM
Quote from: Fireball1244
So you are claiming that you, who believe in God, value human life more than someone who doesn't believe in God? Where is your evidence for such a claim, if that's what you're saying?

So, you solicit opinions, and now that I've given mine I'm suddenly expected to engage in a tedious line-by-line forum debate to prove myself?  Yeah, I don't think so.  I'll respond to a few things in this post, but for the most part you'll have to find someone else to pile onto.

Quote from: Fireball1244
Is there any evidence that atheists "struggle to understand why human life should be considered much more valuable?" I see none.


You haven't established that human life isn't of inherent worth if it doesn't emanate from God, so this question begs its own premise

Enlighten me, then.  From where or what does human worth spawn, if God does not exist?  Is there even such a thing as "inherent" worth, without God?  And if I'm told that I'll be given $1 billion if I kill one person, and if it's guaranteed that society will not punish me for my actions, why should I let that person live?

Quote from: Brendan
It's certainly not bourne out in prison population statistics.

Yeah, I've seen the oft-quoted stat that in 1997 only 0.2% of the US prison population was atheist.  I don't buy it, for numerous reasons, but that would end up an entirely different discussion that I don't have time for.

Quote from: Jeff
There are nations that have very, very high atheist populations (Austria, Switzerland, etc), that possess FAR lower crime rates, far lower teen pregnancy rates, and much higher education scores.

Similar to the above, I'd have to quibble with your assertion regarding the crime rates in European countries if I had more time, and I'd also point out that secular Europe has higher suicide rates than the US.  I don't see how education or teen pregnancy are relevant.

Quote from: Ironrod
It would be entertaining to hunt down statistics on the number of people killed in the name of God, vs. how many have died at the hands of the godless (although not so entertaining that I'm actually going to do it). I suspect that the religious would be way out in front -- if only because they have always been in the majority.

See, that's the thing...because atheists have always been in such a sizeable minority, I don't think we have any real evidence that they would ultimately be less bloody than religious people have been in years past.  Now, I'm fully willing to admit that I could be wrong about this, that a purely secular world could possibly be no more violent than the world we have today...but if that were the case, I'd wonder how much of it was due to societal programming & empathy, and how much was due to cognitive dissonance.
4  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Bible is based on forgeries? on: May 31, 2009, 06:55:30 PM

Quote from: Moliere on May 31, 2009, 06:49:32 PM

So the only thing keeping you from killing your neighbor is that you believe in god and that you have a soul? It's such an insult (and ironic) to think that morality can only come from a belief in god. As if without having a traffic cop in the sky will cause everyone to turn into Reavers.

I don't believe that morality can only come from belief in God.  I know atheists and agnostics have morals, morals which often coincide with religious morals.  I just believe that, with God out of the picture, it's easier to rationalize circumventing those morals.
5  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Bible is based on forgeries? on: May 31, 2009, 05:43:39 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 28, 2009, 03:08:04 PM

Is a human life any less beautiful and meaningful if suddenly there is no God?

Well, I guess you thought the answer to this question was an obvious "no", but I'd personally have to say "yes", because I think belief in God is what grants human life the inherent worth that many believe it has.  I think the repercussions of losing that valuation would be significant. 

If humans were just more highly evolved animals with no soul, then I think people would struggle to understand why human life should be considered much more valuable than other forms of life, despite its advanced evolution.  This, in turn, would lead to increased selfishness, with everyone trying to "get theirs" before they die.  What reason would people have to care about other people they didn't know or particularly like?  Sure, empathy would still be there to some extent, but if we're all just more intelligent forms of cattle, and if everyone believed that, then I think news of human misery wouldn't affect people nearly as much.  IMO, stories like the Christmas Carol, where Scrooge is told that it is the God-given duty of each man to love and help his peers, would fall completely flat if human life had no God-given value.

And if human life isn't of inherent worth, than what reason is there to treat others as equals?  So far as I can tell, we would do so only because we've set up society to mandate that because we individually desire such treatment.  We wouldn't treat people as equals because it's inherently "right" or "wrong" not to do so.  For that matter, if humans are just soulless animals, I'm not sure why it'd be inherently wrong to kill another human.  Again, the only reason not to do so would be because society has evolved laws to protect its collective self.  If a person wanted to murder someone or treat someone poorly, there wouldn't be anything inherently "wrong" with that...they'd just have to take care not to be caught by society, lest they suffer its punishment.  This whole system, IMO, would result in people who didn't really believe that their peers were equals and didn't respect them, but who would mouth the words so as to fit in.   I think that's a very dangerous and structurally unsound setup.

I could go on about how I think the non-existence of God would also (rightly or wrongly) take the air out of some political movements (especially the pro-life movement) and ultimately lead to bloodier tribal politics, but you get the point.  Tongue
6  Non-Gaming / Steals and Deals / Re: [GoGamer] Memorial Day Weekend Sale on: May 25, 2009, 02:11:47 AM
I saw they had Two Worlds on that list, so I thought I'd mention that I recently bought the Two Worlds Epic Edition off Amazon Marketplace for $0.79 + $4 S&H.  The original version of it was also available from another seller for $.01 + $4 S&H. 

In general, I've recently noticed that it's not uncommon to find older games from my Amazon wishlist available on the Amazon marketplace for between $5-$9, though S&H is usually another $3 or so.  For instance, pre-S&H, I recently found Dragon Quest VIII for $10, Radiata Stories for $8, and Wild Arms 3 for $5.  All of those were new, not used.  So, I'd recommend checking Amazon every so often unless you're looking for one of those unfortunate games whose price has soared to the moon, like the Shadowheart games.
7  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Miss California's Answer to Controversial Issue Sparks Controversy on: April 30, 2009, 01:34:56 AM

Quote from: Jaddison on April 27, 2009, 01:43:13 AM

I haven't seen anything in this discussion that answers a more fundamental question.  If you believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman how does letting gays have marriage or civil unions diminish heterosexual marriage?

I think much of the controversy over gay marriage is actually due to fears of religious people/businesses that legalization will be the first step toward ending their abilities to treat homosexuals differently and teach that homosexuality is a sin.  It's their view that if gay marriage is legalized, the state is effectively saying that homosexual relationships are okay/normal, which in turn will shape how homosexuality is viewed by future generations, including (potentially) the children of those who oppose it.  For many, it's ultimately not about "marriage" so much as it is resistance to the idea that homosexuality is not a sin.
8  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Miss California's Answer to Controversial Issue Sparks Controversy on: April 23, 2009, 10:59:52 PM

Quote from: Purge on April 23, 2009, 04:27:41 PM

Quote from: SensuousLettuce on April 23, 2009, 04:20:24 PM

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on April 23, 2009, 03:11:24 PM

When I still went to church it seemed that everyone preached about loving thy neighbor, etc.  Now it seems to be love they neighbor as long as they agree with your political affiliation and sexual preference. 

Well, love your neighbor has nothing to do with tolerance, it has to do with loving them regardless of *whatever* but not tolerating such behavior as I think you're meaning it.

Didn't Christ consort with whores? Maybe I'm thinking of a different Prophet/Saviour. I was pretty sure his teachings had everything to do with casting off the shackles of the unwashed masses, a term developed by the powerful Jewish influence where only the clean may come and be blessed with holy water or some such.

Get back to me on that, k?

Yeah, like SL said, Christ was pretty good at spending time with the "dregs of society" that the religious and upper-class didn't think was worth the time of day.  Caring about them was an important part of his teachings.  However, he also regularly taught that all people, including the dregs, would be going to hell if they didn't repent of their sins and change their ways, so it's not like he preached a philosophy of "live and let live". 
9  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Political Quiz on: February 22, 2009, 11:40:46 PM
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15
10  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: 15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009 on: February 11, 2009, 01:16:52 PM
We had our first Krispy Kreme store open to great fanfare here in 2006.  For the first time, we had one that was less than three hours away.  However, it went out of business about a month ago.
11  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Pixar Movies: Favorite to Least Favorite on: November 29, 2008, 01:54:51 AM
1. The Incredibles (the gap between this movie and the others is sizeable)

2. Toy Story
3. Toy Story 2 (the new characters in the sequel got on my nerves a little)
4. Finding Nemo
5. Ratatouille
6. Wall-E (liked the beginning, but thought latter half was boring and predictable)

Haven't seen:
Monsters Inc.
Bug's Life
12  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: What happens if McCain somehow wins? on: November 01, 2008, 06:12:01 PM

Quote from: Glycerine on November 01, 2008, 05:24:09 PM

What makes you think you have the right to tell a women what she should do with her body?

Actually, there's precedent to telling people they can't do something to their own body (illegal drug laws).

But that aside, some people place as much (or nearly as much) value on the life of the "fetus" as they do on the woman's life, because they consider the fetus to be a separate creature rather than a part of the woman's body, even if the fetus is dependent on the woman's body for survival.  So, in their eyes, they're not telling a woman she can't control her own body.  They're telling her that she can't harm the living being stored within her body.  The end result will be the same in both cases, but your accusation is off-base because pro-lifers don't feel they're telling a woman what she can do to her body.  They feel they're telling a woman what she can do to the innocent creature within her body.  They aren't trying to be malicious; they're trying to be protective.

Your opinion differs because the starting point of your beliefs originate from a different place.  If one believes that the fetus is not a living creature, or that the woman can do whatever she wants to anything inside her body, of that the woman's life is more important than that of a fetus's life, then you'll likely reach a different conclusion than a pro-life person will, and it will be very difficult for any compromise to be reached.  This is all "Abortion Debate 101" stuff, though, and anyone who bothers to think about this issue at all should already know this stuff.

Why you people even waste your time on this issue really boggles my mind, especially considering the scope and magnitude of all the other problems we face in this country.

You think it's mind-boggling that people care about this issue.  Others think it's mind-boggling that people like yourself care so little about this issue, or at least do so little to understand why it matters so much to those on the other side.  It's not difficult to understand and sympathize with the views of both sides on this issue.
13  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Diablo 3 playable at Blizzcon on: October 15, 2008, 12:49:34 AM
This article has a good summary of all the Diablo 3 info that's been released so far.  Most of it is probably pretty familiar to people keeping up with announcements, but I saw a few things in there I didn't know. 
14  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: So... what do you think about the stock market today? on: October 07, 2008, 12:48:07 PM

Quote from: Crux on October 07, 2008, 11:56:20 AM

Quote from: Gwar21 on October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.

How was it a bipartisan failure when democrats voted overwhelmingly for it and republicans voted overwhelming against it?

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it?  From what I've read, only 60% of Democrats voted for it.  That isn't an "overwhelming" majority, especially when they control the house.  Now, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted against it, true, but I don't see any way how someone can point at one party and say this was all their fault (which, I know, the Republicans stupidly tried to do when spinning that Pelosi thing).  The 13 more votes needed to pass that thing could've come from either (or both) parties.
15  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: So... what do you think about the stock market today? on: October 07, 2008, 01:22:01 AM

Quote from: Crux on October 06, 2008, 10:58:36 PM

So in short, I say 'fuck you' to the republicans who voted en-mass against the bailout the first time and then put their mugs on TV and said they voted against it, not because of the impact it would have on the economy or the country, but because Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech when introducing the bill. Seriously? Fuck you.

Meh, it was a bipartisan failure, and it occurred because 90% of Congressional constituents didn't want it.  Frankly, with that much resistance from the public, I'm moderately surprised that even the second attempt passed, though maybe the resistance had faltered by then.  I know that everyone likes to blame Congress for everything, and maybe they deserve some of the blame here for not "leading" in the direction that Wall Street said they should, but I put most of the blame for that debacle on a public that was overwhelmingly cheering when the first bailout bill failed.
16  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: [Poll] What's most important in a Presidential candidate? on: September 12, 2008, 09:40:08 PM

Quote from: Brendan on September 12, 2008, 04:55:48 PM

He presumes that democrats who voted for Bill Clinton are ineligible to judge candidates based on their "character," and it ignores the fact that the current republican presidential candidate fails Gwar21's test:  John McCain famously indulged himself in multiple affairs, marrying his mistress a month after his divorce was finalized.  How is Gwar21's question relevant at all, and why was it targeted only at democrats?

Actually, I made no such presumption, so you're reading too much into the question.  I was simply curious about the seeming discrepancy between the poll results and Clinton's popularity on the board.  I agree that there's hypocrisy in the area of character on the Republican side (i.e., Republican voters often say that character is most important, but issue stances clearly trump character for them), but I didn't say anything about that because this is by far and away a left-leaning board.  Hence, I kept the question directed toward the left.
17  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Make your VEEP predictions! on: September 09, 2008, 12:14:24 AM

Quote from: Blackadar on September 08, 2008, 02:10:41 AM

Don't want gay marriage?  Fine, don't have it.  Don't want the church to allow it?  That's a private problem if that sect decides that's not their way.  But passing laws to prevent it?  That's when "conservative christian" becomes "nutjob".

See, to me, that's just democracy (or a republic...whatever) at work.  Laws are reflections of beliefs about how things ought to be, and people from all belief systems are perfectly within their rights to try to get those laws changed to better reflect what they believe in.  It's true for people on both the left and the right, and just because they want something doesn't mean they'll automatically get it.  Sure, it can be frustrating when you don't agree with the beliefs behind a law, but that disagreement is no reason to resort to dehumanizing name-calling.  While I don't agree with attempts to institute creationism in schools or ban gay marriage, I understand the reasoning behind it.  Wanting those things doesn't instantly make someone a bad or stupid person.  They simply have a different perspective.

I'll dismiss those who advocate such action with terms that I hope they find derisive and mocking....

And I'd say that if you can do that without feeling remorse, then you've crossed a line of your own, and you ought to give that some consideration.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
18  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Make your VEEP predictions! on: September 07, 2008, 11:02:47 PM
Quote from: Purge
I have no problems with peoples beliefs; I have a problem when said beliefs spill over from their personal relationship with god to how they (as a community) work to influence non-believers into converting.

And I'd say that's reasonable.  I have no problem with people that respectfully disagree with Palin and her conservative Christian beliefs, nor do I have a problem with people who think those beliefs should disqualify her from such a high office.  I only have a problem with people whose disagreement is tinged with, what appears to me, venom and absolute dislike for anyone who holds those beliefs.  Disagreement and disrespect/dislike do not have to go hand-in-hand.

Quote from: Captain Caveman on September 07, 2008, 10:51:49 PM

How about gay conversion?. Palin's church promotes it, though there's no way to know whether Palin herself believes in it. I hope she's asked, because  that's certainly not a sentiment I want a potential VP to hold (to put it lightly).

Given that most conservative Christians start from the belief that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic (which they kinda have to do, because otherwise they're faced with the prospect that God is creating people who are forced to sin), I'd say the thought of "gay conversion" would make sense to many of them.
19  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Make your VEEP predictions! on: September 07, 2008, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Purge on September 07, 2008, 08:51:42 PM

Gwar, you put yourself into that; the statement is that SHE is a, not ALL cc's are. smile I didn't write it, but I never read what you did into it.

Well, the thing is, her beliefs aren't atypical of those held by all conservative Christians.  Sure, she's a little extreme with her anti-abortion stance, but other than that her general beliefs are pretty normal, from what I've heard of them.  So, if her beliefs are what make her a "nutjob" or "wingnut", then all other cc's are also those things (which I know some people on this board, like Jeff V, fervently believe).

I'm a pseudo-conservative Christian personally, holding some of their typical beliefs but not all.  For instance, I think abstinence-only education is a bad idea, I'm opposed to teaching creationism in schools, and I'm opposed to capital punishment.  However, a majority of the people I know and like are conservative Christians.  Many of them are quite bright, into sports, critical of Bush, and perfectly normal to interact with.  They believe that the Bible is literally true, but it's not like that ever comes up in conversation unless you ask about it.  So, it grates on my nerves when they're dismissed with terms I find derisive, mocking, and borderline hate-filled.  Every time I see comments like those, I feel like the poster is giving a big "f*** you" to the religious right community and everyone within it, which I feel is uncalled for.  I personally may not always agree with them, but that's no reason to call them names.

Sorry, the "nutjob" term is a pet peeve of mine.  disgust  Maybe calling parts of the demographic names if you don't like them comes normally to some, but that doesn't mean we ought to accept it, either on the left or the right.
20  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: [Poll] What's most important in a Presidential candidate? on: September 07, 2008, 08:10:30 PM
Given the love for Clinton on these boards, I'm surprised at the number of people who voted for character.  Or do people see no relationship between affairs and one's character?
21  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Make your VEEP predictions! on: September 07, 2008, 08:08:51 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on September 07, 2008, 01:10:14 PM

She does scare the fuck of out me, but not for the reasons you think.  I think she's a Religious-Right nutjob, whose documented abuses of power smack of the worst aspects of the current administration and with no track record of fiscal responsibility. 

Am I the only person who gets annoyed by people who imply that all conservative Christians are "nutjobs"?
22  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: gay marriage = CA fires on: July 06, 2008, 04:03:03 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on July 01, 2008, 06:42:05 PM

Isn't it the Young Earth Creationists who claim that we all came from nothing?  That everything in the universe was simply blinked into existence in about 8,000 B.C., including all of the Earth's sediment layers and pre-fossilized dinosaur remains, all as part of God's big practical joke on paleontologists?  Science actually argues *against* the idea that we call came from nothing.

I think more YECs believe that the unvierse was blinked into existence around 10,000 BC, but not necessarily with the fossilized dinosaur remains or sediment layers.  They believe dinosaurs and man co-existed, that the great flood created the sediment layers, and that scientists have intentionally used faulty dating methods to date rocks/fossils so that they appear far older than they really are, thus backing evolutionary theory (i.e., they believe carbon dating is a massive con).  I've heard of people who believe that God created fossils to "test" mankind, but none of the many YECs I've known believe that, so I think that's more of a fringe belief.

And I'm waiting for the day that a thread explodes due to people who disrespect, dislike, or are offended by ATB's beliefs.
23  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Vive la france! (can I say that?) on: June 04, 2008, 09:52:06 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on June 04, 2008, 04:10:42 PM

If I understand things correctly, the French thought police laws aren't limited to race and/or religion.  I think you can get in trouble for saying negative things about sexual orientation.

So if a religion says negative things about sexual orientation, do the French thought police enter a catatonic state?
24  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Teddy on: May 23, 2008, 01:54:32 AM
Meh, his death won't bother me, and it's probably long overdue. 

And while I don't have a problem with the joking myself, I'm curious as to whether those people who are offended by the joking were equally offended by those who were joking and cheering at Reagan's death.  I seem to recall that reaction to Reagan being pretty common at most of the messageboards I routinely visit.
25  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: A thing of beauty on: May 21, 2008, 12:00:50 AM
They're!   eek


Cars all look pretty much the same to me, and I just don't get people's love for them.  Of course, I also don't see the need for home decorations, and I have no ability to envision landscaping improvements or work with tools.  So, it's likely I just have no soul or man card.
26  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Best dungeon(s) in a PC game on: May 18, 2008, 06:52:45 PM
My favorite dungeon was one from Icewind Dale: the fortress of Severed Hand, containing the ghosts of battling elves & orcs.  I just enjoyed design of it and the story behind it.  I also liked the haunted castle from the free "Trials of the Luremaster" expansion.

I can't think of any dungeons in first-person games that have made a real impression on me.  I dimly recall enjoying some of the dungeons in the old Elder Scrolls: Arena game (hearing the baying ice hounds and hell hounds always unnerved me), but I doubt they'd hold up well today.
27  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage on: May 15, 2008, 10:42:05 PM

Quote from: Moliere on May 15, 2008, 05:54:56 PM

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with), so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

Quote from: leo8877
I agree.  I never understood what people stood to gain by being against same sex marriage.

It's mostly a religious issue.  In their minds, they're trying to prevent society from giving a "stamp of approval" to a Biblical sin.  I think they also fear that their children will be brainwashed to accept homosexuality as normal and non-sinful.  So, by fighting it, they gain favor with God by opposing something wicked, and they protect their children.
28  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [Half-Life] Anyone think the game kinda sorta sucks? on: May 07, 2008, 11:43:50 PM
I don't play a lot of FPS games, but I bought Half-Life in 2004 after having heard so many rave reviews for it.  It was entertaining for a little while, but by the halfway point I wasn't really enjoying myself, and I had to force myself to finish it after a multi-month break.  It was boring, annoying, and way too hard toward the end.  Overall, I'd probably have to rank it as one of my least-favorite FPS games I've played in the last ten years, with only the original "Unreal" ranking lower.  I liked Deus Ex, Soldier of Fortune, and the Jedi Knight games a lot more.

That said, I still intend to buy Half-Life 2 one day.
29  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Creationists visit the natural history museum on: May 07, 2008, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Lee on May 07, 2008, 11:06:15 PM

Did you really just say that? There is nothing "scientific" about their beliefs whatsoever.

Did I say there was?  I only said that, from their vantage point, there are scientific explanations for these things, and those technical explanations are available at creationist sites online.  Whether or not you agree with them is beside the point.
30  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Creationists visit the natural history museum on: May 07, 2008, 10:42:25 PM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on May 07, 2008, 01:28:39 PM

I'd have some questions for him. Questions about things like mountain formation, and the time it takes light to travel from distant stars to us. I'd like to know how he arrived at the 10,000 year age, when virtually every legitimate scientist on earth says that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. The only "defense" I've ever seen of a young earth is that "the bible says so", and that scientists are in an evil conspiracy to thwart God's truth.

I guess it's a moot point now, as he doesn't seem to be answering.

There are plenty of YEC websites out there where you could get more "scientific" explanations of their beliefs.  Those would likely provide a better, probably more representative sample of what you're seeking.  That route would also avoid giving the impression that you're treating one of your fellow forum members as a freakish curiosity for the sake of your amusement.
31  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Creationists visit the natural history museum on: May 07, 2008, 02:15:47 AM

Quote from: Jeff Jones on May 06, 2008, 01:49:27 AM

Are you a young earth creationist, Rowdy? you seem awfully defensive about the subject. I know you're a Christian, but I'm curious if you subscribe to the theory that the earth (not the universe) is between 6 and 10,000 years old.

And if he is?
32  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Batman Gotham Knight Trailer on: April 12, 2008, 05:02:21 PM
I'll probably see it, but I think I've been ruined for Batman cartoons, or DC cartoons in general.  All I end up doing is comparing them to Batman: TAS and Justice League and thinking how much better those older cartoons were.   icon_frown
33  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: 18 years too short for this man? on: April 06, 2008, 12:33:53 AM

Quote from: Mr. Fed on April 05, 2008, 11:18:25 PM

Well, it's just that there's a thematically similar "those dirty whores" vibe running through your posts.

And again, I ask:

When I fail to lock my front door, should the burglar who steals my TV be punished less?

The HIV guy shouldn't get less punishment - I'd be ok with giving him more - but I sort of agree with Gratch, too, in that I don't have as much sympathy for those women as I would have for the victim of your hypothetical burglar.  Of course, that's assuming the burglar victim failed to lock his front door by accident.  If he routinely never locked his front door because he was lazy or thought it was an unnecessary precaution, I'd by less sympathetic toward him, too.
34  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Was I a jerk? on: April 05, 2008, 10:34:21 PM

Quote from: Lee on April 05, 2008, 09:24:12 PM

Thankfully society isn't as self righteous as an internet gaming forum. smile If someone did this in my group of friends 20 years ago or now, they would be ostracized for being an ass (unless it was their responsibility to be looking for such things).

Which would probably be to that person's benefit, as they could then find a better crowd to hang out with.  It's interesting how reporting underage drinkers equates to being an ass, while turning one's back on a friend doesn't equate to being an ass.
35  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Was I a jerk? on: April 05, 2008, 04:17:44 PM
Yep, I agree with your actions as well.  And if some people don't like it that you did your part in upholding a law?  Too bad for them.  They appear to be vastly outnumbered anyway, at least on this board.
36  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Our perception of Christianity influenced by Hollywood? on: March 10, 2008, 11:34:08 PM

Quote from: Lee on March 10, 2008, 06:31:36 PM

And what do flaming liberals have to do with any of this? Most liberals are Christians or Jewish.

Conservative and liberal Christians really don't consider each other to be "real" Christians, even if they're all the same to outsiders.  And I have to admit, like arclight, I've always felt that conservative Christians were typically stereotyped as empty-headed automatons in TV and movies.  I can't think of many specific examples of that, though, so I'm not sure where that impression originated.
37  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Housing Market Issues on: March 02, 2008, 10:49:50 PM
Why arent we as Americans angry yet? Perhaps it is because most Americans have been raised to accept this, and as long as we accept it, those who exploit will continue to take advantage of our political nievity. We face now a "collapse" as real as the Soviets faced in the early ninties, not because we are communist, but because we allow those who are in power to continue to take and take until there is nothing left to drive the economy at home.

Assuming the above is true - and I'm not saying it is, because while I think there's some truth to it, it's still excessively alarmist - what's the solution?  I get tired of always hearing people rant about this and that regarding the economy but never offer a solution.  If I had to read between the lines of Drazzil's post, it seemed that the situation was described as so bleak and hopeless that a revolution was the only solution.  Somehow, I don't see that happening, nor do I see it bettering the situation, but if the author believes that, why not come out and say it?
38  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Proud moments in your gaming history on: January 25, 2008, 04:26:24 AM
My most memorable moment was five or six years ago in an public online session of Battlefield 1942.  That game had a lot of memories for me, in large part because even though my reflexes were never better than average, I was still consistently able to rank in the top 5 on my teams due to strategy and the ability to think on my feet (or, in the case of the Coral Sea map, by being a great AA gunner  icon_twisted).  In all the time I played that game, though, one particular session stood out above the others.

In that session, I was playing as an American medic on the Wake Island map with 20+ people on each side.  The Japanese players had taken three of the five camps on the map and were aggressively attacking a fourth.  Ever the sneaky one, and deciding it was likely that the enemy would take the remaining camps before long (my team had been sucking all game), I decided to creep past everyone and head for the Japanese camp that was furthest away from the action, figuring it'd be lightly defended.  Before I got there, though, disaster occurred, and both of my side's remaining camps were taken.  One by one, my teammates were killed off, unable to respawn, and by the time I finally reached the camp I'd set out for, I was the only player left alive on my team.

I got close enough to their flag to initiate a takeover of it and then lay down on a slope to avoid being seen, hoping I could capture it and give my team a rebirth before the Japanese team knew what hit them.  Unfortunately, as I lay there, one of the enemy appeared on the plateau above me, and I knew he'd seen me.  I killed him but heard the footsteps of another approaching enemy, so I ran up the slope and dodged into a nearby hut, seeing yet another enemy soldier fly into the camp via a jeep as I did so.  I knew I had to kill the remaining enemy soldiers before the flag would fall into my control, and I knew I had to do it fast because the rest of their team would be arriving shortly as they learned where the last US soldier had been hiding.  Dodging through the hut, I popped out of a doorway and killed the soldier from the jeep before he knew where to look.  Then, I ran back into the hut and spotted the walking soldier at the other entrance.  We fired simultaneously, and I dodged his shot by moving sidewise while gunning him down.

My teammates had been watching all of this, since their viewpoint was switched to follow me once I was the only remaining person from the team.  When this had started, there were a few words of encouragement, but most of the team had been patiently waiting for me to die so the next session could start.  As I killed person after person, though, everyone started enthusiastically cheering me on, and I could feel the adrenaline rushing as we all started to think I might pull this off.

A jeep flew across the bridge toward my camp, the last ditch effort by the opposing team to stop me.  It was already smoking, though, and I managed to blow it up with my automatic weapon, killing the driver.  As the rest of the enemy army, tank included, reached the bridge approaching my station, the flag at last came under my control and my whole team respawned.  The cheering, if vocals had been part of the game, would've been deafening, and we went on to beat back their offensive and win that game.  I've played a lot of games, and I've made a lot of memories, especially in BF1942, but that last-ditch stand where I single-handedly kept us alive stands out as #1 for me.
39  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: *good* crock pot meals? on: January 19, 2008, 05:22:11 PM
Has anyone ever tried a crockpot lasagna?  I've always been curious about less traditional crockpot dishes like those, but I've never tried them. 
40  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Cats vs Dogs on: January 09, 2008, 11:50:59 PM
I prefer cats.  Dogs are ok, but cats are like little people and (in my opinion) are more interesting.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.264 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.113s, 1q)