151
General Discussion / Re: Russia Watch Thread/Ветка о России
« on: December 29, 2014, 09:13:19 am »
He opposes him less than the alternatives
Bay 12 Games Forum
- April 12, 2024, 10:28:15 pm
- Welcome, Guest
News:
March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
152
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 28, 2014, 09:08:47 pm »survival is on a day to day basis, the features that make a species survive certain conditions might well be the ones that will doom it when conditions inevitably change. theres no forward, there's just just a building up of genetic noise and incidental complexity. an elephant might evolve into a rat and a human into an amoeba Under the right circunstancesyou were being a bit too opinionated and apeared to be trying to tear down the guy's belief system. you aint suposed to debate people here, just satisfy your curiosityIt's not about fitting in, though it does cause them to fit in. It's about survival- and after Adam and Eve, we went on a huge downward spiral. We weren't the stewards of animals, we were animals. We were hunted and eaten, we were not even at the top of the food chain, never mind ruling all animals.QuoteAlso, if they were the first, how did their children find random wives?among the apes that were their close kin? seems rather easy to reconcile that part of genesis with a belief in evolution
and evolution is not all about forward steps, id argue evolution doesn have a sense of forward even. didnt many birds lose the ability to fly? though the numbers in the bible are quite astronomic its not rare that species evolve to have shorter lifespans. evolution is not about getting bigger, faster, stronger and "better", its about fiting in
Quote
its arguing that sent the other threads crashing and burning. this is the best thing we can have, and if we keep fucking up were gonna ruin our chances of ever having religion threads. these things escalate pretty fast, so argue corvertly and carefuly, because, like me, what goes on your mind would be pretty offensive to most people who believe something on faithQuotejust satisfy your curiosity
Arguing points is what satisfies my curiosity- it leads to a much better insight into what others believe, as it causes them to be a bit more thoughtful in what they write. If someone doesn't want me to ask my questions to them in such a way, they only have to ask.
153
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 28, 2014, 08:09:11 pm »
you were being a bit too opinionated and apeared to be trying to tear down the guy's belief system. you aint suposed to debate people here, just satisfy your curiosity
and evolution is not all about forward steps, id argue evolution doesn have a sense of forward even. didnt many birds lose the ability to fly? though the numbers in the bible are quite astronomic its not rare that species evolve to have shorter lifespans. evolution is not about getting bigger, faster, stronger and "better", its about fiting in
Quote
Also, if they were the first, how did their children find random wives?among the apes that were their close kin? seems rather easy to reconcile that part of genesis with a belief in evolution
and evolution is not all about forward steps, id argue evolution doesn have a sense of forward even. didnt many birds lose the ability to fly? though the numbers in the bible are quite astronomic its not rare that species evolve to have shorter lifespans. evolution is not about getting bigger, faster, stronger and "better", its about fiting in
154
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 28, 2014, 07:09:53 pm »
@Th4DwArfY1: you're loosing your cool and posting your questions in an overly confrontational way, you're not trying to get answers. youre going against the spirit of the thread in a too obvious manner
let me try instead
@Ghills: you claim to believe in evolution as described by scientists, right? if that case there is no specific point in time where you could say "these" are the first humans while talking about specific individuals, not by the scientific definition of species at least. if you believe that god imbued a couple of early hominids or homo sapiens with souls, then they would have had parents that were extremely similar to them, no less than you are similar to your own parents, yet the parents would have lacked souls. do you believe this? that adam and eve were sons of very human like animals identical in every way to the first humans except for the fact that they had souls?
i understand that the bible doesnt say a lot about this so i dont expect you to speak about your doctrine or strongly held beliefs, but i would be interest in even the most superficial guess you could give.
let me try instead
@Ghills: you claim to believe in evolution as described by scientists, right? if that case there is no specific point in time where you could say "these" are the first humans while talking about specific individuals, not by the scientific definition of species at least. if you believe that god imbued a couple of early hominids or homo sapiens with souls, then they would have had parents that were extremely similar to them, no less than you are similar to your own parents, yet the parents would have lacked souls. do you believe this? that adam and eve were sons of very human like animals identical in every way to the first humans except for the fact that they had souls?
i understand that the bible doesnt say a lot about this so i dont expect you to speak about your doctrine or strongly held beliefs, but i would be interest in even the most superficial guess you could give.
155
General Discussion / Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« on: December 28, 2014, 05:24:33 pm »
i find breasfeeding delightful. i always seek too surround myself by breastfeeding women, and i regret imensely that i myself cannot breastfeed
156
General Discussion / Re: Russia Watch Thread/Ветка о России
« on: December 28, 2014, 12:47:05 pm »
ptw
157
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 27, 2014, 12:06:59 pm »Also, I have yet to hear an answer to the whole question of how god can be all knowing and not malevolent.is not all-powerful
158
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 27, 2014, 10:19:36 am »Askot:can you elaborate on what gives you the imopression that i don' think that?
Try thinking of the words as tools that people use to communicate ideas to one another.
The question here is not what the word means, but what is the idea that we're using the word love to convey?
some words are simply bad tools, for example i dont understand your question, whats the meaning of a word if not the idea its trying to communicate?
159
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 27, 2014, 12:31:45 am »
i feel people put too much importance on words. love, for example, might be translateable into many languages, but i would be surprised if originally, etymologically, it actually meant the same thing. even in the same language, the word love probably meant something wildly different just a few centuries ago
i'll point out that this is merelly my opinion, and i'd love to hear your arguments if you disagree, but ill argue that love isnt one overarching feeling or emotion or anything transcendent, but a colection of human experiences that have come to be bundled under the same vague and abstract word, and those human experiences are fundamentally different from those experienced by people across history, or were called by different names even as the word love was being used with a different meaning.
ultimatelly, "all-loving" is meaningless, much like the word perfection, omnipotence, freedom, etc, outside of very specific and narrowly defined contexts.
i feel the same way about god. back before science could explain so many things so well people resorted to misticism and imagination, and they antropomorphised natural phenomena into the early concepts of god, and as knowlege advanced god's influence and presence on the physical world receded and he became more abstract.
today the idea of god as a giant bearded man that can carry mountains on his back and construct a world on a mere week only stopping to rest on the seventh day doesnt impress us anymore, but were still trying to describe him using the same words. he's no longer expected to be human shaped, like we though for so many aeons, with arms and legs and eyes and beard, or maybe having bodyparts of mighty animals or made of fire or bronze or ice, yet we still expect somenthing out there to have created all whose origin we dont understand, and because thought and emotions are still abstract enough, we still try to atribute those human words to that creator, but we strugle to understand those words that we ourselves invented and defined, because, once more, these features of the creator no longer fit with how we know the world works.
i'll point out that this is merelly my opinion, and i'd love to hear your arguments if you disagree, but ill argue that love isnt one overarching feeling or emotion or anything transcendent, but a colection of human experiences that have come to be bundled under the same vague and abstract word, and those human experiences are fundamentally different from those experienced by people across history, or were called by different names even as the word love was being used with a different meaning.
ultimatelly, "all-loving" is meaningless, much like the word perfection, omnipotence, freedom, etc, outside of very specific and narrowly defined contexts.
i feel the same way about god. back before science could explain so many things so well people resorted to misticism and imagination, and they antropomorphised natural phenomena into the early concepts of god, and as knowlege advanced god's influence and presence on the physical world receded and he became more abstract.
today the idea of god as a giant bearded man that can carry mountains on his back and construct a world on a mere week only stopping to rest on the seventh day doesnt impress us anymore, but were still trying to describe him using the same words. he's no longer expected to be human shaped, like we though for so many aeons, with arms and legs and eyes and beard, or maybe having bodyparts of mighty animals or made of fire or bronze or ice, yet we still expect somenthing out there to have created all whose origin we dont understand, and because thought and emotions are still abstract enough, we still try to atribute those human words to that creator, but we strugle to understand those words that we ourselves invented and defined, because, once more, these features of the creator no longer fit with how we know the world works.
160
General Discussion / Re: Sheb's European Politics Megathread
« on: December 26, 2014, 04:18:08 pm »uncommon everwhere outside Belgium. .wrong.
but belgium has a strong claim to the title of birthplace of the french fry, and it's its national dish. as in many places outside the US they often eat it with mayo, i guess?
my sister says the fries they sell on the street aint that good though. me, i'm partial to thick wedges still with the peel, seasoned with garlic, chives and a sprinkling of vinegar. i hear thats the spanish style but idk
161
Other Games / Re: Games you wish existed
« on: December 24, 2014, 11:50:54 am »
and after, as well. i remember there being two concurrent rts franchises, only one of which was based on the films
162
General Discussion / Re: Religion Questions Thread
« on: December 23, 2014, 08:49:14 pm »
to all religious people:
were you ever an atheist or agnostic?
do you know someone who was and somehow lost faith in athe\agnes?
if so, what happened?
and where does the cursed apostate lives so that we may go and eat his heart?
were you ever an atheist or agnostic?
do you know someone who was and somehow lost faith in athe\agnes?
if so, what happened?
and where does the cursed apostate lives so that we may go and eat his heart?
163
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: [boardgame] 12mages, or The Hidden Runes Chess [need 2 players]
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:05:22 pm »
bump
164
Creative Projects / Re: 12 mages, or the hidden runes chess
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:52:22 pm »
game thread in http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=146741.0
165
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: [boardgame] 12mages or the hidden runes chess
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:20:42 pm »
if anyone wants, they can start a game here, and we can keep comenting arround it. if it starts to get bothersome we can just create another thread
we can play like this:
__________________________________________
<player name> Vs. <playername>
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒abcdef░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░uvwxyz▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
copy this code and edit it fo the first play, and then just keep quoting each other and removing the extra stuff. is this simple enough?
we can play like this:
__________________________________________
<player name> Vs. <playername>
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒abcdef░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░uvwxyz▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
Spoiler: runes revealed (click to show/hide)
copy this code and edit it fo the first play, and then just keep quoting each other and removing the extra stuff. is this simple enough?
Code: [Select]
__________________________________________
<player name> Vs. <playername>
[tt]
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒abcdef░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░▒░▒░▒░▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
░uvwxyz▒
▒░▒░▒░▒░
[/tt]
[spoiler= runes revealed][tt]
top player 0 points
rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_
▒░▒░▒ ▒░▒░▒ ▒░▒░▒ ▒░∙░▒ ▒░∙░▒ ∙░▒░∙
░▒∙▒░ ░∙░∙░ ░∙∙∙░ ░▒∙▒░ ░∙░∙░ ░∙░∙░
▒∙Ω∙▒ ▒░Ω░▒ ▒∙Ω∙▒ ∙∙Ω∙∙ ∙░Ω░∙ ▒░Ω░▒
░▒∙▒░ ░∙░∙░ ░∙∙∙░ ░▒∙▒░ ░∙░∙░ ░▒∙▒░
▒░▒░▒ ▒░▒░▒ ▒░▒░▒ ▒░∙░▒ ▒░∙░▒ ▒░▒░▒
rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_ rune:_
bottom player 0 points[/tt]
[/spoiler]