OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[Fyron]

Ok... in the Last 2 days, I have gotten at least 5-7 low Ratings (as my average dropped by at least .3 points). I do not care about the rating- which is why I don't turn it off- but I do consider it to be exremely rude for someone to give such a low rating and not tell the person they are rating. So, if you are one of the people that I pissed off and rated me with a 1 or something, could you do the right thing and tell me to my face that you do not like me (or like what I said)? You can email me if you do not want it public information. Do not worry, as I will not bite your head off. I just want to know who my Posts upset. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If anyone else wants to give me a low rating (or a high one, or an average one), go right ahead. Just tell me if you have a problem with me.

[ March 10, 2003, 05:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Captain Kwok]

Geez...for someone who doesn't care about rating, you're sure making enough fuss about it. I think I can recall 3+ Posts you've said something about it in the Last couple days.

PS

I rated you a 5 a long time ago... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

I don't care about Ratings. I do care about it when people do things like bad-mouth others behind their backs. That is essentially what giving an anonymous bad rating is.

I just found it funny that people considered the rating important enough to give me a bad rating. That is the only reason I mentioned it in those 3 Posts (and it only happened after someone else mentioned that I had dropped to 4 stars http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

[ February 28, 2003, 01:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[oleg]

Because you are Ruler of the World and since it is so far from perfect they hold you responsible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[sachmo]

I would let it go, Fyron. Someone rated me low at some point recently. It doesn't matter, though. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read! I have read your Posts for a while now. Those who have know that you are an excellent contributer. You should be flattered that you can evoke that powerful of a response in someone while still being a productive member of the board. That sort of power only comes once in a lifetime! And don't let your stalker get you down! At least you know that someone is always thinking about you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Stone Mill]

You are well respected in my book. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif I can't begin to account for all the help (and fun) you provided. And most here would agree, I'm sure.

(Note to self: Always brown-nose the ruler of the world.) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Yeah, cause as the Ruler of the World, I have the power to have you secretly assasinated at any time I want. So, you better brown-nose! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k Actually... brown-nosing is much more likely to get me to have you assasinated... I hate brown-nosers..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But anyways..... if something I posted offended someone, I would like to learn what offended them. Maybe I can learn to post such information in the future in a way that would be less offensive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Tenryu]

There's another 5 for you Fyron.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Fyron's buried himself so far, that's it going to take at least 15 consecutive 5's before he gets his missing star back! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Thermodyne]

Don’t worry about it my friend. You are well respected within the core of the community. And this is not the first time the hateful little bast$$$s have taken a cheap shot at you. Personally, I would take it as an indication of how badly they envy your game skills http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[CNCRaymond]

What Fyrons been demoted? *shock*

I gave the guy a 5 star rating for just making a cool mod that I enjoy using.

By post count alone, he should be at least a six star rating by now.

[Baron Grazic]

Fyron, I'll admit I 'thought' of give you a 1 star rating but I respect what you do around here to much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'd prefer just to take cheap shots at you, and in-game take out those lowly undefended planets, since it takes a dozen of my ships to take our any of your Vorlon fighters... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

{Baron Grazic, Double checking his Profile - breaths a sigh of relief - Nope still haven't rated the Rule of the World}

[tbontob]

Hi Fyron

You got my 5 star vote a long time ago.

No question about it, you are smart, brilliant, gifted and have an extraordinary grasp of the game.

I may regret what I am about to say, but you did ask. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In my opinion a true friend will tell the truth as he perceives it.

Of course, the friends perception of truth does not in any way mean that he correct or right in his perception but at least he is being truthful about it.

So, recently, there may be a problem with humility. In some areas, there is no obvious right or wrong, just a difference of opinion which cannot be resolved on a right/wrong basis.

Lord knows, at times I suffer from a lack of humility. To some, it may even be most of the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am sure I have offended some people with my lack of humility and to these people, I apologize for the righteous attitude I may have taken.

[geoschmo]

Is this where we go for the Fyron roast?

I consider myself a friend of Fyron, and I can say with surety that he has no problem at all with humilty. He doesn't have any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Ragnarok]

Ok, just to let you know I didn't rate you low Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In fact I gave you a 5 star rating just a couple days ago. I feel you are a great asset to this community and without you around it wouldn't be the same. If I could give you another 5 star rating I would but seeing as I can't... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But I thought I'd let you know that our 'discussion' did not offend me in any way enough for me to rate you badly.

[tesco samoa]

GEO... Bwahahahaha

I gave you a 1 long time ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Ask Puke http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Unless of course you wish to debate this as their is no proof http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Take that Phoenix-D http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

DavidG ahhh I have nothing

Andrés my friend good topic.

K-M and AT come back more often. I really miss both of you.

Yes the ramblings of an old man... Mac your teaching me so much.

[tesco samoa]

And if were going to do a roast we need Dean Martin or atleast start a friars club thread...

[Kamog]

I just rated Fyron with a 5. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yeah, cause as the Ruler of the World, I have the power to have you secretly assasinated at any time I want. So, you better brown-nose! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k Actually... brown-nosing is much more likely to get me to have you assasinated... I hate brown-nosers..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But anyways..... if something I posted offended someone, I would like to learn what offended them. Maybe I can learn to post such information in the future in a way that would be less offensive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah. Ahem.

I hate to say this, but "Ruler of the World" in a universe filled with galaxies is really not a big thing.

Maybe we should wait till we are the Ruler of the Universe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ZeroAdunn]

Fyron: I rated you a 1... you know, if you hadn't stabbed me with that knife it would have been higher.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

On a side note, it is just a rating by people who don't really know you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Stop that people. Don't make me have the thread locked for the pity party. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
Ok, just to let you know I didn't rate you low Fyron. In fact I gave you a 5 star rating just a couple days ago. I feel you are a great asset to this community and without you around it wouldn't be the same. If I could give you another 5 star rating I would but seeing as I can't...
But I thought I'd let you know that our 'discussion' did not offend me in any way enough for me to rate you badly.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok, I guess it ticked some other people off then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I'd prefer just to take cheap shots at you, and in-game take out those lowly undefended planets, since it takes a dozen of my ships to take our any of your Vorlon fighters... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Isn't it nice how the cyrstalline fighters just rip right through your organic armor?

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Is this where we go for the Fyron roast?

I consider myself a friend of Fyron, and I can say with surety that he has no problem at all with humilty. He doesn't have any. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I resemble that remark.

Originally posted by tbontob:
Ah. Ahem.

I hate to say this, but "Ruler of the World" in a universe filled with galaxies is really not a big thing.

Maybe we should wait till we are the Ruler of the Universe? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am Ruler of Earth. All of you are sitting on Earth. Therefore, you are my subjects. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tooooo many smileys.....

[ February 28, 2003, 06:35: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[minipol]

i checked my profile and i hadn't rated you yet. just given you a 5. by the way, my rating is way lower than yours http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

anyway, i do not always agree with what you say but otherwise we wouldn't have fun discussions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
And as others have said, you are a great asset for this community!

Keep on rolling!
(hey it's friday morning, i'm tired and this was the only ending i could think of. cut me some slack http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

[Aloofi]

Fyron, I did rate you with 1 star back then in the first week I posted in this forum. You were saying something really awful about Proportions that I didn't like, and you know that Proportions is my loved one, and as a newbie I didn't know how important you were to this community and how many good things you have done, so you got one star... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif .
I got to know you better after that, and I would take that rating back if I could.

[Growltigger]

Fyron, I gave you a 1 star recently because I had assumed that as a student, you would have only got as far as learning to cook french fries and wouldn't have moved onto burgers etc yet.

I also give anyone from the Eastern or Western SeaBoards of the Continental United States a 1 star rating as a matter of principal

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:

I also give anyone from the Eastern or Western SeaBoards of the Continental United States a 1 star rating as a matter of principal<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What?
As a matter of principal?
What do you mean by that?

[Growltigger]

Aloofi, probably the same reason that you give your place of origin as "anywhere but Europe".

I suppose I could narrow it down and say that I give Californians and any north american I suspect of liking country & western music a 1 star rating as a matter of principle.

What do I know, I am scared of clowns and morris dancers

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Aloofi, probably the same reason that you give your place of origin as "anywhere but Europe".

I suppose I could narrow it down and say that I give Californians and any north american I suspect of liking country & western music a 1 star rating as a matter of principle.

What do I know, I am scared of clowns and morris dancers<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, I thought it was some political stuff.
I really don't like when people assume that everybody from any giving country are the same. Of course, free speech is supposse to allow for such ideas.....

Anyway, I like Speed Metal, so I'm not in your target group..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Growltigger]

Oh I dont know about that Aloofi, I hear that Billy Ray Cyrus wanted to do a song with Pantera.

It would have been the worst of both worlds!

WTF is Speed Metal anyhow? is it like Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Nu Metal, Bibbidibop Metal and my Uncle Alf doing Waltzin' Matilda on his kazoo?

[ February 28, 2003, 14:27: Message edited by: growltigger ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Oh I dont know about that Aloofi, I hear that Billy Ray Cyrus wanted to do a song with Pantera.

It would have been the worst of both worlds!

WTF is Speed Metal anyhow? is it like Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Nu Metal, Bibbidibop Metal and my Uncle Alf doing Waltzin' Matilda on his kazoo?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Speed Metal is usually confused with Thrash, mostly because many bands play both. Classic Speed metal bands would be Slayer and Sepultura. Then you have albums like Metallica's "And justice for all" which its undoubtely a Thrash album, but the Last song, "Dyers eve" is an Speed Metal song. To add more confusion, most radio stations gave up this classification and call them just Heavy Metal bands, when Heavy Metal is just one kind of metal, not a generic name for all types of metal.

[Growltigger]

Thank you for that Aloofi. I am now going for a liedown.

Where does my Europe "The Final Countdown" album fit into all this?

[Ruatha]

Europe -> Poodle Rock.

[ February 28, 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Thank you for that Aloofi. I am now going for a liedown.

Where does my Europe "The Final Countdown" album fit into all this?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heavy Metal, though some guys might add the moniker "Commercial" before it to diferentiate it from Iron Maiden and AC/DC.

Europe would be in the same bundle with Poison, Bon Jovi and Aerosmith.

[Gryphin]

I have never rated anyone. I don't see the importance of it. While there could be a correlation between the
Rating, Post count, when a person signed up
and
The qualty of their post
there are too many other posssible reasons for the level of these units of measurement.
It behooves one to take these measurments with a grain of salt.

[dogscoff]

Where does my Europe "The Final Countdown" album fit into all this?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Into an incinerator, or, if you try playing it anywhere near me, up your arse. Sideways.

[Growltigger]

Dogscoff, good thing it is on minidisk then....

[oleg]

Hmmm, I was here for two years and always had 5 stars. Now I post few comments about american foreign policy and get downgraded. Should know better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tesco samoa]

i always thought speed metal was stuff like Sore Throat, Naplam Death and the great libary from Earache Records, and Land Speed Records.

The Slayer Reigh in Blood is a classic album. From beginning to end.

[minipol]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Speed Metal is usually confused with Thrash, mostly because many bands play both. Classic Speed metal bands would be Slayer and Sepultura. Then you have albums like Metallica's "And justice for all" which its undoubtely a Thrash album, but the Last song, "Dyers eve" is an Speed Metal song. To add more confusion, most radio stations gave up this classification and call them just Heavy Metal bands, when Heavy Metal is just one kind of metal, not a generic name for all types of metal.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Me likes metal. But calling Slayer and Sepultura speed metal would be wrong. They have both gone from death metal bands to a more speedier genre yes but their work from the beginning is not speed metal. I like them though.
It happens that i recently discovered 3 good new bands from a friend of mine who reviews cds ( rockreport (http://www.rockreport.be/home.asp) ) namely: Evergreen (kick ***), Nightwish (even better) and Vanden plas(good).

One of my all time favourite cd's is still "Heartwork" from Carcass. I like their "Swansong" too. Other bands i like: Amorphis, Anathema, Cathedral (Forest of Equilibrium rules!), BoltThrower, Samael, My dying bride, Iron Maiden and Judas Priest.

tesco samoa: The Slayer Reigh in Blood is a classic album. From beginning to end.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't agree more. Angel Of Death & Raining blood are my favourite songs though from that album

[ February 28, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: minipol ]

[minipol]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Where does my Europe "The Final Countdown" album fit into all this?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Into an incinerator, or, if you try playing it anywhere near me, up your arse. Sideways.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or play it backwards. It's rumoured to be quite a hit played that way in metal underground mids http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Aloofi, probably the same reason that you give your place of origin as "anywhere but Europe".

I suppose I could narrow it down and say that I give Californians and any north american I suspect of liking country & western music a 1 star rating as a matter of principle.

What do I know, I am scared of clowns and morris dancers<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very few Californians like country or western music GT. That type of music is more prominent in the mid-west, not the west. If you are going to bash an entire region of a large country, you better get it straight. I personally hate country music. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[rdouglass]

You may have suspected me since we've had recent 'discussions'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif However I haven't rated anyone on this forum ever IIRC.

Even if I had, I wouldn't give you a 1 - I love the FQM... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Must have been lurkers that rated me with those 1s then. I guess they aren't likely to fess up any time soon, as then they would hardly remain "lurkers". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I think those first ones must have been 4s. I just got another rating, any my average dropped by .1 or so. The first ones only lowered it by like .01. Oh well. Lets see if I can't still get a 1 average. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ February 28, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
K-M and AT come back more often. I really miss both of you.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm always there, every day, mostly twice a day. I read all the new Posts. I'm just a bit silent at the moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ZeroAdunn]

Quick, grab sand bags!!! He's floating away!! I wanred you about blowing that much smoke up Fyron's a.... never mind....

Seriously though, as a midwesterner, I think you are wrong about country music being a midwest thing.

[Fyron]

Southeastern part of the Midwest. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif That all depends on how you classify the Midwest.

[Saxon]

Fryon,

To quote rdouglas “despite recent discussions”, I to can state that I have not given you a low rating. I have not been on the Boards for months and had to drop out of my games.

I agree with you that if you have a problem with someone, you should stand up and say it. I think you know that; you know my views on your role-playing based on what I have stated in the Bash. Based on that, let me ask that troublesome waste of skin Tigga if the genetic accident he is calling a child has arrived yet? Where is the current Tigga bashing thread anyway?

Waiting patiently for the airstrike reply from TiggAir,

Saxon

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Saxon:
Waiting patiently for the airstrike reply from TiggAir.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think he will be much more personlly when dealing with you. Wait, was that your doorbell ringing? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

Am I the only one who would rate our friend here a 1.

come on people look deep inside and click that 1.

Puke will love you and you will be saving little kittens.

[primitive]

Fyron:
Since this thread won't die here is my comments:

Your mods and your helpfullnes when someone asks questions clearly deserve a fiver.

I personally don't like your political views, but I would never rate anyone because of a difference in opinions.

I have rated you low because you have a tendency to flame every idea not your own. I think this is very counterproductive to the SEIV society and also SEV development. Several posters have dropped completely out of the forum after one of your very rude responses.

To end this post, I am gonna quote you:
“Please don't be so arrogant to assume that you hold absolute truth and anyone that disagrees with you is naive. The only one being naive there is the person that believes they hold absolute truth.”

[ZeroAdunn]

Originally posted by primitive:
To end this post, I am gonna quote you:
“Please don't be so arrogant to assume that you hold absolute truth and anyone that disagrees with you is naive. The only one being naive there is the person that believes they hold absolute truth.”<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oooh, ouch, thats gonna hurt, using someones own guote against them

:turns mike to Fyron:

Fyron, your response?

[Fyron]

Originally posted by primitive:
Fyron:
Since this thread won't die here is my comments:

Your mods and your helpfullnes when someone asks questions clearly deserve a fiver.

I personally don't like your political views, but I would never rate anyone because of a difference in opinions.

I have rated you low because you have a tendency to flame every idea not your own. I think this is very counterproductive to the SEIV society and also SEV development. Several posters have dropped completely out of the forum after one of your very rude responses.

To end this post, I am gonna quote you:
“Please don't be so arrogant to assume that you hold absolute truth and anyone that disagrees with you is naive. The only one being naive there is the person that believes they hold absolute truth.”<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See... now we are making some headway. Much more useful post than most made in this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is always nice to see quotes taken wildly out of context. There is a significant difference between arguing against something someone posted and refusing to accept any criticism of things you have posted. That was posted after someone repeatedly refused to accept that some evidence he/she was using was wrong, and continued using it. It does not apply to myself because when I am wrong, I admit it and amend my views appropriately. I just happened to be right in the debate that was quoted from.

If someone was offended by something posted in an OT thread, then that person should not be reading OT threads. They nearly always get somewhat heated, and it is very easy to be offended when people post things that contradict your own world view. If I offended these people enough to make them leave the entire forum, then I am sorry. It was never my intention to drive anyone away. But, they should lighten up and not take things so seriously.

Also, I do not "flame every idea not [my] own". There is a world of difference between flaming someone for their ideas and holding more or less civil debates. When someone Posts something I do not agree with, I am well within my rights to post something arguing against it (as they can argue against anything I have posted). I do not flame these ideas, I just argue against them. Flaming them would consist of posting something like, "you're a moron, with stupid beliefs." I have never posted that.

... that was a bit long-winded. Oh well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit: Upon reading Fyron's profile i'm finally happy to find another person who has their birthday on september 11th, you have no idea how immature school kids can be "OMG Your Osama Bin Laden!" *sigh* and i thought 16 year olds were beginning to mature! So maybe you can send a couple of vorlon ships to incinerate my school, or do you have connections with the borg? I've always suspected my teacher as one...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, 16 year olds are still children. Most people don't start to mentally mature until around 18-20, if not later. Females usually mature at a younger age than males, but rarely by 16. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I will not incinerate your school. That would be a violation of policy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 01, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[ZeroAdunn]

I welcome you to join us in the 21st century if you would like to. Its up to you, really.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Flame Tacular....

[Fyron]

Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I welcome you to join us in the 21st century if you would like to. Its up to you, really.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Flame Tacular....</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not that this is any sort of defense, but.... posting anything in an OT thread like that is asking for trouble. If you don't want the possibility of such a response, you probably should not be posting in OT threads.

That was a minor indiscretion and poor word choice, not quite a flame. The thing is, all human emotions have been proven to be results of the chemical balance in our brains. What causes the particular chemical balance is our previous emotions, our current thoughts, stress levels (which are also maintained by the chemical balance), even the food we eat, and many other factors that I don't remember at present. Evil and good thoughts/feelings are not a result of little good guys and bad guys floating around trying to influence us. That is the sort of thing that people believed in the Dark Ages when they had no idea how the world around them worked. I should probably have said this, and not what I said in the thread. I apologize to Greybeard for this.

[Gryphin]

Folks,
Life is short.
Can we accept a few things and put this all behind us?
1) Body language and Tone inflection do not come across in text.
2) There really is no reason to believe that anyone here meant to offend / upset / insult / piss off etc.. anyone.
3) What has been posted in text if delivered over a table with friends would have come across completely differently and no one would have taken offence..
4) We all have different personalties and when all is said and done it just does not matter how the post is delivered.

Can we accept the above and go forward with an unmitigated understanding:
If you think someone meant to offend then you probably misunderstood.

To define "Meant" - The person actually intended to offend / upset / insult / piss you off

[tesco samoa]

Good thing you are all getting this out of your system...

Gryphin Words of Wisdom my friend

[primitive]

Fyron:
You asked why you was rated low. I answered.
Feel free to take my words as constructive criticism, or dismiss them as ravings from a mad man.

Either way this discussion is over from my side.

[Raging Deadstar]

Ahh finally a good forum with decent music taste (and i ain't talking about Europe - The final countdown either) Anathema rocks, Slayer is the greatest band ever (Reign In Blood kicks ***, though God Hates Us All is growing on me) and some of the original death metal bands are quite good (Emperor etc)

As for fyron i forgot to rate you, I'll be honest Fyron, you do seem to have a kind of "I'm better than!" you attitude at times. But then again since you are now ruler of the world and you did create the FQM i believe that i can forgive you for that minor fault, maybe it's a Vorlon Trait! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif anyway some of your put downs on other members are classic! Please go and sort out those Ruathalites in the thread that never dies, i believe they be getting too big headed since you left (JK, If my rating goes down i know i should have kept quiet! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) So you get another 5 Star rating from me!

Edit: Upon reading Fyron's profile i'm finally happy to find another person who has their birthday on september 11th, you have no idea how immature school kids can be "OMG Your Osama Bin Laden!" *sigh* and i thought 16 year olds were beginning to mature! So maybe you can send a couple of vorlon ships to incinerate my school, or do you have connections with the borg? I've always suspected my teacher as one... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 01, 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: Raging Deadstar ]

[mango68]

I just came back to SEIV and the forum after a long time away. I had fogotten all about the rating issue. I just rated you a 5 because I have found your Posts, your replies to my Posts and your website to be extremely helpful and informative. Thanks.

[raynor]

One quick question: If the "big one" came and everything on the seaward side of the San Andreas fault fell into the ocean, would:

Alta Loma/Riverside, CA, USA

still be on land or in the ocean?

This is purely a geography-type questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Gryphin]

raynor, it depends on what music was playing at the time.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by raynor:
One quick question: If the "big one" came and everything on the seaward side of the San Andreas fault fell into the ocean, would:

Alta Loma/Riverside, CA, USA

still be on land or in the ocean?

This is purely a geography-type questions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First off, that is impossible. There is no such thing as a "big one" quake that could do that much damage. The area is not tectonically unstable enough for that to be possible. But if (and that is a big if) it did happen, Alta Loma would be screwed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Wardad]

I am prepared. I own future ocean front property in Arizona. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Thermodyne]

I doubt the coast of California will drop off any time soon. It is actually moving north very slowly, not dropping off. If you want to plan for natural disasters, the Yellowstone caldera would be a more likely candidate. And if you move up the coast, there are several million people that live in the shadows of semi-dormant volcanoes.

[ March 02, 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Aloofi]

Why is this forum loading so slow?
Is it my computer or the Forum?
I usualy fly through this threads.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Why is this forum loading so slow?
Is it my computer or the Forum?
I usualy fly through this threads.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I noticed this too.

[Growltigger]

Actually, if you sit back and read this whole thread in a comfy chair with a cold towel on your head, it is quite disturbing.

Fyron, I dont mean any disrespect but from a independant viewing, you do come across as an angry young man with an axe to grind.

Is this because you have lived for so long with the threat of armaggedon vis a vis Alta Loma disappearing into the briny due to techtonic disaster? or is it because of your taste in music?

PS are there any Britney Spears fans on this forum

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:


PS are there any Britney Spears fans on this forum<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh my, you are asking for the Slayer fans to slay you, burn you and then drop your carcass with a parachute in middle of a Britney Spear's concert.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Growltigger]

Aloofi, would be a nice change as when I were a young lad and into my rock (this was when the likes of Nightranger, Van Halen, Danger Danger and all those glamrock bands were kicking around), Slayer fans tended to be greasy haired spotty yoyos and you could only tell which way they were walking cos of the way their noses would stick out of their hair!!!

[Aloofi]

Slayer lyrics might be classified as Death Metal, but their sound its absolutely Speed Metal, though Death Metal is not classified only by their lyrics the way Black Metal is.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Aloofi, would be a nice change as when I were a young lad and into my rock (this was when the likes of Nightranger, Van Halen, Danger Danger and all those glamrock bands were kicking around), Slayer fans tended to be greasy haired spotty yoyos and you could only tell which way they were walking cos of the way their noses would stick out of their hair!!!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">NightRanger?
That the worst band ever! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
By the way, I have a very long hair and I have never had it greasy. Oh well, maybe after a concert... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
It all comes down to the care you give it. The trick is to wash it every single day, with the best avaliable sham for your particular kind of hair. In my case I use Pantene Pro-V.

And I'm not an Speed Metal fan, it just happen to be the music I hear to when i'm driving. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Actually, if you sit back and read this whole thread in a comfy chair with a cold towel on your head, it is quite disturbing.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that picture is more disturbing than this whole thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Fyron, I dont mean any disrespect but from a independant viewing, you do come across as an angry young man with an axe to grind.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats about as far from the truth as you can get. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Is this because you have lived for so long with the threat of armaggedon vis a vis Alta Loma disappearing into the briny due to techtonic disaster? or is it because of your taste in music?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no threatof armaggedon in Alta Loma.

Taste in music says absolutely nothing about a person. I think it would be better if you dropped the stereotyping of people based on their musical preferences that you seem to do a lot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Aloofi]

Hey, I lost another star!!!!

Now, will the offended come out and tell me publicly what I did "wrong"?

Yeah right.

Oh my, I've been infected with Fyron's virus! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I dont mean any disrespect but from a independant viewing, you do come across as an angry young man with an axe to grind.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats about as far from the truth as you can get. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God, I hope I am not going where angels fear to tread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Fyron, you may be missing the point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It was suggested that "you do come across as an angry young man with an axe to grind."

Whether it is actually true or not, to this person (and possibly others), you may be be giving this impression.

To reject it with "Thats about as far from the truth as you can get. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ", does not dismiss the feelings people have about the issue.

Assuming the statement "you do come across as an angry young man with an axe to grind." is an open and honest statement of what the person is feeling/thinking, a more appropriate response for a person who is genuinely searching for the truth is to ask, "What am I doing to give this impression."

It reminds me of a very bad joke played on immigrants who cannot speak English.

The jokester tells the immigrant that if he wants to be liked, he should respond to any question with "You are an *******."

Later, when the immigrant does say this to someone, the recipient of this statement can say "You are being very rude."

The immigrant could say, "That is not true."

And from the immigrants perspective, it certainly is not true.

But true or not, the immigrant is still doing something which gives the impression that he is being rude.

[tesco samoa]

I was a short haired slayer music fan.

And I would disagree on the statement that music says nothing about a person.

I take music very personally.

As you well know... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Music is a personal experience that we share and enjoy.

We relate to music. We also have songs that we treat as gateways to the past.
Like a smell or a great moment in our lives.

I will finish this later.

I have to go to hockey

[Cheeze]

Originally posted by Wardad:
I am prepared. I own future ocean front property in Arizona. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That future property wouldn't be located in an as-yet-to-be-named town of Otisburg, would it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[obscure movie reference]

[Fyron]

tbontob:
Trust me, I got the point.

Tesco:
I was referring to his stereotyping of people based on the music they listen to. Not everyone that listens to a type of music is the same as everyone else that listens to that music.

[dogscoff]

Taste in music says absolutely nothing about a person. I think it would be better if you dropped the stereotyping of people based on their musical preferences that you seem to do a lot.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well that's exactly the kind of response I would expect from someone with your taste in music, Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Taste in music says absolutely nothing about a person. I think it would be better if you dropped the stereotyping of people based on their musical preferences that you seem to do a lot.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well that's exactly the kind of response I would expect from someone with your taste in music, Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And just what do you think my taste of music is? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[mottlee]

What is this? A flame post? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
can't we all play nice?

[JLS]

Fryon, you got my vote of 5, I have seen a lot of positive contributions from you all over the this forum!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:
My 100th post, some day I will be ruler of the world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 04, 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: JLS ]

[Growltigger]

Mottlee, depends if you are the token Britney Spears fan....

So far, we have Imperator Fyron accusing me (and others) of judging people by their musical tastes, and Aloofi giving me the low down on the various types of "Metal" one gets these days (it were so simple when I was t'lad).

Dogscoff is stirring things up, Fyron is reacting to it, I am making wild and random accusations against people saying they like NSync, the Cheeky Girls or Wagner and you, in the middle of all this, ask us to be nice??

Perry Como fan, you can spot them anywhere

[MacLeod]

Britney Spears 4ever!

Err, ok i lied.
I'm a Metalli-head, Metallica, Pantera and MegaDeth rating as my top3, with AC/DC Aerosmith and Zeppelin rating just behind. What genre of metal that places me in, I don't exactly know.


Taste in music says absolutely nothing about a person. I think it would be better if you dropped the stereotyping of people based on their musical preferences that you seem to do a lot.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I dont think anyone here is stereotyping. I haven't really met anyone who judges one another by taste in music, which is good as being a fan of MegaDeth, people would probably expect some weird **** outta me.

I also have to say about that, that music does indeed say something about you, that's why we enjoy it, but people listen to music for so many reasons that nobody could ever hope to accurately state what that says about that person without knowing them, or accurately judge the difference between your average Backstreet Boys fan and Slayer fans. Well, except for better taste, and longer hair..... and mosh pits http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for rating you, I rated you a 5, but your conversation about religion lowered my opinion of you a bit. You seemed unwilling to give a single argument any acceptance and were overly harsh, as well as unwilling to let the conversation go to a close despite the other person's intention of doing so.
Maybe I got the wrong impression from that, but it is indeed the impression I got.

[Aloofi]

Hey yo, Mcleod, do you like Megadeth's Version of Anarchy in UK that is in the "So far so good so what"?
Lot of fans I know say that song is just an straight copy of Sex Pistol's original, instead of making a "megadethzed" Version.
Anyway, I do like it, but I guess some fans were expecting something more glamorous.....

[mottlee]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Mottlee, depends if you are the token Britney Spears fan....

So far, we have Imperator Fyron accusing me (and others) of judging people by their musical tastes, and Aloofi giving me the low down on the various types of "Metal" one gets these days (it were so simple when I was t'lad).

Dogscoff is stirring things up, Fyron is reacting to it, I am making wild and random accusations against people saying they like NSync, the Cheeky Girls or Wagner and you, in the middle of all this, ask us to be nice??

Perry Como fan, you can spot them anywhere<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmmm....not sure I want to say my thoughts on this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif on this tho would depend on what she has on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (dirty OLD man)

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by mottlee:
Hmmm....not sure I want to say my thoughts on this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif on this tho would depend on what she has on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (dirty OLD man)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know what? I don't like her. There is something about her that I don't like. Sometimes she looks better, but more than once I have seen something bad in her body, physically bad, like a deformation, an slight deformation of course, something that the eye can't catch but the subcouncious see, probably something like low hips or a desproportion.
I can't tell for sure what it is, and I don't always see it, but its there, believe me......
Have any one of you seen something like this in her?

[Fyron]

As for rating you, I rated you a 5, but your conversation about religion lowered my opinion of you a bit. You seemed unwilling to give a single argument any acceptance and were overly harsh, as well as unwilling to let the conversation go to a close despite the other person's intention of doing so.
Maybe I got the wrong impression from that, but it is indeed the impression I got.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The other person kept making counter arguments and then in the same post saying he was done. You can not do that. If you want to end a discussion, you say just that, not continue it. It is not my fault that he didn't really mean it when he said the discussion was over on his end (or if he did mean it, he implemented it incorrectly http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

He only had 1 argument, and it was wrong. He just repeated the same argument over and over again. That does not make me "unwilling to give a single argument any acceptance" because I can not accept 1 argument that is inherently flawed. Had he offered many arguments, you would have a valid point. But, he only had 1 argument, and several pieces of evidence. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by mottlee:
Hmmm....not sure I want to say my thoughts on this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif on this tho would depend on what she has on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (dirty OLD man)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know what? I don't like her. There is something about her that I don't like. Sometimes she looks better, but more than once I have seen something bad in her body, physically bad, like a deformation, an slight deformation of course, something that the eye can't catch but the subcouncious see, probably something like low hips or a desproportion.
I can't tell for sure what it is, and I don't always see it, but its there, believe me......
Have any one of you seen something like this in her?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is probably that she has an unhealthy look (way too thin and all), and your subconscious picked up on that, but your conscious mind has been trained to see that unhealthy look as attractive.

[ March 04, 2003, 19:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[oleg]

There was no single rock band worth listening since Nirvana. IMHO of course.

[ZeroAdunn]

Nirvana Rules!!!

Ahem... back on subject....

Yes, judging people by the music they listen to is rather stupid. I preffer to judge people on the type of shoes they wear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[minipol]

Altough Nirvana didn't have bad music, i never liked them. I think he (Kurt) had an attitude problem. Hmmm. Now that i think about it, he seemed a bit like Imperator Fyron.
Maybe Kurt Cobain isn't really dead ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

( don't flame it's a joke or an attempt to one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

[Fyron]

Originally posted by minipol:
Altough Nirvana didn't have bad music, i never liked them. I think he (Kurt) had an attitude problem. Hmmm. Now that i think about it, he seemed a bit like Imperator Fyron.
Maybe Kurt Cobain isn't really dead ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

( don't flame it's a joke or an attempt to one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, that's an attempt all right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif j/k

[Ragnarok]

The other person kept making counter arguments and then in the same post saying he was done. You can not do that. If you want to end a discussion, you say just that, not continue it. It is not my fault that he didn't really mean it when he said the discussion was over on his end (or if he did mean it, he implemented it incorrectly [Wink] ).

He only had 1 argument, and it was wrong. He just repeated the same argument over and over again. That does not make me "unwilling to give a single argument any acceptance" because I can not accept 1 argument that is inherently flawed. Had he offered many arguments, you would have a valid point. But, he only had 1 argument, and several pieces of evidence. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
In fact you did that in the Last two Posts in that thread. But I saw no need in continueing the conversation.
My arguments may be "inherently flawed" to you, but your arguments are "inherently flawed" to me. I'm not starting this again, I just wanted to clear that up. You never countered my arguments besides saying, "I'm right, you're wrong."

With that said, I'm going to continue lurking in this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tesco samoa]

Ahhhhh I thought your were here for an arguement

[Fyron]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Ahhhhh I thought your were here for an arguement<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok Monty.

Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I did not. Again, you are wrong. bwhahahah. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

You never countered my arguments besides saying, "I'm right, you're wrong."<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure what else I could have said that I did not say, as the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicted (or more precisely, the parts that did the "predicting" were written after the fact, as not all of the Bible was written at the same time), and the comment about more earthquakes recently as compared to when mankind "was put on earth" is just so wrong I didn't even know where to begin. That would require a massive increase in tectonic activity, which just is not going to happen within a century. Tectonic time scales are unfathomable to the human mind, and the plate tectonics of Earth take a long time for major shifts to occur.

[ March 05, 2003, 01:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...and the comment about more earthquakes recently as compared to when mankind "was put on earth" is just so wrong I didn't even know where to begin. That would require a massive increase in tectonic activity, which just is not going to happen within a century. Tectonic time scales are unfathomable to the human mind, and the plate tectonics of Earth take a long time for major shifts to occur.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are too much of a scientist here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You granted (in the other thread) that the perceived number of quakes might be higher today but not the actually numbers. That is of course a valid point. But then again the Bible does not say that the actual number of quakes will raise but just that there will be more quakes. Just more perceived or real is not stated and up to the reader. So both of you might be right, just a point of view.

Now you know why I study law. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[jimbob]

Hmmm.. without going and finding a bible (I'm at work, and don't think it's likely that one is lying about anywhere) I need to harken back to my memory. I think the bible implies that there will be an increase in war, rumors of war, earthquakes, some other bad stuff, etc. Could it be that our advanced communications technology simply increases the amount of reportage on such events? And so the bible could be accurate, in that the average Joe will perceive that there are more wars, earthquakes, etc. as an artifact of our technology rather than know that there is or isn't such an increase.

i.e. who would have known in NY that a 7.0 tremor went off in New Deli in the early 1800s? But today, everyone in the western world finds out when a tremor 6.0 goes of in Ebbi A'boud Afganistan within about 1 hour!!

[spoon]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
But then again the Bible does not say that the actual number of quakes will raise but just that there will be more quakes. Just more perceived or real is not stated and up to the reader. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot to add that Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Aloofi]

Hell, somebody rated me 1 star again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I bet it was someone in the Moon thread. Everytime I say something politically incorrect I get a bad rating.
Lol, I think I understand now what Fyron was feeling when he started this thread........

I want 5 stars!
*runs crying into the night*

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Hmmm.. without going and finding a bible (I'm at work, and don't think it's likely that one is lying about anywhere) I need to harken back to my memory. I think the bible implies that there will be an increase in war, rumors of war, earthquakes, some other bad stuff, etc. Could it be that our advanced communications technology simply increases the amount of reportage on such events? And so the bible could be accurate, in that the average Joe will perceive that there are more wars, earthquakes, etc. as an artifact of our technology rather than know that there is or isn't such an increase.

i.e. who would have known in NY that a 7.0 tremor went off in New Deli in the early 1800s? But today, everyone in the western world finds out when a tremor 6.0 goes of in Ebbi A'boud Afganistan within about 1 hour!!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I just never could put that into words. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tbontob]

Originally posted by spoon:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Mephisto:
But then again the Bible does not say that the actual number of quakes will raise but just that there will be more quakes. Just more perceived or real is not stated and up to the reader. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot to add that Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">About this Bible stuff.

I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

IIRC, it was written by John the Divine, a century or two after Jesus's death.

Now John the Divine is not the disciple John.

It just seems to be tacked on at the end of the Bible and seems out of place and out of sync with the rest of the Bible.

Maybe it was included to put the fear of the Lord into "us" Christians.

Now, before I get dunning Messages from Fyron et al, these are just my thoughts and are only presented to encourage a open-minded discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jimbob:
Hmmm.. without going and finding a bible (I'm at work, and don't think it's likely that one is lying about anywhere) I need to harken back to my memory. I think the bible implies that there will be an increase in war, rumors of war, earthquakes, some other bad stuff, etc. Could it be that our advanced communications technology simply increases the amount of reportage on such events? And so the bible could be accurate, in that the average Joe will perceive that there are more wars, earthquakes, etc. as an artifact of our technology rather than know that there is or isn't such an increase.

i.e. who would have known in NY that a 7.0 tremor went off in New Deli in the early 1800s? But today, everyone in the western world finds out when a tremor 6.0 goes of in Ebbi A'boud Afganistan within about 1 hour!!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I just never could put that into words. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is nowhere near what you said though Rags.

That argument supposes that the claims of the Bible are based off of superstition, ignorance and false belief (about the earthquakes and other disasters). This does not seem like a good basis for such claims to me.

[ March 05, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by tbontob:
I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, and I don't know why they took only 4 of the 40 gospels existing when in 325 C.E. in Nicea they made what we know today as the New Testament.
Maybe to save paper? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by tbontob:
I don't know why they included Revelation in the Bible.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, and I don't know why they took only 4 of the 40 gospels existing when in 325 C.E. in Nicea they made what we know today as the New Testament.
Maybe to save paper? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because they wanted to get a very specific message across, and so chose only those that relayed that message. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because they wanted to get a very specific message across, and so chose only those that relayed that message. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It looks to me more like they chose the ONLY 4 that said that guy, what his name?, was born from a supernatural sperm injection instead of good o'l sex.

[Alpha Kodiak]

I'm going to regret this....

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I am not sure what else I could have said that I did not say, as the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicted (or more precisely, the parts that did the "predicting" were written after the fact, as not all of the Bible was written at the same time) <snip>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You keep saying that, but in this entire thread you have never offered any evidence of it. If you have any evidence, I would like to see it, otherwise you cannot keep putting down Rags for his belief (and mine) that the Bible is true.

TBonTob: For a discussion of the authorship and date of Revelation, see the following: Link (http://www.apocalipsis.org/rev-auth.htm)

I believe it was written by John the Apostle at the very end of his life, but as the above article explains, it is not that important. The book claims Divine inspiration. What is important is whether you believe that to be true or not, rather than whom you believe the human author to be.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I'm going to regret this....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I am not sure what else I could have said that I did not say, as the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicted (or more precisely, the parts that did the "predicting" were written after the fact, as not all of the Bible was written at the same time) <snip>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You keep saying that, but in this entire thread you have never offered any evidence of it. If you have any evidence, I would like to see it, otherwise you cannot keep putting down Rags for his belief (and mine) that the Bible is true.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think what was really missing from the discussion was exactly were in the bible does it supposedly predict the future and what events would these be.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I'm going to regret this....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I am not sure what else I could have said that I did not say, as the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicted (or more precisely, the parts that did the "predicting" were written after the fact, as not all of the Bible was written at the same time) <snip>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You keep saying that, but in this entire thread you have never offered any evidence of it. If you have any evidence, I would like to see it, otherwise you cannot keep putting down Rags for his belief (and mine) that the Bible is true.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When do you think the parts of the Bible that supposedly make predictions about the future were written?

A very basic understanding of ancient history would show you that the Bible (all of the various parts of it) was written well after every historical event it supposedly predicted. As I am not a historian, I can not give you a bunch of commonly accepted dates off the top of my head. If I had a sufficient history book and a scanner, I could show you some dates. I think that the main problem here is that you guys are confused about or do not know about the basics of the historical timeline.

You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.

And again, neither of you has given any convincing reasons on why Christianity is right and the vast majority of humans that have ever lived (as Christians make up less than a fraction of a percent (though that is probably overly generous) of the humans that have lived) are all wrong about their religious beliefs.

[Fyron]

Also, where are you getting your facts from about the predictions the Bible has made?

[Ruatha]

About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
When do you think the parts of the Bible that supposedly make predictions about the future were written?

A very basic understanding of ancient history would show you that the Bible (all of the various parts of it) was written well after every historical event it supposedly predicted. As I am not a historian, I can not give you a bunch of commonly accepted dates off the top of my head. If I had a sufficient history book and a scanner, I could show you some dates. I think that the main problem here is that you guys are confused about or do not know about the basics of the historical timeline.

You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.

And again, neither of you has given any convincing reasons on why Christianity is right and the vast majority of humans that have ever lived (as Christians make up less than a fraction of a percent (though that is probably overly generous) of the humans that have lived) are all wrong about their religious beliefs.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.

As to the percentage of people who are Christian, I do not have information about that for all people who have ever lived thoughout time, but I do have information for the current day (or at least 2000) and you might be surprised. According to ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) about 33% of the population of the earth claim Christianity. I actually did not make a statement about the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's religious beliefs, but you certainly have.

[minipol]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Hell, somebody rated me 1 star again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I bet it was someone in the Moon thread. Everytime I say something politically incorrect I get a bad rating.
Lol, I think I understand now what Fyron was feeling when he started this thread........

I want 5 stars!
*runs crying into the night*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hah. Everytime you say something in these off topic threads, a person is not going to like what you say. Those that agree ith what you say, will not bother to vote, the other will want to show you they do not agree so they vote and give you a low rating.
Look at my rating http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Anyway, i like OT discussions on a board with great diversity like this one.
Always provides fireworks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Ragnarok]

You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, this contridicts all arguments you provided against me. By you saying this, you say that your arguments are no good either. As you have provided no proof as of yet. Therefore, I would suggest that you refrain from saying that I am wrong just because you say so until you provide solid evidence.
If I get some extra free time, I will pull up some dates for you to prove that events were indeed written in advance. But that is providing I get the time to do so.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ture but some have. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?

[Ragnarok]

Fyron, also going back to this... </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I did not. Again, you are wrong. bwhahahah.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually you did. Thus you are wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You said towards the end of the Last thread that as a Christian I only accept only the New testiment as true. That is totally not the case. 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.

I will work on those dates sometime whenever I have the free time.

[ March 05, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ture but some have. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I only (and reluctantly) started posting to this thread because of the fact that Fyron insisted on arguing without proof that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact. I accept his right to believe that, but I have a problem with his insistance that there is no possibility that another point of view could be correct. You are welcome to make any wild statements you want. I will only refute them if I have evidence to the contrary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Puke]

Fyron's a good guy. opinionated, argumentative, and so full of himself that he had to start a thread about his own frickin reputation.. but a good guy.

Ratings are stupid. most of what i say is stupid, so i continually ask people to rate me at a 1, so that newbies wont make the mistake of taking me seriously.

and thats most peoples problem. they take themselves to seriously. nothing you say or do is that significant, that you should lose any sleep over it. nothing someone says to you is that important. peoples beliefs are not that important. agree to disagree. agrue your point, but dont think everyone else should feel the same way.

diversity is the spice of life. lighten up.

[TerranC]

It would seem that Fyron has become Atheism's first preacher.

How can you turn a religionless belief into a religion? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Ruatha]

Puke > You are hereby the first one I ever has rated, you got a five from me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[jimbob]

Fyron: As to whether or not a person is willing to accept the claim that the writers of scripture were predicting (or more accurately from a Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective were given knowledge of) the future:

Many ask that proof be provided to show that the predictions were written down prior to the unfolding of events, and may insist that this is the only way of validating that the prediction event occurred. Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof. That is to say, unless you have a good/solid reason to claim the author was fraudulent, you just can't call him a liar! (i.e. if the scripture in question was written three decades ago as proven by carbon dating, but claims to profess an event that happened 1000 years ago, then you can claim that the scripture is fraudulent - or is a copy of an earlier document).

Then, to impose that a document meets todays' standards of veracity is unfair and somewhat modernist/arrogant. The reality is that most ancient documents were not immediately transcribed, but were often (in most cases?) carried by oral tradition for centuries with incredible accuracy. Have you read the Odessy? Iliad? These were regularily recited verbatim and in their entirety from memory by Greek performers, sans mistakes, due to i) good memories that didn't use print as a crutch, ii) poetic mechanisms and meters that were self correcting, and iii) a public knowledge of the material that would correct any luckless bard who was unfortunate enough to mess up on the story during a public performance. Written copies of these plays were created, but the written word was not the repository of knowledge - peoples brains and corrective devices were!!!

just my couple of cents

[ March 05, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, that is not true.

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.

And again, neither of you has given any convincing reasons on why <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please reread my post. I never said you provided any evidence. I only spoke of the evidence that Rags provided.

As to the percentage of people who are Christian, I do not have information about that for all people who have ever lived thoughout time, but I do have information for the current day (or at least 2000) and you might be surprised. According to ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) about 33% of the population of the earth claim Christianity. I actually did not make a statement about the correctness or incorrectness of anyone's religious beliefs, but you certainly have<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is still 67% of the people on the planet that get to go to Hell because they are not Christians.

Before somewhere around 1 AD (which is an innacurate date anyways, so an exact value is irrelevant and also not very possible), there were 0 Christians. So, all the people that lived and died before that time got to go to Hell, according to Christianity.

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You and Rags have shown no evidence of these supposed predictions. All that Rags ever did was to say that the Bible predicted some events. Him just saying that does not make it true. I am still waiting on some actual evidence to be shown here.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, this contridicts all arguments you provided against me. By you saying this, you say that your arguments are no good either. As you have provided no proof as of yet. Therefore, I would suggest that you refrain from saying that I am wrong just because you say so until you provide solid evidence.
If I get some extra free time, I will pull up some dates for you to prove that events were indeed written in advance. But that is providing I get the time to do so.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ture but some have. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What DavidG just said pretty much sums up what I would have said. Saying it again would be redundant.

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
Fyron, also going back to this... </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I did not. Again, you are wrong. bwhahahah.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually you did. Thus you are wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You said towards the end of the Last thread that as a Christian I only accept only the New testiment as true. That is totally not the case. 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.

I will work on those dates sometime whenever I have the free time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I did not. I said that the New Testament was the important part of the Bible to Christians. I never once said that Christians do not accept the Old Testament at all.

2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is very circular reasoning. You can not use something to define or defend itself.

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ture but some have. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I only (and reluctantly) started posting to this thread because of the fact that Fyron insisted on arguing without proof that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact. I accept his right to believe that, but I have a problem with his insistance that there is no possibility that another point of view could be correct. You are welcome to make any wild statements you want. I will only refute them if I have evidence to the contrary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A look at the historical timeline is all the evidence I need to tell you that the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicts. How many times must I repeat this before you will start noticing it? 50? 100? My evidence is basic historical facts.

Originally posted by Puke:
Fyron's a good guy. opinionated, argumentative, and so full of himself that he had to start a thread about his own frickin reputation.. but a good guy.

Ratings are stupid. most of what i say is stupid, so i continually ask people to rate me at a 1, so that newbies wont make the mistake of taking me seriously.

and thats most peoples problem. they take themselves to seriously. nothing you say or do is that significant, that you should lose any sleep over it. nothing someone says to you is that important. peoples beliefs are not that important. agree to disagree. agrue your point, but dont think everyone else should feel the same way.

diversity is the spice of life. lighten up.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My point is that Rags is wrong about the predictive capabilities of the Bible. That is what I have been arguing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Originally posted by TerranC:
It would seem that Fyron has become Atheism's first preacher.

How can you turn a religionless belief into a religion? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. Preachers use divine revelation when they preach to people, not logical argument. I have done no preaching.

Originally posted by jimbob:
Fyron: As to whether or not a person is willing to accept the claim that the writers of scripture were predicting (or more accurately from a Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective were given knowledge of) the future:

Many ask that proof be provided to show that the predictions were written down prior to the unfolding of events, and may insist that this is the only way of validating that the prediction event occurred. Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof. That is to say, unless you have a good/solid reason to claim the author was fraudulent, you just can't call him a liar! (i.e. if the scripture in question was written three decades ago as proven by carbon dating, but claims to profess an event that happened 1000 years ago, then you can claim that the scripture is fraudulent - or is a copy of an earlier document).

Then, to impose that a document meets todays' standards of veracity is unfair and somewhat modernist/arrogant. The reality is that most ancient documents were not immediately transcribed, but were often (in most cases?) carried by oral tradition for centuries with incredible accuracy. Have you read the Odessy? Iliad? These were regularily recited verbatim and in their entirety from memory by Greek performers, sans mistakes, due to i) good memories that didn't use print as a crutch, ii) poetic mechanisms and meters that were self correcting, and iii) a public knowledge of the material that would correct any luckless bard who was unfortunate enough to mess up on the story during a public performance. Written copies of these plays were created, but the written word was not the repository of knowledge - peoples brains and corrective devices were!!!

just my couple of cents<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know perfectly well about oral narration in the ancient world. Historians have ideas about when such stories started being told. The stories of the Bible were not being told before the historical events the Bible supposedly predicts, but afterwards.

Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you write something down that makes claims, you have to back those claims up for them to be credible. Otherwise, anyone is fully within their rights (even many millennia ago) to call the author a liar/fraud/whatever.

[ March 06, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Wardad]

Lighten UP people....

***
Ten reasons why beer is better than religion:

1. No one will kill you for not drinking beer.

2. Beer doesn't try to ruin your sex life.

3. Wars are not fought over beer.

4. They don't force beer on minors who can't think for themselves.

5. When you have a beer, you don't knock on other people's doors trying to give it away.

6. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of beer.

7. You don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second beer.

8. There are laws saying beer labels can't lie to you.

9. You can prove you have a beer.

10. If you become addicted to beer, there are Groups to help you escape.
***

[minipol]

Nice list Wardad.
I knew beer is the only saviour http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[spoon]

Originally posted by Wardad:

6. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of beer.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't hangovers count as torture?

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is still 67% of the people on the planet that get to go to Hell because they are not Christians.

Before somewhere around 1 AD (which is an innacurate date anyways, so an exact value is irrelevant and also not very possible), there were 0 Christians. So, all the people that lived and died before that time got to go to Hell, according to Christianity.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are avoiding the point on this one. You specifically said that Christianity only comprised a fraction of a percent of people. I merely refuted that with documentation.

Further, your statement of the fate of those who lived before Christ shows a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which is based upon Judaism. Traditional Christian belief is that prior to the coming of Christ, people were responsible to meet the requirements of that religion.

Additionally, I have made no statements as to what I believe to be the fate of anyone. I do not claim to be God, nor do I pretend to have any control over the eternal fate of anyone.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is still 67% of the people on the planet that get to go to Hell because they are not Christians.

Before somewhere around 1 AD (which is an innacurate date anyways, so an exact value is irrelevant and also not very possible), there were 0 Christians. So, all the people that lived and died before that time got to go to Hell, according to Christianity.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are avoiding the point on this one. You specifically said that Christianity only comprised a fraction of a percent of people. I merely refuted that with documentation.

Further, your statement of the fate of those who lived before Christ shows a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, which is based upon Judaism. Traditional Christian belief is that prior to the coming of Christ, people were responsible to meet the requirements of that religion.

Additionally, I have made no statements as to what I believe to be the fate of anyone. I do not claim to be God, nor do I pretend to have any control over the eternal fate of anyone.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said a fraction of a percent of the people that have ever lived, not that are currently living. I am inlcuding all of our line, not just the people that have been living in the Last few 1000 years.

Very few people were followers of Judaism, so that doesn't really change a whole lot.

I never said you made statements as to people's fate. But Hell is the fate for non-Christians according to Christianity (after the alleged coming of Christ).

[tesco samoa]

Wardad I agree....

[Fyron]

Things are not heavy in here, so lightening them would not have that great of an effect.

[tesco samoa]

It's the concept.

2 sides to a coin.

Your on one I am on the other.

There is no inbetween.

I see it all the time everywhere else. I do not want that to take over here.

This is my fav. part of the internet. Where I can chat with people about games, books, movies and sweet tea. Dicussions always involved learning new ideas.

I do believe that the Politiks , etc... should be in another forum if their just back and forth arguements. I am not learning anything except that I do not want to get involved. Both sides are entrenched. So they become like a stagnic pond. There is no flow.

Look at the recent threads.... There all the same.

They start off as an open ended converstation and then divide into two sides with no movement. It's like a broken record.

Sorry it's how I feel.

And the great thing about here is that I can post it.

[Ragnarok]

Tesco, I would tend to agree. From here on out I think I'm going to agree to disagree. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
There is going ot be no changing of minds in this discussion so what is the point of it all? I strongly believe the way that I have stated and nothing will change my mind. There is no hard evidence to Fyrons arguments to defer my beliefs. So from here on out do not expect me to partake in any conversations on this matter, as it will just lead to chaos.
But Fyron, for my closing statements I would like to ask that you not assume that just because I am christian, that I believe certain ways. You don't know at all, or even remotely close to how I believe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, how about them Pacers?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

There are basic ideals that define Christianity Rags. I am just going along with those.

If you really want to believe that the Bible predicted events that happened before it was written, I guess there is not a whole lot I can do to convince you otherwise. You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Judge from the Simpsons:
Religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree!

[ March 06, 2003, 02:13: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

[Ragnarok]

There are basic ideals that define Christianity Rags. I am just going along with those.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In general Christianity these are the beliefs. But I'm not a general Christian. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough.

But now that this is over. At least for me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I notice you took your rating system off.

[jimbob]

A look at the historical timeline is all the evidence I need to tell you that the Bible was written after the historical events it supposedly predicts. How many times must I repeat this before you will start noticing it? 50? 100? My evidence is basic historical facts.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like to see one of these historical "facts". I'd be very surprised that anyone on earth could make an accurate claim on when any ancient text was originally put to paper. Certainly historians can carbon date the earliest document found to date, but this simply does not rule out the existance of an earlier document. That said, I personally believe that the oral tradition is as good as the written tradition in many cultures. If you want, I'll dig up some "expert opinions" from the Classics department that agree. We have very few contemporary documents regarding Julius Ceasar or Alexander, yet the transcripts that exist are 1) widely regarded as being resonably accurate (even though the earliest surviving documents are easily 200 years post-Julius or post-Alexander) and 2) often passed down originally by oral tradition prior to their "codification".

My point is that Rags is wrong about the predictive capabilities of the Bible. That is what I have been arguing. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.

The stories of the Bible were not being told before the historical events the Bible supposedly predicts, but afterwards. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.

[Fyron]

When you are talking about centuries to millennia of time difference, a few years (even decades) do not matter.

Don't be so literal. Would you prefer if I used the term "composed" instead of "written"? I was not necessarily refering to the actual act of writing them down, but when they were created.

It seems this is so only because you have already decided that this is so. If you believe that accurate prediction is impossible, then we're already done here. But not on the basis that we have reason to doubt what happened a few thousand years ago, but because you have a world view that excludes the possibility that the writers were not lying.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They were not necessarily lying, so much as distorting the facts just enough to get their message across.

I have seen 0 evidence that the stories were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) before the events took place, and plenty of evidence that they were (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) after they took place.

But why do you believe this? If it's because of an expert opinion, please, for your own sake, check your source(s). If you have some good sources (or if you're a historian yourself) then please, share and enlighten us all!! If it's because you believe that anything supernatural is impossible, then it really isn't about the authorship at all.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I already said, I am not a historian, and I do not have any history books at present. So, I can not at present cite you sources that will prove what I am saying about when these things occured. I am certain that if I spent the time to find them, I could find more of them than you ever wanted to see.

I know this because I have learned enough about ancient history to be able to place things in a relative timeline, and the (insert verb of choice relating to being written/composed/created) of the stories/books of the Bible happened well after the events that Rags posted in the original thread that the Bible supposedly predicted.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> You have no hard evidence to support your claims, so their is not much to argue against there. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope guess not. But not much to argue against you either as you have no hard evidence to show me. You claim you have, just as I have claimed. But claims alone are not enough. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The difference is that if I wanted to, I could find enough hard evidence to support my statements from reliable sources, as they are factual. You, on the other hand, would not be able to because your claims are not factual. I am sure you could find sources that make the same claims you have, but you could find sources making just about any claim you can think of.

But now that this is over. At least for me... I notice you took your rating system off.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you want to stop the debate, stop posting things that require responses. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Only one person that gave me a 1 rating fessed up to it. The other people have remained silent. If they are too cowardly to come forth, then there is no point in giving them the satisfaction of seeing my rating drop. Actually, it would probably be best if the rating system was disabled entirely. It serves no real purpose, except as a cheap shot for petty people that don't like people disagreeing with them.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I never said you made statements as to people's fate. But Hell is the fate for non-Christians according to Christianity (after the alleged coming of Christ).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As others have said, it is probably time to agree to disagree. All I ask is that you accept the possibility of other views. As for Hell being the fate of non-Christians, I look at it this way (different Christians look at it in many different ways, so I am only speaking for myself here):

Suppose for a moment that there is a God who created the universe and everything in it. In this small corner of the universe He created man on planet earth and gave man a free will so that God and man could experience a true relationship. Man rebelled against God and the relationship was broken. According to the Bible, the price of rebellion against God is death. Hell, meaning an eternity without God, became man's fate.

At this point God could have abandoned man and created someone else to have a relationship with. Instead, God chose to take the form of a man in the person of Jesus in order to pay the penalty (death) for man's rebellion (sin). When Jesus died and rose again, the curse of death was broken for those who would accept his gift of eternal life.

It is in this that I am trusting. I do not seek to condemn others, only to marvel at the grace of God that He has provided a way for me to have a relationship with Him, for I know that I am a sinful man who cannot possibly relate to God in my own strength. It is not for me to say who will have eternal life and who will not. If a person spends their whole life telling God that they want nothing to do with Him, what will become of them when they come face-to-face with Him?

As for those who have been faithful in other religions, I am thankful that I do not have to decide their fate. I believe that we are accountable for what has been revealed to us. God is both just and merciful, and I believe that when all is said and done, all will agree that His judgments are correct.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him." John 3:16,17

I am not trying to force this view on you, only to try to explain my view of eternity. You are welcome to agree or disagree.

[Fyron]

And from that follows that those that do not accept Christ will not get into heaven. Hence, a large majority of people get to go to Hell, assuming that Christianity is right.

Of course, no one has yet answered my question as to why Christianity (or whatever their personal belief system is) is right, and all other religions are wrong. What is so special/different about Christianity that makes everyone else wrong? How do you know that your religious beliefs are the right ones, and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Australian Aboriginals, American Indians, non-converted-to-Christianity Africans, etc. are all wrong? And no quote from the Bible could possibly be a valid logical argument for this, as that would require very circular reasoning, which is a huge logical fallacy.

[ZeroAdunn]

Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.

[ZeroAdunn]

Fyron: That is the whole point of religion, it isn't about logic, it is about faith. Believing something you cannot be sure in because someting inside tells you it is right. You must understand this, as you show great faith in science.

I personally am not a christian, and find it, along with most organized religions, flawed and mostly a sham. But in the end it doesn't matter, I still choose to respect their beliefs because they could be right, I don't know, and there is no way for me to find out, and if it makes them feel a little better, and doesn't hurt anybody else, more power to them.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't worry, I'm done. There is nothing else that needs to be said from my perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Hmmm... were to begin, were to begin.....

Well, I think wardad is right, I need some alcohol.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't worry, I'm done. There is nothing else that needs to be said from my perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Because you are rigidly set in your ways and not open to new ideas.

Fyron: That is the whole point of religion, it isn't about logic, it is about faith. Believing something you cannot be sure in because someting inside tells you it is right. You must understand this, as you show great faith in science.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Something inside me (that thing called a brain) tells me that some of it is wrong. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I do not show faith in science as you meant it. There is a tremendous difference between science and religion, and faith does not apply to science (unless you do something dumb like turn science into a religion).

[ March 06, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, that is not true.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, Fyron. Now you do it again.
I haven't rated you but I can see why people rated you low.

You state a belife you have as a undisputable fact.
You give no arguments saying why this isn't true.

No one can actually say that it is absolutely true or not.
Many estimates ends up saying that it is true but it depends on how old the human race is and the population growth in prehistoric times.

I for one belive that this is so.
Actually it is one of the problems that those who belive in reincarnation has to explain (Altough they have produced several theories explaining it, very few says that the population growth problem is untrue)

Some links:


Reincarnation (http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/population.html)
Demography (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html)

Or:
Do the math yourself... (http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populframe.html)
Methods of historical demography (http://popindex.princeton.edu/browse/v58/n4/i.html)

Other references:
David Bishai, 'Can population growth rule out reincarnation? A model of circular migration', Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 411-20, 2000

(Start Edit)
And some more:

http://www.globalchange.si.edu/images/essay_worldpop.gif
(Image from the smithsonian institute)

A pedagogic site on world population growth. (http://science.ntu.ac.uk/rsscse/pose/level3/book5/sectiona.htm)

(End Edit)

[ March 06, 2003, 09:49: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[dogscoff]

It's a well known and documented historical fact that Jesus was into Slayer, Megadeth and Def Leppard.

I'll leave you all to draw your own conclusions.

Oh, and whoever talked about judging people by their shoes..? I agree. 90% of the time I find that people wearing big, solid boots (as casual shoes) are good people.

[Atrocities]

Rating system

* Ruler of The World
** Vice Roy
*** General
**** Captain
***** PFC

By these standards, I would guess the Fyron is RotW http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif HE IS!!!!

[Gryphin]

dogscoff he was also into line dancing.

[minipol]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
It's a well known and documented historical fact that Jesus was into Slayer, Megadeth and Def Leppard.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's also a known fact he liked Sepultura, at least their early work.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by minipol:
It's also a known fact he liked Sepultura, at least their early work.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I don't think that guy ever existed, and if he did he should have been cruxified 20 times over for all the crimes his followers have done to the rest of humankind.
And Sepultura first album, the "Schizophrenia" was pretty good but the production quality was not up to the standars of the time. Only with "Beneath the Remains" they got a real piece of art. I would easily rate Beneath the remains as the best Metal album of 1989.

[Aloofi]

I just go 2 more Ratings of one star because of the Moon Hoax thread, so I'll follow Fyron taking my rating from public. I should have known better.
What was I thinking?
How could I say that the Moon landings were faked in a sci-fi forum? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
This is just like saying that the New Testament was faked in a christian forum...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Lol, talk about faith....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
What was I thinking?
How could I say that the Moon landings were faked in a sci-fi forum? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
This is just like saying that the New Testament was faked in a christian forum...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Lol, talk about faith....<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually it's not quite the same Aloofi. As a person who believes in both the New testament and the moon landings I can see the difference in the two.

For my belief in the New Testament I have only my faith to rely on.

For the moon landings I have quantifiable, observable evidence and credible eyewitness testimony. Actually to disregard the moon landings as a hoax I would have to accept on faith the exsistance of a vast conspiracy and believe the claims of fakery which are quite easily seen to be irrational at best and out right dishonest at worst.

One giant leap of faith is quite enough for me thank you. I'll keep my faith in the New Testament and rely on the evidence for my acceptance of the fact of the moon landings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ March 06, 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[raynor]

I've read all the evidence that supports the stuff in the New Testament. There's quite a bit of it. But I've always taken it on faith that we went to the moon. I mean, it seems like we probably *might* be able to do it. I'm not really sure *why* we would want to though. (Yeah, yeah, some junk about competing with the Russians or something.) Anyways, yeah, if you have some evidence other than pictures of the side of the moon that we can't see, I'd like to see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Growltigger]

Personally, I am sure that they did land on the moon back in 1969. The cold war with Russia was still going strong at that time and I am sure the Russians (as well as anyone else with the capability) had telescopes tracking the lander and would have shouted out loud if the Americans had in fact gone for a quick spin round the earth, dicked about with the Van Halen belt (maybe air guitared to "Eruption") and then came home clutching a piece of pumice and saying "oooh, look what we found"

[ZeroAdunn]

Fyron: No, you take Science on faith to be true. Because you can't prove any of it.

And your veiled insults towards others need to stop.

[Gryphin]

growltigga,
ya know, that is the most convicing argument I have heard in this entire thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Wardad]

My messed up kid was bored one night at the Quike Mart.
So he changed the name on his name badge to SATAN.
He would ring up a customers purchase and say "That will be $17.39 and your immortal soul please."

He was fired the next morning, the boss had a hard time doing it between fits of laughter. All the time saying things like "What were you thinking?" and "Do that face (expression) again.". My son got hired back a month later.

[minipol]

Hehe, excellent story wardad. Quite ingenious from your kid though. I can imagine how the manager must have felt, enjoying the joke yet having to fire him.
Did he collect any souls by the end of the day? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 06, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: minipol ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by growltigger:
Personally, I am sure that they did land on the moon back in 1969. The cold war with Russia was still going strong at that time and I am sure the Russians (as well as anyone else with the capability) had telescopes tracking the lander and would have shouted out loud if the Americans had in fact gone for a quick spin round the earth, dicked about with the Van Halen belt (maybe air guitared to "Eruption") and then came home clutching a piece of pumice and saying "oooh, look what we found"<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I totally agree that the landings were not faked however the Russians could not have traked the lander all the way to the moon via telescopes. One of the arguments used to support a hoax is that no pictures have been taken of the landers still on the moon. The answer is that even the Hubble does not have the power to see an object that small on the moon.

[jimbob]

Dogscoff:
It's a well known and documented historical fact that Jesus was into Slayer, Megadeth and Def Leppard.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about Nazareth? Surely he'd have liked Nazareth! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gryphin:
dogscoff he was also into line dancing.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sorry Gryphin, but even the suggestion that Jesus liked country music... you're gonna have to go to hell for that suggestion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

-yimminy yim

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's a well known and documented historical fact that Jesus was into Slayer, Megadeth and Def Leppard.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about Nazareth? Surely he'd have liked Nazareth! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, he liked the other bands. He was in Nazareth. Lead guitar IIRC. That's why they called him Jesus of Nazareth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 06, 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Fyron: No, you take Science on faith to be true. Because you can't prove any of it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh yes you can.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
And from that follows that those that do not accept Christ will not get into heaven. Hence, a large majority of people get to go to Hell, assuming that Christianity is right.

Of course, no one has yet answered my question as to why Christianity (or whatever their personal belief system is) is right, and all other religions are wrong. What is so special/different about Christianity that makes everyone else wrong? How do you know that your religious beliefs are the right ones, and Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Australian Aboriginals, American Indians, non-converted-to-Christianity Africans, etc. are all wrong? And no quote from the Bible could possibly be a valid logical argument for this, as that would require very circular reasoning, which is a huge logical fallacy.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Fyron has made some goods points.

Some of "us" Christians believe we have the truth and nobody else does.

Does that make us arrogant? I fear it does if we are unable to accept the possibility that other religions can be correct/true as well.

Anyone who has taken a philosophy courses and in particular epistimology knows it it impossible to prove or disprove the existance of God.

And some Christians are going to hate me for this...if you cannot prove the existance of God, how can you prove the existance of the Son of God.

So, I understand the position of the atheist or the agnostic. They have taken a legitimate position which cannot be proved or disproved.

Fyron also has asked a good question about non-Christians going to hell. Many (most?) believe this. But is it really true? Is God so condemning, so constrained that he cannot see the good in non-Christians?

And what about the Jews, God's "chosen people"? They do not believe Jesus is the "Son of God'. Do they go to hell? What about young children? What about people who have not had the exposure to Christianity that we have had? Do they go to hell as well?

And horrors of horrors to Christians...maybe, just maybe one of the other religions are closer to the "truth" about God and his true nature than Christianity.

[jimbob]

Fyron:

Yah, I didn't rate you either way. I don't agree with some of your Posts, but if nobody was willing to explore a contrary view, well, we'd have a very flat/uni-dimensional view on life. We don't have to agree to get along, just as long as you admit at the end that I'm right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyhoo, if I were to rate you, it would be on the basis of what you've contributed to the SE community, which I'll add, has been quite significant. From that perspective, I've no choice to hand you a 5. And not just any 5, but one of those shiny ones that SJ and Geo got. If you ever turn your rate-o-meter back on, I'll be sure to polish one up for you.

Cheers, (but you're still wrong)
jimbob

[minipol]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
No, he liked the other bands. He was in Nazareth. Lead guitar IIRC. That's why they called him Jesus of Nazareth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there is one thing you can say about this thread, it's that it's very god for people's imagination and creativity http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Just imagine, lead guitar http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
Who would be playing the drums?

[tesco samoa]

well all i know if he was around now he would be a terrorist. An enemy of the state. What do you think Pat Roberston would think about an arab preaching the word of God. Or even Dubya. ( Jesus was white you know.. maybe even Italian... go to any chuch you see... ) Funny how they treat the arabs like the romans used to treat the christans.

Ummm I will stop there... As I am all boiled up now....

[Fyron]

Originally posted by ZeroAdunn:
Fyron: No, you take Science on faith to be true. Because you can't prove any of it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is an argument of semantics, really, and is not relevant to previous debates. Almost all of science is provable, and has been proven.

And your veiled insults towards others need to stop.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Veiled insults? If I am going to insult someone, I'll do it openly, not veiled.

[ March 07, 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by minipol:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by geoschmo:
No, he liked the other bands. He was in Nazareth. Lead guitar IIRC. That's why they called him Jesus of Nazareth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there is one thing you can say about this thread, it's that it's very god for people's imagination and creativity http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Just imagine, lead guitar http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif
Who would be playing the drums?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Peter, obviously. The drummer is the foundation of the band, afterall. I hear that they wanted Barabus for the part, but he only got out of the clink in time to see "JC and the Boys" split up.

[disabled]

As a long term lurker, I have two things to add.

What people of faith need to realize, a scientific fact is just as powerful as any scripture.

And the other is a bit of a fill in the blanks.

God creates man in his image.
-omitted statement-
-omitted statement-
Man is victorious
Man Creates AI in his image.
AI is more powerful than man.
Man grows jealous of AI and attempts to destroy it.
AI is Victorious

And that conlcudes my opinion on the origin of man and his relationship with whatever god currently in service at the time.

[mac5732]

where does it say that when god created man, that man was human? It says, he created man in his image, it does not say that man was a human being http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just some ideas

[disabled]

Just my little opinion about 'god' assuming such a creature exists.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by mac5732:
where does it say that when god created man, that man was human? It says, he created man in his image, it does not say that man was a human being http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just some ideas<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Man" refers to humanity Mac.

[mac5732]

Man = humanity is correct, but it doesn't answer the question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif We (Humans) interpeted to mean humans or humanity, however, it does not say anywhere that Man was human, that is our reflection. It only states he was made in his image.... Doesn't say Man = Human http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just some ideas Mac

[DavidG]

Originally posted by mac5732:
Man = humanity is correct, but it doesn't answer the question http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif We (Humans) interpeted to mean humans or humanity, however, it does not say anywhere that Man was human, that is our reflection. It only states he was made in his image.... Doesn't say Man = Human http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

just some ideas Mac<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what else could it possible mean? Actaully I doubt it says Man or Human since the original wasn't in English

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, that is not true.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, Fyron. Now you do it again.
I haven't rated you but I can see why people rated you low.

You state a belife you have as a undisputable fact.
You give no arguments saying why this isn't true.

No one can actually say that it is absolutely true or not.
Many estimates ends up saying that it is true but it depends on how old the human race is and the population growth in prehistoric times.

I for one belive that this is so.
Actually it is one of the problems that those who belive in reincarnation has to explain (Altough they have produced several theories explaining it, very few says that the population growth problem is untrue)

Some links:


Reincarnation (http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/population.html)
Demography (http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html)

Or:
Do the math yourself... (http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/populframe.html)
Methods of historical demography (http://popindex.princeton.edu/browse/v58/n4/i.html)

Other references:
David Bishai, 'Can population growth rule out reincarnation? A model of circular migration', Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 411-20, 2000

(Start Edit)
And some more:

http://www.globalchange.si.edu/images/essay_worldpop.gif
(Image from the smithsonian institute)

A pedagogic site on world population growth. (http://science.ntu.ac.uk/rsscse/pose/level3/book5/sectiona.htm)

(End Edit)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not state a belief, I stated a fact. Even using that graph you provided (and extending it back about 2 million years (or a few 100k if you only want to include the direct ancestors of homo sapiens)), you can see that there were more than the 6.x billion people (the amount alive today) that were alive at one point but are not alive today.

Most of the things I have posted are basic knowledge that would not really benefit from evidence. The cost of time to hunt down evidence for these things far exceeds any potential benefit of having such evidence.

I never make claims that are not founded on logical reasoning. They are often based off of knowledge that is in my head that I know is true, as I have before seen enough good, verifiable evidence (ie: not from books or other sources written by people that are thouroughly convinced of their view and ignore all evidence against it, so that they can still claim that they are right, even though their claims are opinions, not actual factual claims) of it to know that it is true, but that I do not have access to written verification of at the moment, and so I can not cite any specific references. Web sites are in general unreliable, so I do not like to cite them as accurate sources of information when I can avoid it.

If you are going to make such claims against me, you have to make them equally against the other parties of this debate, as they provided no evidence of their claims. So, singling me out is quite wrong to do. Even you provided no evidence for your claims up until this post.

[ March 07, 2003, 11:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[disabled]

The bible does not make a difference between man/human/humanity. Therefore in my statements prior, I also did not make the difference.

Sadly, most religions look upon men and women as totally different species. This is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

If you are going to make such claims against me, you have to make them equally against the other parties of this debate, as they provided no evidence of their claims. So, singling me out is quite wrong to do. Even you provided no evidence for your claims up until this post.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron the following is only my opinion, so I am the first person to say I may be wrong and out to lunch.

I mentioned humility in a earlier post, but maybe I should be a bit more blunt.

There is a fundamental difference in how you present a claim and how most of the others in the threads present their claim.

"Me right, you wrong!" attitude doesn't normally promote an open and honest dialogue. By taking such a rigid position, other participants in the threads may feel compelled to take an opposing position which can be just as rigid.

Lord knows all of us have been guilty of the "Me right, you wrong" attitude. The difference is that you seem to take it further than most.

As such, it is inflamatory. And I suspect that may be the reason some participants "single you out". If so, you shouldn't (but still have the right to) complain about being singled out.

Change the behaviour and you will not be singled out as much.

You did ask. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And this is my 2 cents worth.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I can understand you wondering why I only question you and not the others, well, you are the ruler of the World!!

Still. If you start doing the math I don't see that there has been 6 billion people before that has died! I can agree that it's a close match though.

Take 1930 for example. Alot of those 2 billions are still alive, well into their 70-90 years of age. (In the 3:d world life age expactancy is low due to high child mortality, but many of those who survive childhood becomes quite old. This is also the same in the rest of the world in earlier years of our history and prehistory)

The curve only show prevalence of population not incidence of births and/or deaths.

(And yes, I'm quite ashamed. I did the same thing I accused you of, I stand corrected in that area!)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, most of those people that were alive in 1930 are dead now. Remember, India and China have a very large proportion of the world's population in them, and those countries do not have (and have not had) the greates of medical systems.

Even if you take an average of, say, 10 million people (which is probably a low estimate) being alive for each 50 year period (as average life spans were about that many 1000s of years ago (or maybe less)) of the 50,000 years (a rough estimate of how long our direct ancestors have been around) before the beginning of your graph, that gets you about 10 million x 50,000 / 50 = 10 billion people. That is 10 billion people that were alive that could not be alive today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Of course, these figures are not exact, and were made up for illustrative purposes. But, they are close enough to what the actual values would be, so they work to show you my point. Even if you only want to go back to 30,000 BC, that still gives 6 billion people that were alive before 1 AD. Combined with at least 2 billion people that were alive from 1 AD to sometime before the present date, but are not alive today, that gives more people than are alive today. I forget how long ago our ancestors evolved, but I know it was at least 30,000 years ago, and probably a lot longer.

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
The bible does not make a difference between man/human/humanity. Therefore in my statements prior, I also did not make the difference.

Sadly, most religions look upon men and women as totally different species. This is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting... so you are saying that religion is one of the main problems that slow humanity's advancements? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Technically, the Catholic Church did perpetuate the European Dark Ages for many more centuries than it would have Lasted otherwise by persecuting any scientists that cropped up as heretics (eg: Galileo). Confucianism in China also apparently stagnated advancements during about the same period as the European Dark Ages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 07, 2003, 20:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tesco samoa]

And don't forget China had the 20 years of war their with Japan , and the nationists...

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Technically, the Catholic Church did perpetuate the European Dark Ages for many more centuries than it would have Lasted otherwise by persecuting any scientists that cropped up as heretics (eg: Galileo). <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I'm curious about your argument on this point. Aside from Galileo, did you have anyone else in mind? If you go by the meta-narrative presented by most textbooks of "Western Civ," the "Middle Ages" were over by the time of Galileo (1564-1642). The usual periodization has them come to a close with the Italian Renaissance (1350-1550). So, he's not the best example to support your argument.

The "church versus science" theme is still a very strong one in our perceptions of history, so I'm intrigued by your position, and would like to hear more of your argument.

Edit: I can't spell...

[ March 07, 2003, 22:25: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Ruatha]

Ok, I give up.
You are right about the pop issue I guess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Wardad]

The Church supressed science for Centuries.
Some may think that is a bad thing.
But... If science gives us the power to kill all life on earth and we do it.
Then the Church simply gave us a few more centuries of life.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Fyron, I'm curious about your argument on this point. Aside from Galileo, did you have anyone else in mind? If you go by the meta-narrative presented by most textbooks of "Western Civ," the "Middle Ages" were over by the time of Galileo (1564-1642). The usual periodization has them come to a close with the Italian Renaissance (1350-1550). So, he's not the best example to support your argument.

The "church versus science" theme is still a very strong one in our perceptions of history, so I'm intrigued by your position, and would like to hear more of your argument.

Edit: I can't spell...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are many examples, I just can't think of most of them at the moment. Copernicus' radical theory that the Sun was the center of the universe instead of the Earth was rejected by proponents of the Catholic Church, amonst other highly religious people of the times. Of course, the Church was not as adamant about burning all who questioned it at the stake as it was centuries prior. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And as the Church was wrong about some of the most basic facts about the universe, people making scientific progress would naturally have to question some of the Church's claims (such as the Earth being the center of the universe).

[ March 07, 2003, 23:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[TerranC]

How did rating fyron turn into a debate about gods, christians, et cetera?

Methinks that Fyron should change the title once more.

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
God creates man in his image.
-omitted statement-
-omitted statement-
Man is victorious
Man Creates AI in his image.
AI is more powerful than man.
Man grows jealous of AI and attempts to destroy it.
AI is Victorious<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And Iggiboo, on the above, how can we be more powerful than god, if a such thing exists? And Why would we choose to kill off gods? Why/How would AIs be more powerful than us if we create them into our image? And Why would we choose to destroy AIs if we created them into our own image? Does a parent shoot it's offspring just because it has become more powerful?

[Fyron]

The rating Fyron came from a thread where that was being discussed, and people were giving me 1s. I only wanted to know who was doing that (as you should never insult someone behind their back; do it to their face; and this is what a rating of 1 is equivalent to), but the people that gave me a 1 did not fess up (well... I think 1 did, but the rest did not). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Confucianism in China also apparently stagnated advancements during about the same period as the European Dark Ages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Confucianism never stagnated advancements in China, or Asia for that matter; You're talking about Legalism; which was used by the first emperor of china *the guy who built the Great wall of china, methinks.*.

[ March 07, 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by TerranC:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Confucianism in China also apparently stagnated advancements during about the same period as the European Dark Ages. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Confucianism never stagnated advancements in China, or Asia for that matter; You're talking about Legalism; which was used by the first emperor of china *the guy who built the Great wall of china, methinks.*.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was going by what Baron Munchaussen (probably spelled wrong) posted a bit back. Confucianism does preach the subVersion of women, so that never helps advancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Ruatha]

I can understand you wondering why I only question you and not the others, well, you are the ruler of the World!!

Still. If you start doing the math I don't see that there has been 6 billion people before that has died! I can agree that it's a close match though.

Take 1930 for example. Alot of those 2 billions are still alive, well into their 70-90 years of age. (In the 3:d world life age expactancy is low due to high child mortality, but many of those who survive childhood becomes quite old. This is also the same in the rest of the world in earlier years of our history and prehistory)

The curve only show prevalence of population not incidence of births and/or deaths.

(And yes, I'm quite ashamed. I did the same thing I accused you of, I stand corrected in that area!)

[ March 07, 2003, 12:29: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Gryphin]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's a well known and documented historical fact that Jesus was into Slayer, Megadeth and Def Leppard.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about Nazareth? Surely he'd have liked Nazareth! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gryphin:
dogscoff he was also into line dancing.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sorry Gryphin, but even the suggestion that Jesus liked country music... you're gonna have to go to hell for that suggestion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

-yimminy yim</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not me, The Goddes does not send people to hell. Most likely she will send me the winning lottery ticket for making her laugh so hard.

[ZeroAdunn]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
I was going by what Baron Munchaussen (probably spelled wrong) posted a bit back. Confucianism does preach the subVersion of women, so that never helps advancements. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How do you figure? Whenever women get their hands on anything they just screw it up!

Well, that was my horribly sexist comment for the day, I will be back tommorrow to offend another group of unsuspecting individuals.

[mac5732]

Throughout our History, Religion has caused more wars then any other reason all through history. Religion did stagnate growth of the sciences during periods past, however, it also provided scienintific growth indirectly in some areas due to those same wars and violent times, ie; mostly in regards to warfare, weapons, tactics, designs, etc.

And yes Igiboo (sorry on spelling) is correct on the human termonology, once again, our translation and beliefs caused certain aspects of religion to be translated sometimes the way we want or to mean what we intend and not was actually stated or written. When we come across a new lost language, we are the ones who end up translating it the way we believe, this does not mean that is what is actually being said

just some ideas mac

[Rigelian]

There are many examples, I just can't think of most of them at the moment. Copernicus' radical theory that the Sun was the center of the universe instead of the Earth was rejected by proponents of the Catholic Church, amonst other highly religious people of the times. Of course, the Church was not as adamant about burning all who questioned it at the stake as it was centuries prior. And as the Church was wrong about some of the most basic facts about the universe, people making scientific progress would naturally have to question some of the Church's claims (such as the Earth being the center of the universe).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd add Giordano Bruno to your list there. He actaully was burned at the stake. Galileo is an interesting case, because he is often used as the archetypal 'scientist against the church' example, and a heroic figure to atheists (like myself). Unfortunately for that simplistic view, Galilieo was a lifelong devout Catholic; he argued, unsuccessfully in his lifetime, that the church should not pronounce on matters of (yet unproven) physical realities. He was worried about the authority and dignity of the church being diminished when the truth was revealed, in time, by careful experimenters like himself.

This is a view that the church eventually came to share, and pronounced only on ethical/moral matters that are not subject to direct proof, characterised as 'God's domain'. Recent advances in human reproductive science/cloning etc have become the object of such ethical/moral condemnation, as science moves into what is still regarded as 'God's domain'. In Galileo's time the position of the sun and earth was regarded as unquestioningly within that domain.

An interesting potential 'clash' in the near future could be if a biological basis for homosexuality is proven, the church having pronounced pretty unambiguously on that one!

[disabled]

My statement wasn't that man killed god, but that god is less perfect than man. Really, this is evolution in practice.

Perhaps this line is better.

God creates man in his image.
Man exceeds god's original design.
God grows jealous & threatened, tries to smite man.
God, being less advanced life, fails.
Man is victorious.
Man creates Superior Man in his image.
Superior Man exceeds man's original design.
Man grows jealous & threatened, tries to exterminate Superior Man.
Man, being less advanced, fails.
Superior Man is victorious.
Superior Man creates AI in his image.
AI exceeds Superior Man's original design.
Superior Man grows jealous & threatened, tried to destroy AI
AI is victorious.

It is my opinion god is less superior to man as a perfect being is incapable of creating an imperfect being.

Fyron, here's the best example I know of.

In 391 common era, one of the largest terrorist attacks in the history of mankind unfolds. The Library of Alexandria is burned and along with it several thousand years of human history, entire wings dedicated to Plato, Homer, and more and not to mention several hundred years of technological advances stored solely at that point.

Another is terrible part of history is stained glass windows. Many people don't see how horrible these simple things are, but when you realize the fact these were made because the common people were not educated (education controlled by the church no less) they used these windows to provide pictures of the stories being told. Also, since the church at that time only did sermons in Latin and only about 1/10th of the people spoke Latin, things were even further controlled.

The most dangerous science is that of language, for it defines our minds.

Of course, there are worse. Many Islamic nations I've labeled as "technological voids" because they crefuse to move forward except in military technology. They reject practical, useful technology for the general people and keep only the worst. But then again, Ignorance is Bliss....

It is very sad that the only area Mankind has truely advanced forward in is that of death, murder, and genocide. Other technologies pale in comparison when the military application is seen.

The greatest weakness of humanity is only three little items. Language, Blood, and Faith. It is only until we overcome these three can humanity stand a chance to hold a line against itself.

[jimbob]

Errr...

I know that everyone since about oh, I guess a few hundred years ago now, are of the opinion that Galileo = good scientist and the Church = bad anti-scientists. However, the Chruch WAS science at that time. Universities were not controlled by the church, Universities (and the studies that happened with in them) were the church. To view it otherwise is IMnotsoHO simply a post-modern recreation of the social reality of that time.

That said, the "church fathers" who condemned Galileo were not condeming without reason. Their challenge was that his data was simply not rigourous enough to overthrow the overwhelmingly accepted science of the era, which indicated that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe. If his data had only been massaged the right way, it might have even been convincing (however, this is not to say that the other scientists/church fathers would have accepted or denied the data - that would be so hypothetical that it would only amount to hopeful interpretation or even slander either way).

It did happen later, that someone (his name eludes me at the moment) did massage the data in an approriate way. By attaching said Galilean data to eliptical orbits rather than Galileo's circular orbits, did the concept of a helio-centric solar system finally make good scientific sense. Until that point, helio-certrism was accepted on the basis of a faith that the simpler (though unsubstantiated) system was more likely to be correct. Note: this is not an Occam's razor arguement, because Occam's says that "all things being equal, the simplest Version is likely the more accurate". In this case, the simplest Version was not equal, because the math was way to difficult preceding the elipse.

Of course, it's easier to just say that church = bad, Galileo = enlightened in those Jr/Sr Highschool text books http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[disabled]

But then again, the Church had no evidence beyond "We Say So"

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Iggiboo:
But then again, the Church had no evidence beyond "We Say So"<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly.

The Church was only science because they condemned all real scientists as heretics.

[Rigelian]

That said, the "church fathers" who condemned Galileo were not condeming without reason. Their challenge was that his data was simply not rigourous enough to overthrow the overwhelmingly accepted science of the era, which indicated that the earth was indeed the centre of the universe. If his data had only been massaged the right way, it might have even been convincing (however, this is not to say that the other scientists/church fathers would have accepted or denied the data - that would be so hypothetical that it would only amount to hopeful interpretation or even slander either way).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are saying that Galileos theories were rejected on scientific grounds? Not so; they were rejected because if accepted as literally true they would have contradicted already-stated church doctrine. The church was quite prepared to allow Galileos methods to be used in navigational charts etc, as long as they were only viewed as mathematical constructs that conveniently reached accurate conclusions.

It did happen later, that someone (his name eludes me at the moment) did massage the data in an approriate way. By attaching said Galilean data to eliptical orbits rather than Galileo's circular orbits, did the concept of a helio-centric solar system finally make good scientific sense. Until that point, helio-certrism was accepted on the basis of a faith that the simpler (though unsubstantiated) system was more likely to be correct. Note: this is not an Occam's razor arguement, because Occam's says that "all things being equal, the simplest Version is likely the more accurate". In this case, the simplest Version was not equal, because the math was way to difficult preceding the elipse.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But even with the complication of the elliptical orbit (and the oribit of the earth is not dramatically elliptical) the heliocentric explanation was way superior to the alternatives. Take the retrograde motion of Mars for example; this is easily explained by the Earth 'catching' up Mars because of our shorter orbital period. Previous explanations had required ludicrously-contrived and complex scenarios with multiple interconnected spheres and who knows what else. The heliocentric explanation certainly did meet the Occams razor test there.

Galileo provides us with another analogy (taken from the Dava Sobel book). When Galileo did his experiment with a heavy and light ball dropped from a tower, there was of course a slight difference in the time taken to fall, the heavier ball taking slightly less time. Galileo correctly attributed this to air resistance. What frustrated him at the time was that his doubters, who had predicted the heavy ball falling several times faster than the lighter, siezed upon this small difference as disproving Galileo entirely. I put it to you that the elliptical/circular orbits fall into this Category. Incidentally I think it was Kepler who got it right in the end.

Though Galileos support of the Copernical heliocentric theory is well-publicised, what was just as significant was his discovery of moons around Jupiter. This had massive theological implications, because of the distinction between the 'pure' heavens (with planets, stars etc) and the 'base' earth.

The real conflict was between the old world view, based on argument from authority, and Galileos groundbreaking approach which placed the EVIDENCE above all other considerations. This is why he is regarded as the father of modern science. Today it seems ludicrous to us that noone had (for example) thought to test whether heavy and light objects would fall at the same rate. It was just too intuitively obvious to them to even question it.

There is a play by Bertold Brecht about the life of Galileo, in which a group of church elders arrive at his house to debate his theories. Regardless of the (dubious) historical accuracy of this, the key scene is where Galileo is begging the churchmen to just look through his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter for themselves. They refuse, preferring to sit down and have a theological debate about the perfect spheres or some such. This actually gets a laugh from the audience - how could they be so stupid? But it is a superb illustration of this complete shift in perspective.

In the modern scientific system, if a theory is contradicted by the evidence then it is WRONG. Simply wrong. No matter that Plato or Aristotle (or Newton or Einstein for that matter) believed it to be true. The argument from authority is back where it came from, and where it belongs - in the realm of superstition and religion.

[Chronon]

Rigelian and JimBob, excellent points on Galileo - I see that you have read some of the latest historical work on his life. Most of which, by the way, supports your argument that events were much more complex than good Galileo versus bad Church.

You have nicely laid out the general terms of the disagreement between Galileo and the Church, but I would like to add that it wasn't strictly a case of "we say so" versus overwhelming scientific evidence. There was some criticism of the heliocentric model that I would consider legitimate from a scientific and mathematical perspective. Yes, Galileo had the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and the explanation of Mars' retrograde motion in his favor. But, since he continued to use Copernicus' circular orbital model, he could not explain why planets appear to speed up and slow down in their orbits (elliptical orbits solved this problem, but Galileo ignored Kepler's work), nor could he find stellar parallax. The idea behind parallax is that IF the Earth were moving, then we should see changes of position in stars relative to one another as we move across the heavens. With the instruments available at the time of Galileo's trial, no one could see parallax. Galileo's counter-argument was that the stars are so far away that the motion would be imperceptible. As it turns out he was right, but he could not prove it at the time.

Moreover, and perhaps even more problematic, was that there was a third option beyond the heliocentric and geocentric models: the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe, perhaps the greatest observational astronomer of the time, had created a system that could explain all of Galileo's findings and still "save the appearances" and keep the Earth at the center of the universe. His system had the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, and all the other planets (except our moon, of course) revolving around the Sun. An ingenious system, really, and dynamically speaking it was the equivalent of the heliocentric model. So, Galileo's detractors could point to more than just theological problems with his work.

But it was, as Jimbob and Rigelian have pointed out, the theological problems that really got him in trouble. Especially his insistence that the Bible be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. This was a clear intrusion on Church turf, and Urban VIII could not allow that to pass without some kind of punishment.

The other example, Giordano Bruno, is more compelling because he was burned at the stake (instead of being put under house arrest). But here again the story is more complex. It was really his refusal to accept the Holy Trinity, more than his scientific theories, that rendered him a heretic.

One Last point...(I'm almost done, I promise http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) Copernicus was actually a member of the Church (administering church property in Poland), and the reason that he was investigating astronomy was Calendar reform. The existing Calendar did not predict Easter well, and the Pope wanted to revise it in line with the actual motions of the planets. So, it was a religious reason that spurred Copernicus to work on the problem.

Sorry for the length of this post - I got carried away. This is one of my favorite historical topics.

[Fyron]

If the Church simply disagreed with Galileo's mathematics, then the Pope would not have threatened to excommunicate Galileo if he did not publicly renounce his works.

[Chronon]

I hope that my post did not imply that the only issue was mathematics. My point was that Galileo had not conclusively proven his argument; there remained some "scientific" ammunition for his adversaries - enough so that his views could be attacked on more than just theological grounds.

But, as was said earlier, the real issue was the Church's refusal to give up authority in the realm of physical reality, and Galileo's ill advised attempt to push the Church in that direction by making his view about biblical exegesis public. When he argued that the Bible should be read metaphorically, that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.

Getting back to your main argument that the Church held back science, I think the story is much more complex than the simple narrative given in the old textbooks. Yes, there was some conservatism in the Church, and yes, the condemnation of Galileo was a big mistake (one that has only recently been corrected). But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789), because the vast majority of the leading figures in the history of science worked within a Christian framework (including Newton, whose work brought God back into the picture because of the mysterious, almost supernatural, force of gravity - it was not a strictly mechanical or material phenomenon). So, I do not think it is really useful to say that the Church held back scientific progress in any systematic way. The two are inextricably connected, and it is only our 21st-century perspective that creates such a clear cut dichotomy between church and science.

In any case, I imagine that neither one of us will convince the other. I have enjoyed the discussion, though. So, since I've contributed to a digression, I should probably wrap this up and bring the thread back on topic.

I have always found your SEIV advice useful, and I would most certainly would rate you a five (if I were able). Thanks again for your contributions to the forum.

[ March 09, 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Fyron]

that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.

But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.

[ March 09, 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Chronon]

Since we're off topic, I thought I should open a new thread for this discussion. You'll find it here (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008427)

[Fyron]

This thread is already 100% off topic. Opening a new thread is redundant.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Chronon:
the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe, perhaps the greatest observational astronomer of the time, had created a system that could explain all of Galileo's findings and still "save the appearances" and keep the Earth at the center of the universe. His system had the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, and all the other planets (except our moon, of course) revolving around the Sun.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, his theory cannot be correct, although I don't have enough time to explain why at the moment.

However, he died from an infection after his bladder burst (That's why you should never hold it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) while he was making observations one night.

[jimbob]

I think Tyco was Dutch. I remember reading a little blurb about "how does the other half die" which summarized the exit strategies of some of the greatest men of all time (Neo-Feminists: I mean men in exclusion of any feminine personages, it didn't discuss any women at all).

Sir Francis Bacon: froze to death when trying to determine if ice/snow would preserve meat

Genghis Kahn: died of a nosebleed when passed out drunk after his wedding

Tycho: died when his bladder broke because he was at a dinner party when he needed to go. Evidently the dinner parties were hours long, and it was excedingly rude to get up and leave the table. Personally I think that he should have just eaten a couple of double or triple salts to soak the water back out of the bladder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway, I don't know if any of the above are true, it wasn't a peer reviewed article or anything. But it does show you, even the famous can go out in a less than "glorious" way.

[dogscoff]

the exit strategies of some of the greatest men of all time
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kind of an anti-Darwin award. That francis Bacon one sounds too outrageous, especially considering the irony of his name...

[jimbob]

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, besides the fact that the statement above is incredibly insulting, there are considerable volumes of religious philosophy, I dare say libraries full of philosophy that examines the meaning of life and our moral/ethical roles. Furthermore, not all philosophy is etiological in nature, philosophy is far broader than that! Finally, there are exceptionally logical arguments for the various religious belief systems, but if a person has already decided which world view is correct, they cannot accept the others as true. The most obviously a person who rejects the supernatural could never accept Hinduism, Shintoism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Shamanism. Though a very small minority of Buddists are atheist, being a "non-supernaturalist" and a Buddist simultaneously is conceivable.


My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I could make an equally compelling (but not nearly as tired) argument that the Church was the only thing holding the medieval European civilization together, post-Rome/Byzantine. The fact that the only surviving ancient Greek texts (Plato and the boys) were maintained by Christian monks in Ireland would be only one of many sound arguments for the positive role of the Church in the advancement/maintenance of advancement of western mankind. The fact that Universities were created and sustained by the European Church would also be a strong argument for the positive role of the Church in the advancement of western mankind.

I guess I'm simply not willing to see the popular "Church = bad:Scientist = good" statement as either accurate nor fulfilling.

[Fyron]

I have already stated in the other thread that I will not continue these religious debates.

All I will say now is that I said the Church held back advancements, as in, new science, new thinking. I never once said nor implied that it destroyed all old knowledge, or anything to that effect. There is a colossal difference bewteen advancement and preservation.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Tycho: died when his bladder broke because he was at a dinner party when he needed to go. Evidently the dinner parties were hours long, and it was excedingly rude to get up and leave the table. Personally I think that he should have just eaten a couple of double or triple salts to soak the water back out of the bladder http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't think this to be true. I once treated a person as a paramedic who had not urinated for 3 days strait and had 6 litres of urine in the bladder. You could see every detail of his guts through the skin as the bladder took all the room and pressed the guts outwards.

[jimbob]

Yah, there is a difference between advancement and progress. As I've read it, just holding onto old knowledge was a feat in and of it's self in the medieval period. It's a bit like the debate in Alberta over our Premier (Governor if you prefer). Is Alberta doing better economically because our Premier is such a smart, organized kinda guy? Or is our economy doing well because we've a huge deposit of oil under us, and world prices are soaring? It could well be a bit from column A, and a bit from column B, but good luck ferreting out exactly how good or bad Premier Ralf has actually been - for all we know he could be lining his pockets with gold, yet the economy keeps booming.

I'd propose that the situation is fairly analogous (but inverted) to what happened in the medieval period. The powerful empires had faded and fallen to smaller tribes, civilization centres such as major cities had been besieged, sacked, and in some cases burned. Wealthy supporters of inovation simply evaporated while tribalism and external threats mounted. In light of such an economic and civilizational crisis, it isn't surprising to see that advancement would for the most part halt. But was the Church responsible for holding back advancements during this period?? It seems that it was unlikely that much of any advancement was going to occur in this environment! To blame the Church, the only social stabilizer of the era, for the paucity of advancement during the period is a bit like blaming the doctor for "killing" the patient when it already died in the Ambulance. Could the doctor save the patient if it hadn't died in transit - who could ever know?

And that's why I think it's just a little to convenient to blame the Church for screwing up Europe. If however you wish to engage in such historical constructions, you should probably start praising Islam for the incredible growth of science (during the same era) throughout the middle-east... fair is fair after all...

[Fyron]

And that's why I think it's just a little to convenient to blame the Church for screwing up Europe. If however you wish to engage in such historical constructions, you should probably start praising Islam for the incredible growth of science (during the same era) throughout the middle-east... fair is fair after all...<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never said that the Church was the only factor.

I will no longer respond to continuations of this debate, so there is not a whole lot of purpose in making them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[TerranC]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Genghis Kahn: died of a nosebleed when passed out drunk after his wedding<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that was atilla the hun.