 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Under what I understand of your faith, you are "free" to to worship God or to condemn yourself to eternal damnation, but that's like saying "you're free to eat this ice cream cone or to hit yourself on (...) (21 years ago, 19-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) The choice is to accept God or not. I'm sure that dwelling with God is as wonderful as dwelling without God is miserable. (...) Freedom of religion doesn't mean "freedom from religion". But let me ask you: do we have an obligation to assist (...) (21 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I figure that you and I both know that we're getting off the initial point of the debate, so our audience may wish to tune out at this point! On what basis are you sure of that? Faith? I'm afraid that's simply insufficient for me (and in any (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Yes. Do you claim to only believe in things that are provable? In the final analysis, what would you say about a devout scientist who believed in God? Is he/she compromised as a scientific thinker? (...) Yes, but I'm curious. There are so many (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Well, I guess I'd say that I believe only in those things for which there is empirical evidence or which can, in principle, be proven. As far as a devout scientist is concerned, I say go right ahead! I would, however, offer that IMO the devout (...) (21 years ago, 21-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Blank checks drawn upon the US
|
|
(...) Why? Who placed this obligation on us and what was gained in exchange? (...) Why? (...) Why? What if they are convinced that blue mud is the cure for AIDS (c.f. South Africa right about now) when we know for sure it isn't? (...) Why? Why (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) You are? Well, dwelling without him is pretty peachy, if you ask me. So then, sorry to hear you're having such a rough time with him. (logically if I'm not miserable then you're not wonderful) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I'm glad that you have had a blessed life. Chances are that one day things won't always look so peachy, answers won't come so easily, and fates won't be accepted so readily. (...) It is my understanding that God doesn't value "logic" much-- (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Blank checks drawn upon the US
|
|
(...) How else can you convince them that they are wrong? Education (for all) is the key! Scott A (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) But do you see how that's an unsatisfactory answer? If Larry's life turns non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is proven. But if Larry's life does not turn non-peachy, then you would claim that your point is not disproven. Your (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I'd prefer to hope that things remain "peachy" for Larry. But I suppose what you are saying is that peachy-ness (like happiness) is a relative term, and that Larry does not know how "peachy" he is? (...) (That's if Jesus was the Suffering (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Reasonable offerings of aid (was Re: Blank checks drawn upon the US)
|
|
(...) Well, I reject that framing of the issue--there's no need to assume that there's a tit-for-tat arrangement. Why must there be? My assumption (with which you are free to disagree, of course) is that the entire system is improved if the good of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -B.Schlickbernd -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) So here I am, in the mood for some sort of new .siggy quotation, and lo and behold, one just pops into my lap! (top) Dave K "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -BS (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) So, you don't agree with it? Oh, wait...geez, use my middle initial (G). I never use just the first and last.... ;-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It works on sooo many levels. But fine, I'll use the G... G? George? Gerry? Godfreid? Geoffrey? Oh wait, that's mine... Dave G. K "If God wanted man to think, He would have given him a brain." -BGS (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Got any about women? ;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It already did, but I suppose that adds another. (...) Apparently there is no Saint Bruce (unless you're Scottish and want to count Robert the Bruce, who was hardly a saint but that's who I'm named after - though the Scot in the family is (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Well, it is based on the idiot that said, "If God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings," so I just followed that format instead of PCing it (ummm, do I have to admit that I came up with this saying before the term "PC" existed, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (snip) (...) That's how I was taking it (literally)-- it reminded me of this one: "What do you call a women without an A**hole?" "Single" Ahh, the fine art of menbashing.... FUTOT.F JOHN (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It's unsatisfactory to a logical mind. Logic is a tool, but not the end all of inquiry. It has its limitations. Heck, I can use logic to prove that movement is impossible (ask). Applying logic to God is like trying to measure the volume of an (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Or that he is existentially at peace with living an emphemoral life. Most people want to believe that there is something more to life than this existence. (...) Well, whether Jesus was or wasn't the Suffering Servant isn't the point; the point (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) ...but my Queen claims to be my servant... just as Bush should be your's! Does that make Bush a god? Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 22-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) OK, I buy that. Heck, I've always said your god wasn't very logical anyway. But your god didn't make the assertion above about relationships between happiness and god proximity, though... *you* did. (unless you assert that you were speaking in (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) You can, but your logic would be faulty. Present your argument for review, if you'd like. (...) This is that wordplay I cautioned against! (...) Which God? The Christian God? You'll likely disagree, but I find God to be logically impossible on (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Infinity may exist. Finite minds can grasp theories and ideas regarding infinite, but cannot encompass what infinite really is due to the very nature of finite minds If finite minds cannot encompass infinite, infinite cannot exist? That's the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Infinity *does* exist, and it's in lots of places all around us. Find the terminus (in two dimensions) of the surface of a sphere, for one example. The duplicity of Dubya, for another (I hope that this one is merely a jest, though I'm not yet (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) :) (...) And I agree with many of your assessments, which is why I'm having 'issue' with the 'Church Proper' right now. It was clearly illuminated when I read that cute story about the answer to the question "Is Hell exothermic or endotheric". (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) True, but your formulation of this example is incorrect. The ink line is not made of an infinite number of infinitely small "points" of ink; rather, the line is made of a finite (but quite large) number of very small (but quite finite) (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) So that's what Christian mathematicians argue about! ;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It is a variant of the one Dave K mentioned earlier. Before moving any distance X, the distance 1/2X must be covered. Before moving distance 1/2X, 1/4X distance must be moved, etc. Since there will always be a distance smaller than the one to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Christian historians, too: How many saxons on the head of a pin? -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Like I said, Zeno's Paradox. But 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32... equals 1. Additionally, your formulation demands that space be infinitely divisible, which it is not. (...) "Apt" is yet to be determined, but I admit that it's clever! (...) (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I dunno, baseballs seem to have no problem moving in differential calculus using dv's and dt's... but of course that is continuum mechanics. Some Lugnet physics guru is going to have to speak up about quantum mechanics with the Planck scales (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Yes, and I can sit in my swivel chair and spin from now until "the end of time", never stopping the spin (excluding such contingencies as death and parts on chair wearing out) but, again, that only works 'on paper'. IN real world applications, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I think I'm guilty of an imprecision here. I meant that the path of the laser is effectively infinite, not that it would traverse an endlessly new part of the sphere's surface. Also, as long as we're talking about two dimensions instead of (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I'd rephrase again--the path is theoretically infinite, for if you set up this exact scenario using real life lasers, ball-bearings nad spinning tools, within a set amount of time something will break down--or the path of the laser, over time, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I think you're blurring the distinction between "impractical in practice" and "impossible in reality." Whether or not we can devise an mechanism that will exist for eternity is irrelevant. The fact that we can create an unbounded (...) (21 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I concur--a concept of infinity existing on a two dimensional surface of a sphere is a valid one. But the operative word here is *concept*. In reality, in the physical universe, the surface isn't infinite for it is subject to the finite issues (...) (21 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: Please read this whole post (or at least the bottom part) before replying. I may be onto something... (...) Well, let's identify another distinction that seems to be causing us some trouble. You're (...) (21 years ago, 26-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A footnote (was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism)
|
|
(...) I've known about this since the day it happened, but (URL) here's> a good summation of Bush's pious, vulgarity-free public life. While we're at it, (URL) here's> some video of our born-again, teetotaling Prez back in August of 1992. (...) (21 years ago, 30-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Okay, I've thought about it more. And I've decided that my example is 100% faulty. Even if such a theoretical perfect sphere could be said to exist in the real universe, there'd be no way for us to verify it, because we'd have no way to verify (...) (16 years ago, 6-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) It takes you FIVE YEARS to admit you're wrong, Dave!? Or have you just been thinking about the example for that long? I don't believe that you had even procreated before this discussion. ROFL JOHN (16 years ago, 7-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Well, it's not as though I was thinking about it every day, but it was sort of bubbling on the back burner, along with a hundred other random things. Jon Palmer's post in ot.pun was another of them, but I already commented on that one a while (...) (16 years ago, 8-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what to make of this; I'll get back to you in a few years. JOHN (16 years ago, 10-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) Oooo, there's still hope for Myers-Briggs! DaveE (16 years ago, 10-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) See, this is why people should never admit when they've made a mistake. And I will continue to ridicule the Myers-Briggs Test Instrument while there is breath in my lungs and blood in my veins, thank you very much. Dave! (16 years ago, 11-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
|
(...) I'm sure you'll have at least two or three ways of getting in touch with me at that time... Dave! (16 years ago, 11-Nov-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
