goaliejerry

Cmdr. Skowronski Reporting as ordered!

Hello fellow insurgents, I just wanted to say that with each passing day, and the impending release of the MP patch, it seems that all of our waiting and preparation will be worth every second of anticipation we have gone through. I can smell it in the air, and the vision of BCM in its true incarnation as a fully multi-player simulation becomes more real every day. I look forward to serving with each one of you, and anticipate with much excitement the many coming battles and victories that will come about only through our joint cooperation. It is only a matter of time now.....

quote: Mad Bunnies Are The Path To The Dark Side They also grill up quite nicely

"So how can you say the holocaust was wrong? It was good for Hitler, it was betterment for the people of his country, he was doing it for the "betterment of mankind". So how was Hitler wrong? How were Stalin's purges wrong? Why is the murder of mentally retarded people wrong? Why is murdering 2 year olds wrong? You can justify all of those instances as "good for mankind" or "good for society", so why are they wrong? Without a God, morality is relative to the situation and the results of actions, not the intrinsic wrong involved in them. Without a God, a group gaining power and oppressing everyone else isn't wrong, and there's no reason it shouldn't happen, since it could possibly serve the betterment of society. Just look at slavery, how was it not "better for all of mankind?"" This doesn't make any sense. This had nothing to do with what I said. Just because someone makes a claim to be doing good does not mean that good was done. Even if they believe that they are doing good, if in practice they are doing injustice then thats all there is to it. I would argue that one could not possibly justify these occurances as working for the betterment of mankind, and frankly I am confused as to why you even bring them up. You clearly ignored my words regarding the existace of morality regardless of god. Your claim that without a god that morality is realitive is an extremely tenuous position based on your desire to show that God does exist. In every example you cite, the "betterment of all mankind" is not being served, because in each case a certain group of "man" is being deprived, and as a result not "all" of mankind are being bettered are they? Think about it. What you say makes no sense. You ask why all of those things are wrong? Because they are unjust. Does the existance of justice demonstrate the existance of god? Certainly not. You say to "Just look at slavery, how was that not the betterment of mankind?" I think I'll just take a step back and let you rethink what your contending here. See, this is a difficult debate to have with you because you have already made up your mind. If I present you with logic you can choose to ignore it and stick by your guns. Your quoted paragraph above is a non sequitur. It has absolutly nothing to do with anything I say, and I don't understand why you even brought it up. [ 09-13-2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Yes you can break down the neuro impulses of the mind into biological terms, and see how it physically works. Thats terrific, explain conciousness. Explain sentience. You keep reaching into your tool bag to dismiss these issues when all you do is skirt them, when you are completely unwilling/unable to consider that maybe you don't have the right tools. Your refutations deal only with the physical and nothing more, of course the brain works on impulses. You fail to address the essence of the soul. If it's your contention that the soul doesn't exsist I would like to hear the reasoning why. Not the opinion, the reason. But if that is not your contention then ignore this paragraph. Let me be clear, I'm not defending god, certainly not the Christian god which seems to be popping back into the conversation. I'm mearly open to all possibilitys, and the only way to gain any certainty about anything is to subject it to the utmost scrutiny, and if any cracks develop, well then we know what that means. Perhaps there is not god in the sense of some all powerful master overlooking the universe and dictating our existance. Perhaps God is internal, the metaphysical "something" that continually tells us "there is more, there is always more. What you are is something more." Perhaps this God could be called "mind" or "awareness" but you surely agree that we are as of yet unable to subjugate the "mind" to scientific certainty. Not the brain mind you, which is purely physical, but the mind, our concieousness, our soul if you will. [ 09-13-2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Cruis.In Yes, great point, it seems to me that science can explain and deal with only the physical, but cannot touch the metaphysical, or rather the mind or the soul. I wanted to work this in somewhere but never did, damn its late!

GRRRR I am sleepy, however to address right quick Dragon Ladys first point on my rhetoric. It was my understanding that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, and that the current theroy of universal structure was one in which all expands into infinity and will not ever collapse on itself again, and as a result the universe is flat, and will not collapse on itself. There was quite the quiet uproar if I am not mistaken, and this news made the cover of time as well as extensive coverage in national geographic. Conclusive proof was presented that the universe will continue to expand into infinity, so everything seemingly happens once Now, you must give me some time to collect the articles I call into play, but things would be much easier if you at least acknowledged that I am not making this up. I will find them though, and point you towards them. They make for quite facinating reading! And you contradict yourself quite blatently! Here: "That is true, but we can disprove evidence that is used to claim the existence of god. The fossil record, for example, proves that there has been life on earth for a hell of a lot longer then the bible claims, and the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer then that. Furthermore, there is no need to disprove the existence of god; rather the existence of god must be proven. Would you accept any scientific theory as truth if it was unproven and supported only by circumstantial evidence that at best proves that a lot of things are still unknown? No, and neither would anyone else, but many people would never even consider the need to prove god exists, they simply take it on faith." First you say that we can disprove the exsistance of god, but then you say that such an ability is pointless. I would just like to say that my considerations of God are not limited to the Christian sense, for if there is a god, no one as of yet has grasped its nature. So your referance to the fossil record is moot in my eyes, of course the earth wasn't created in seven days. But perhaps Genesis was all metaphorical? AHHHH It is immensly satisfying to stretch my grey matter, regardless of the validity of anything I say! [ 09-13-2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

My friend before I retort let me just say I fully apreciate a good natured debate on the rationality of existance, and also fully enjoy debate that does not degrade to the "personal" level which you initially alluded to. Because of the convention that is presented on this board, I will address your points in the order in which they were given. I must first address the two "options" which you raise in defense of your claim of a Goddly responsibility for the formation of the universe as it currently exists. Humans create religion to explain the unexplainable, the strong belief in god may stem from a refusal to accept that all we are is an accident or chance, people may die for it because they simply know no better. Are those that slammed into the world trade centers nobel, for they died for their fervent belief in thier god? Or could it not also be argued that this happening goes to show that belief in god is completely relitive, that one persons complete faith in a god or belief and a willingness to die for it shows nothing of the truth of such faith or belief? I feel that your initial tie of morality to God is too presumptuous, and that you completely disregard the benefit to mankind offered by societal justice and morality. For if a society is lawfull and just, does not every memeber benefit? I'm going to have to disagree with you that morality could not exist save a higher governing being. While it is wholley possible that morality and justice, (justice being the foundation of law, which I hope you agree with) are driving mechanisms behind human existance and order, I don't think you can offer conclusive evidence that such just motivations are completely the work of God, and not the result of mutual benefaction by all parties involved. No my friend, I must also disagree with you that a godless existance means life without morality, a sort of survival of the stongest if you will. For does morality and justice not serve the greator good of mankind, and therefore benefit the individual, who thereby might benefit from the exhibition of justice himself? Why does a god need to come into play when living the moral life is seemingly better for all of mankind? (Granted a truly and completely moral life is non-existant on this earth, and the imposition of such a life would not bide well with the populace at large!) You state this in one line, "Basically, that idea of creation that denies the existance of God justifies people doing whatever they want that makes them feel good while lowering humanity to the level of animals." How so? Elaborate. This claim of yours stems from your belief that non-believers are the unjust, and that they are not worthy of gods graces. You fail to offer support for this claim and quickly move onto your next point which is equally indefensible. I contend that morality in and of itself, seperate and disconnected from god, does not allow people to act unjustly, and those that do act unjust (disregarding the psycopathic) know that they are doing so out of understanding of what is just. You see god does not have to exsist for morality to be beneficial, morality can exist for the betterment of all man. My friend, you are still gambling with the notion of god, placing your complete faith in it's exsistance, as opposed to allowing for chance. You say its more likely that an all powerful being whose presense and influence can be nothing but infered created all that we know and will know. You grasp at straws, you use words like "likly" and "chance" when explaining you reasoning for god. Why is it not "there is a god" or "god willed it to be." You seem to be falling into the comfort of the probable (which I would contend is not so) and completely denying the possible. "If we were created by chance, so was every other being, and all of the laws of science, and every other thing that science has proven to have order. Even if humanity was created by chance, there had to be some sort of plan or order or logic behind it all, and "chance" doesn't cut it, at least not at the level we know about chance. Sure, one day science may be able to explain most of it away, but it'll never be able to disprove the idea of God doing it." Ahh very good, while I would change the wording where you say "chance doesn't cut it," for by the nature of chance, it very well might. But you are correct, science will not be able to disprove the existance of god. However, it won't be able to prove the existance either. And I'm sure you'll agree, a lack of disproof does not constitute proof. No evidence exists to prove I killed the poor girl, so does that mean I absolutly didn't? And lastly, I will address your three reasons for the existance of god, and forgive me, but show that they are wholly inadequate. "1. Is supported by science that everything has some sort of cause. 2. It takes away the concept that we somehow beat the very, very, very, very smallest odds imaginable. 3. Explains and justifies the concepts of morality and miracles." 1. True 2. Yes but this is wishful thinking, and when faith factors into the equation it diminishes all reliability. Just because somehthing is easier to grasp when thought of a certain way doesn't mean it's true. If process A has 50 steps, and process B has 2, and both processes lead to the same outcome, and neither process is refutable, which is easier to understand? Which lends itself to more a more comfortable grasping of? 3. No. As far as miricles, I don't want to address this, for we've already mentioned that such occurances may be simply misunderstood natural occurences. But your desire to require a god in your explaination of morality is simply an attempt to intertwine your faith with the nature of human existance. You fail completely to offer any compeling reason why morality must be tied to a god. Is it not possible for a human to act justly without any knowledge of the teaching of the lord? Isn't justice a situational reality that occurs in human interactions without any sort of devine intervention? We can't say "that man was unjust by moving that rock from it's resting place." No, justice exists between humans, and through its existance, benefits the "good" of all people. Finally, since the main contenders in this debate have offered brief synapsis' of there backround, let me lay mine down. Raised roman catholic, not strict, not confirmed, cannot say with certainty no god exists, however lean towards disbelief. Philosophy major, thinker, attempts to approch debates with nutrality, however also realizes that such an apporch is impossible. Not certain of anything, questioning anything, dismissive ONLY of those who are dismissive of others ideas. Live for discourse, enjoy informed debate, completely able to modify views if offered wholly compeling arguements. Thats all friends, I will check back soon and look forward to the continuation of our discussion here. [ 09-13-2002, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Oh and Dragon Lady, when dredd talks about the uniqueness of humanity and the power of our minds, he's talking about language, and civilization. Biologically we are not unique, however we think, reason, articulate, and understand. We build, and study, and imagine, and love. Your claim that we are not unique or that our minds are not powerful is pish-posh, aren't we fathoming the nature of god and existance here? Get a monkey to do that... Put a scientific value on love... [ 09-12-2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

I'd just like to add my two cents in response to what dredd said in his last post. And please don't mistake what I say as a re-hash of Dragon Lady's comments! The question of whether or not there is a god or not is not what I mean to comment on. However I must ask the question, how was god created then? For if you claim that he has always exsited even before the big bang, then your claim about the existance of a god being nessecary to start the process goes down the tubes. For if it is possible to assume that god is perpetual in nature, that he is never ending and without begining or end, then that means it is possible for things to be perpetual. And if things are perpetual, then one could justifiably claim that so too is the universe, or any substance for that matter, for there is no evidence to the contrary. And if the universe is perpetual, then there is no need for a god, because the universe is without beggining or end. By this logic it seems all things are perpetual and without begining or end and therefore god is not nessecary to explain its origins. Or in other words, if we take a leap of faith that there is a perpetual god, one could just as easily claim that there is a perpetual universe and no need for a god, for both claims have the same value of truth. As for your secondary reasons, mankind likes to assign the unknown into the catagory of "gods work." Around 2000 years ago thunder was attributed to Zeus throwing bolts in anger, but as time progresses we gain further understanding of the universe. We are still blind children feeling our way in the dark, however we learn more and more as time goes on and seem to continually dispell old and outdated mystisism. As for the difficulty or our being created by chance, well chance is independent of difficulty. While the chances may be extremely small and incomprehesible, so too is the vastness of the universe. And even if the odds are 1:1000000000000000000000, that one time could happen on the first roll. NOW BEFORE you reactionarys jump at me here, listen to this last point. While scientific discovery does indeed dispell the unknown, and even if the "multitude of miricles" that can't be explained now are someday explained, IT PROVES ABSOLUTLY NOTHING . For if there is no god, then discovering the natural order of the universe may well explain its origins. However, it is also conceievable that science is simply the cataloging of God's methodology. SO any scientist who thinks he's disproving the exsitance of god by discovering the workings of nature may only be explaining how god did his work. These questions are now and will for millenia be beyond the grasp of our feable minds, and while we can work towards a better understanding of the universe and all of its intricacies, you nor I nor anyone of our time will ever know the truth. [ 09-12-2002, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

STW holds the title for the one game I have spent the greatest amount of time playing. I must have put in hundreds and hundreds of hours crusading all across the Japanese mainland, and now with this European installment, so long social life! STW is my favorite game of all time, in terms of replayability, and I imagine the greater scope of this new version will only go towards making the new version even better then the last.

Reporting as ordered!

Ha, reminds me of joecartoon.com [ 08-30-2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Gammulans, pssshhhhh! I hope you enjoy the sensations of vacuum, for you'll be experiencing them quite frequently! And Galcom, the bane of humanity! My sole purpose for exsitance is the destruction of your oppresive regiem and the restoration of control of earth to her rightful heirs! Savior these moments of existance, for the day draws near!!!! [ 08-15-2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Docking at a station "Turns in" the criminals for some EP.

forgive my juvinility (if that is a word) but isn't there something inherantly funny about "Escaping Uranus?"

Alive and Kicking, SIR!

SC Quote in his review of "Undercover Brother": "Absolutely hilarious. Though I still think that National Lampoon's Van Wilder still holds my record for being the funniest film so far this year." Just curious SC, does this still hold true? As for me, I loved it! 9.5/10 I docked it .5 only because some jokes lacked a sense of orginiality and unpredictibility that previous movies had plenty of. Otherwise fantastic! A must see! Oh, and Britney Spears should be made an American Princess, she is absolute royalty! We should all pay a small tax so that she can tour more publically and maintain morale. Just like the Brittish Royals, its not about substance, but maintaining a particular ideal that every citizen can feel proud that they had a hand in shaping. One that is truly untouchable yet feels so near to our grasp! [ 07-29-2002, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: goaliejerry ]

Conan O'Brian, Funny as hell! His off the cuff remarks just cannot be beat!

Privateer was the bomb. Thats why I love BCM so much!

Cmdr. Skowronski Reports as ordered!

You know, when it comes to police brutality I tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Of course criminals will say they've been brutalized just to take the heat off of their guilty asses. And when I first watched the tape I said to myself, Oh boy, here goes the media blowing this up. But when I saw the cop punch that guy in the face, it was crystal clear that A) The man was restrained He posed no threat to the offending officer or anyone else for that matter and C) The officer clearly crossed the line. He'll be fired for sure and probably will have to find another line of work. Just my 2cents

But you gotta admit that SimCity was and is a damn good game.

Sell it too the highest bidder! Which oddly enough, would be the US government, however I'd never recieve payment. My body would be disposed of in such a way as to ensure that no trace would remain. Furthermore my entire family would cease to exist and all of you reading this had better hide quick 'cause your next! Scary ain't it?