Memory

I am beginning to see that you are not an atheist quite well, although I don't quite believe Agnostic is quite the right description... Perhaps nontheist would be better? You simply dislike all belief systems, I can't fault you for this. It mirrors my own political views quite well. I do apologize that my statement was misunderstood. I did not mean for anything to be taken personally. An interesting question. Following is a link to a picture which I think illustrates my point quite well. I am only linking to it because it is a rather famous picture of someone being shot. The picture itself is not graphic, but I don't want to offend anyones sensibilities. http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs024/images/canon/06.jpg A photograph can not lie. Whatever it displays is the truth. Certainly photos can be edited, but this is a modern invention and since this is only an example we're going to pretend they can't be. The above linked photo is unedited, aside from maybe a little bit of cropping. If you look at the photo you can not deny the truth. A man, obviously a prisoner (hands behind his back) in a war zone is being shot. That happened, that is the truth. The man holding the gun is committing a war crime, he is violating the Geneva conventions. Is that the whole truth? No. The photo gives us an aspect of the truth as it existed the very second the shutter was snapped, but it is only one aspect. What if the picture had been taken a few seconds before, and if you could hear what was going on? Perhaps you would hear the prisoner mocking his captors, telling them how they were all going to die, how as a middle ranking member of the VC he knew of plots and plans that would end with civilian casualties on a large scale. The photographer, Eddie Adams, said the photo, which played a major role in turning American opinion against the Vietnam War. After Loan, the man with the gun, died Adams referred to him as a hero. Saying the photo had been misrepresented. My point is that I certainly believe in an absolute truth, but it is impossible to see it. We can only see bits and pieces of it, with limited information we can misinterpret the big picture, even though what we started with was the truth. If the truth was easily visible we would have no need for courts to sort through all the aspects and attempt to piece together something absolute.

Tolkein did his best to keep his religion out of his books, He even told C.S. Lewis, a friend of his, off for religious content of his.

I just watched it tonight, I wanted to see what the big deal was. Unlike what that article seemed to indicate (I read it a few days ago so I may have forgotten parts), the movie was not so much Heretical in nature, but simply anti-Catholic. I doubt most people would notice this if they hadn't made a big deal of it. Dune, which I noticed referenced earlier in this thread, was far more heretical (also I liked it better). The church should have kept quiet about it, and it wouldn't have gotten any attention. As it is, the theatre was mostly empty, I think they choose a bad time to release it.

Xbox has been out for nearly two years and isn't close to having its complete library emulated. I doubt Sony will either.

An apology Sever, I agree that line of thought went off on a random tangent and I shoulder some blame for it. Kudos to you for bringing an end to it. I was obstinate partially because I had a few very stressful days in a row and wanted to blow off steam. However on the issue of calling you a hypocrite, I most certainly did not. You said you !@#$%^&*ociated atheism with hypocracy, not me. I said I thought your position was atheistic prior to this. My comment on getting to the crux of the matter was to say you had an emotional reason for choosing the label you did. As well, you have said that I should be posting to defend my own beliefs, why have you been granted immunity in this? Of all your comments, however; the one that really made me think the most was " Glad we agree," despite the jingoistic at!@#$%^&*ude I may have started off with, I think we may have more in common belief wise than either of us may think, for truth is at the core of everything.

Instead of just saying we suffer the same number of points, perhaps I should clarify why I have said what I said. Where did I call you a hypocrite? You said that if I was right you would be a hypocrite.Here I was answering a rather random accusation made by you. Apparently you have nothing to back it up, that's called libel. Most, ahh, interesting.Consider this disbelief in what you said. Normally this would mean you should either back it up, or expand. In this case expand. Truth suffers from too much analysis. Random quote for random quote, we each quoted dead people, I quoted someone with whom I share a common training, and through that opinion on the issue. As I said there is Truth, a constant, and there is truth, something subjective. Many things seem. You are making no point here, you are arguing as a pedant. I stand by my word choice, and what word I chose is immaterial to the discussion at hand. I have already said. We are going around in circles here. You say one thing, I say another, you repeat yourself, I repeat myself. There is no point to rewriting it. Just go back and read what I already replied with, I'll assume you've done that, read what you've already written and we can skip the actual writing process and get to the same place. I would like to quote you now, if I may. You said it earlier in this post I am now replying to. Are we playing the hypocrites game here? Each accusing the other of our own crimes? I imagine it is quite a spectacle for the others. This isn't a point? You argue I am telling you what you believe, but you go around and tell me what I believe, or are you trying to tell me I am not what I say I am? Are you calling me a liar? If you do not understand the concept of omnipotence and the paradox which it must create, who am I to tell you? You are well read, you will find it somewhere. I am not here to make your arguments for you. I made reference to the paradox in reference to your own post that made the !@#$%^&*umption that omnipotence must be wrong. If that was not what drove that argument, what was? What has that to do with anything? I do believe this is a point. What the !@#$%^&* does that have to do with anything?

I had exactly as many points of debate as you did.

Where did I call you a hypocrite? You said that if I was right you would be a hypocrite. Most, ahh, interesting. Truth suffers from too much analysis. Many things seem. I have already said. I would like to quote you now, if I may. You said it earlier in this post I am now replying to. Are we playing the hypocrites game here? Each accusing the other of our own crimes? I imagine it is quite a spectacle for the others. If you do not understand the concept of omnipotence and the paradox which it must create, who am I to tell you? You are well read, you will find it somewhere. What has that to do with anything? you're arguing against his metaphor, not his point. I'm correcting a misconception, nothing more. I agree with his point.

Ahh, so wish to be known as "agnostic" because you fear to be known as a hypocrite, now we get to the crux of the matter. But you are arguing that the Abramic god does not, is that the exception to your statement? There is truth, and there is Truth. No, the connotations which such a statement bring to play are not necessary. I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are wrong. All are equal, all have the same potential. Why must omnipotence be a lie? Because it creates the possibility of paradox? One may justify anything they desire. Actually that thing about the earth being believed to be flat is a common misconception, most peoples, including Europeans, have known it was round for a long time.

I once had a pizza place refuse to honour a coupon that said it was good. I didn't press it. I just don't order from them anymore. I also once had a lady at work argue with me that a router she was sold wasn't wireless because it required an AC adapter. I didn't see the point in arguing with her so I just agreed with her. Now someone else can deal with her stupidity.

Certainly they rationalize their subject matter, that does not change the base fact. Science grew out of philosophy, but you are correct, they deal now with different things. What evidence are you looking for?

Yes, I read the first page of this thread. You said you were "agnostic," haha, I'll give you that, you most certainly are. I would argue, however, that you are not Agnostic. You say God might exist, but you take the time to tell Christians why they are wrong. I'll grant you it is possible to be Agnostic and be against Christianity. Tell me, which god is it you believe might or might not exist? A choice and a belief, when dealing with the philosophical or the theological, are the same thing. God is immaterial? No, that makes no sense. What Christians have you been speaking to? I am apostate to Calvinist dogma, I read the ancient heresies and study the history of the church, I am unaware of anyone, other than Mormons, who believe that man can attain perfection. God is perfect but man is not God. Eternal life is not perfection, but happiness.

I beg to differ, for something to be rational we must be able to touch, taste, feel, smell, etc. Irrational is the opposite. I do not mean this to be demeaning, as it has become in common language. I myself am arguing the irrational, however, for example, when Plato talks of the existence of Justice in his great work The Republic, I must conclude that the argument is for something that does not physically exist, and is therefore irrational. But if you say that intellectualism and religion are not mutually exclusive, we have no argument. I agree.

Intellectuals follow a scientific approach? A rather meaningless argument, especially when you go on to say they are not mutually exclusive. Besides, philosophy is the traditional domain of intellectuals. The word itself means "love of wisdom," science is simply something built over that. Philosophy deals with the irrational, science with the rational.

To make a choice is to take a stand. To take a stand is to believe. And religion is belief.

A perfection which can never be fulfilled. Perhaps Morons believe they can become gods, perfect, but no one else does. I read it quite fine, I was telling you about its roots. I wonder what is your expertise on the matter? To believe or not to believe, both are equally chosen, both are equally religion.

PC: Sam & Max Season 1 360: M!@#$%^&* Effect Enchanted Arms (Mostly because I think the premise is hilarious) Xbox: Halo Wii: Wii Sports Mariokart 64 PS2: Final Fantasy XII DS: Super Mario World

Great game but there are a few parts where it has an unfinished feel. Also sidequests start to feel the same after a while, they should have had a longer story. The end would count as the twist in most RPG's, with the earlier twist of much less value.

I have the full game. Most of it is pretty similar, it seems that they do always throw in a few dud items, but each "episode" gives you a new bunch of items, some will be held over, but those all have uses. And yes, those three guys are the focus of the first episode.

Do you honestly think it is the desire for self improvement which brings people to religion? Religion has nothing to do with self improvement, if anything adherents to the faith are cut down in this regard, the message is pummeled upon them that they can never be full, or perfect, or good. Do you think that Christendom is only for the poor? Then why are so many followers wallow in money? Christianity rose to power through an intellectual movement long ago, even if it was founded the religion of the poor, the weak, and the oppressed.

There are too many users. Banning it would create a massive black market immediately. While it would certainly fade away eventually, it would cost more than it's worth.

No they can't. Equivalent chipsets will always be better in a desktop then in a laptop due to power requirements and heat issues.

Thats not right A Memory lol we get the cooties from you guys LOL No! You lie! It can't be! Obi-wan told me what happened!

What a fun thread! I'm a Christian of the Chalcedonian school of thought.

Girls have cooties or something. I can't remember.