DJ Vu 176 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Me too, speedz, me too. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Thank you. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Ohhhh. I see, you thought it wouldn't be confusing to reference a post made in a different thread a number of months ago. You're either a very clever joke account, or...Not if you actually say what you believe in and mean it. Unless of course your position on this matter has changed within in the last few months? But on second thought, I don't know you well enough to joke with you on a personal level or for you and I to have this discussion, so therefore, I sincerely apologize. I suppose I can see why you would think it was a 'joke account' with that statement though, so I understand completely. No, I mean, I quite literally have no clue what your angle might be. It's clearly to be annoying, but I feel like there might be a reason why, aside from the obvious. It can't just be that you thought you'd come into the religion forum to show us that talking about god is pointless, so we should talk about poker instead. It just can't.Anyway, you shouldn't confusing what's happening here was anyone on this form "tilting". Nobody here cares one way the another. But now I'm even more sure you're a joke account, due to the use of "tilt". God I want to know what's happening here.No angle shooting, other than I was just saying that it is interesting that the religion threads seem to have more response from people than the poker strategy threads. I honestly thought it very obvious. But this has been cleared up as I understand the forum is filled with a lot of people who were united by poker and now have moved on to other topics. I suppose things got out of hand or you otherwise think there is some type of ulterior motive or something, but I apologize again, there is none. I am not trying to be annoying to you or the couple of other members who have joined in with pitch forks and torches, promise. But like I said, let's drop it and carry on! Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not if you actually say what you believe in and mean it. Unless of course your position on this matter has changed within in the last few months? Do I really think you're equal to an ant? No. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Lulz...that was fast Dj.... OK so the ant has more value than you (humans)? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Lulz...that was fast Dj.... OK so the ant has more value than you (humans)?What was fast? That was from the post you quoted.I don't really feel like re-reading that thread to figure out the context of what we were talking about. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not if you actually say what you believe in and mean it. Unless of course your position on this matter has changed within in the last few months? But on second thought, I don't know you well enough to joke with you on a personal level or for you and I to have this discussion, so therefore, I sincerely apologize. I suppose I can see why you would think it was a 'joke account' with that statement though, so I understand completely.It's fine. I didn't remember the quote because it's not like that's a fully fleshed out and ingrained theory of mine. It's just something I said within the context of a particular discussion...an angle towards looking at things that I found interesting at the time. No angle shooting, other than I was just saying that it is interesting that the religion threads seem to have more response from people than the poker strategy threads. I honestly thought it very obvious. But this has been cleared up as I understand the forum is filled with a lot of people who were united by poker and now have moved on to other topics. I suppose things got out of hand or you otherwise think there is some type of ulterior motive or something, but I apologize again, there is none. I am not trying to be annoying to you or the couple of other members who have joined in with pitch forks and torches, promise. But like I said, let's drop it and carry on!Fair enough. Although I think that around here we've been united by boredom more than anything else. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Boredom, and our hatred of ants. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think the lose small win big is an example of a biased memory.Well that's why I called it an adage, not necessarily a fact. :)I also noted that I was talking about tournament play more than cash games.Aaaaand that's my poker discussion for the year. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Ok then, that was a contrary statement you made in one sentence. How can a ''hypothesis'' prove it wrong as you say? At best, your reply should be ''hypothetically'' or ''maybe''. It seems very ironic to say a hypothesis is incorrect, that is, until is proven to be false and thoroughly backed by research. Neither you nor I can say that any unproven scientific theory is 100% correct nor incorrect, because it is just that....a theory. Ask any highly knowledgeable or astute scientist where the universe/space/time etc. end and see for yourself. They would have to say ''we think, believe, or it is in our opinion that (insert unproven theory here)". If this is not true, please let me know. Seriously.You were "wrong" because you stated a hypothesis as though it were a fact, but in reality we don't know whether it's true or false. True statement: In my opinion, based on modern scientific research, there are hundreds of planets in our galaxy which harbor life.False statement: Modern scientific research has shown us that there are hundreds of planets in our galaxy which harbor life. Even if the false statement later turns out to be essentially correct, it was false at the time it was made. The same is true of the statement that time and space are infinite, because in actuality we don't really know how they function or exist, and certainly can't say with authority that they stretch to infinity. So stating that they are infinite in the way you stated it (which necessarily implied that there was a scientific consensus on the matter) is untrue. If, as you suggest, you had said, "I think," or "It is my opinion that..." then your statement would have been true.Tim, don't know where you're from, or what you do, but if we ever run into each other down the road, I'll buy ya a beer and we can just laugh the whole thing off. Deal?Deal. You shouldn't take disagreement to mean hostility. Forum discussions about politics and religion and philosophy and such are filled to the brim with disagreement. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Boredom, and our hatred of ants.How bout you step in a pile of fire ants and let's hear you profess your love of them! Those lil sobs!!!You were "wrong" because you stated a hypothesis as though it were a fact, but in reality we don't know whether it's true or false. Deal. You shouldn't take disagreement to mean hostility. Forum discussions about politics and religion and philosophy and such are filled to the brim with disagreement. Basically time and space have no end, right? Well why is that? Did something create time? Or has it just 'always' existed? How bout space? Does it run out? Can a scientist reach the end of all space and say, ''Here it is! I found the end!".I was actually just inquiring with rhetorical questions here looking for opinions on the matter. Not actually making a statement. I think we both may have been on the same page there to some degree. But no biggie, I didn't think there was any real hostility amongst us at all. I've read some of the other related threads that grew somewhat hostile, even towards DN back in the day for sharing links and things...... I just wanted an excuse to enjoy a frosty cold beverage. ha! Link to post Share on other sites
Roll the Bones 74 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 For the record this isn't me. I don't even know what angle shooting is. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 For the record this isn't me. I don't even know what angle shooting is.Yes I do too!.... oh, wait a minute........dammit. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't even know what angle shooting is.It's this: Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Richard Dawkins...being his normal self...stupidIf you were trying to come up with a definition of misplaced intellectual arrogance, you could not do better than having the planet’s most famous atheist issuing diktats on who does and doesn’t count as a proper Christian. Prof Dawkins then announced, triumphantly, that an “astonishing number [of Christians] couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament”.The transcript of the next minute or so only hints at how cringingly, embarrassingly bad it was for Dawkins.Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.Dawkins: Yes I could.Fraser: Go on then.Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the fight... in the struggle for life.Fraser: If you asked people who believed in evolution what that question, and then you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go they don't really believe it after all. It's just not fair to ask people these questions. Link to post Share on other sites
SuitedAces21 2,722 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 that must mean the bible is true. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Richard Dawkins...being his normal self...stupidIt's instructive to consider the difference here, which the author of that ridiculous paragraph does not seem to grasp. The theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's Book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The theory is true regardless of what books were written about it. If that book did not exist, the theory would still be true. Understanding the theory of evolution does not require one to have read that book, or any particular book for that matter. Christianity, however, depends upon the existence of the Bible. That book in itself constitutes the canon of the religion. If the bible were different, christianity would be different. Therefore reading and understanding the bible is an essential part of being a christian. Link to post Share on other sites
fighter 4 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Richard Dawkins...being his normal self...stupid"Last week’s court decision to ban prayers at the start of council meetings is all of a piece. The judge may or may not have got the law right – there will almost certainly be an appeal. But it is the National Secular Society which, in taking its case to court to have its views imposed on the rest of us, is responsible for the ban on Christians praying."Yeah they are now forcing Christians to not force their prays on others. Must be really tough. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Fraser: If you asked people who believed in evolution what that question, and then you came back and said two percent got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go they don't really believe it after all. It's just not fair to ask people these questions.Did you invent this part? It doesn't appear in the article, and also it has numerous strange typos. Link to post Share on other sites
bat 0 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Christianity, however, depends upon the existence of the Bible.Not quite. I don't necessarily buy into the fact that Christianity depends on the bible solely by itself. It's merely a vehicle. Just like the origins of species doctrine is a vehicle. Christianity is dependent upon faith... same as the evolutionary theory. Now let me throw some scripture out there that can maybe shed some light on how evolution and the Word can both be true. One arguement against Creationism is that it happened in 7 days correct? How the heck could that be true? But wait....days were possibly just a measure of God's time at this juncture, not man's. Take for instance this:2 Peter 3:8-9New International Version (NIV) 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. I know its rooted in a lesson on patience, but it could also shed light on the fact that the big guy up stairs can do anything beyond our scope of time. Maybe, just maybe, there is a sentient Being who is looking down and laughing at this believer/non believer debacle and thinking about how funny it is that we are all correct! To quote Dr. Steve Brule......."Wouldn't that be cool!" Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 It's instructive to consider the difference here, which the author of that ridiculous paragraph does not seem to grasp. The theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin's Book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The theory is true regardless of what books were written about it. If that book did not exist, the theory would still be true. Understanding the theory of evolution does not require one to have read that book, or any particular book for that matter. Christianity, however, depends upon the existence of the Bible. That book in itself constitutes the canon of the religion. If the bible were different, christianity would be different. Therefore reading and understanding the bible is an essential part of being a christian.You are trying to argue that a scientific truth and a metaphysical truth will have the same subset of facts to support them. While this may be true on a larger scale than we can't comprehend, it would not be true in the context you are trying to make.The simple fact is Dawkins is an idiot who can't reason his way out of a paper bag and a journalist ( who are arguably the stupidest people of any profession ) made him look stupid with ease.And I love the blatant racism in the title: Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life indeed.Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, sounds like a book Scram is working on.Did I mention the connection of evolutionist to nazism lately? Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Christianity, however, depends upon the existence of the Bible. That book in itself constitutes the canon of the religion. If the bible were different, christianity would be different. Therefore reading and understanding the bible is an essential part of being a christian.But this has nothing to do with being able to identify the first book of the New Testament. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Christianity is dependent upon faith... same as the evolutionary theory.If you're just saying that to be incendiary, please stop. If you actually intend to defend this statement, I'll engage you, but Im still not convinced you are actually here to discuss these issues. Now let me throw some scripture out there that can maybe shed some light on how evolution and the Word can both be true. One arguement against Creationism is that it happened in 7 days correct? How the heck could that be true? But wait....days were possibly just a measure of God's time at this juncture, not man's. Take for instance this:The timescale is not the only inconsistency between Genesis and evolution. I know its rooted in a lesson on patience, but it could also shed light on the fact that the big guy up stairs can do anything beyond our scope of time. Maybe, just maybe, there is a sentient Being who is looking down and laughing at this believer/non believer debacle and thinking about how funny it is that we are all correct! To quote Dr. Steve Brule......."Wouldn't that be cool!"...You are trying to argue that a scientific truth and a metaphysical truth will have the same subset of facts to support them.This is a silly sentence. First of all, can you explain this distinction? What is supposed to be a "metaphysical truth" as opposed to a "scientific truth"? If you are just dividing things up into things you assume can be understood by science and things that cannot, and then stating that the second category cannot be understood by science...And I love the blatant racism in the title: Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life indeed.Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, sounds like a book Scram is working on.Did I mention the connection of evolutionist to nazism lately?I assume Darwin was a racist just like every christian that lived at the same time as him. But I don't think the title of the book means what you think it means. More importantly, the whole point of science is not to rely on some sacred canon that was written hundreds of years ago. We are constantly updating our worldview with new information. You guys are the only ones that are beholden to sacred texts and prophets. Darwin is not a prophet to us. He is just a guy who had some insights, was right about a lot of things, and wrong about a lot of things. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 This is a silly sentence. First of all, can you explain this distinction? What is supposed to be a "metaphysical truth" as opposed to a "scientific truth"? If you are just dividing things up into things you assume can be understood by science and things that cannot, and then stating that the second category cannot be understood by science...You are the one trying o make a connection that doesn't exist. If the book that began all of you on your false search for a viable explanation for life is found to be false, it would undermine your theory.If the book of the Bible were found to be false, it would not relate in whether or not God exists.See the difference is one is real, and the other is still a poorly thought out theory. I assume Darwin was a racist just like every christian that lived at the same time as him. But I don't think the title of the book means what you think it means. More importantly, the whole point of science is not to rely on some sacred canon that was written hundreds of years ago. We are constantly updating our worldview with new information. You guys are the only ones that are beholden to sacred texts and prophets. Darwin is not a prophet to us. He is just a guy who had some insights, was right about a lot of things, and wrong about a lot of things. This is a silly sentence. Link to post Share on other sites
DJ Vu 176 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If the book of the Bible were found to be false, it would not relate in whether or not God exists.But it would relate to whether your God exists, right? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now