Quick! Say something controversial!

[TMA_1]

it isnt a metaphor, though it does have symbolic meaning to wealth and it's destructiveness.

what I meant involving the punching bag concept is that you start discussions so people will retort, then you share your entire opinion on the matter. You wait until the trap is sprung, then you start to share your ideas.

why not just cut out the middle man, and tell us how you feel without the need of others. All I am saying is that there is a fine line between being analytical and being flat out obstinate. And when I said earlier that you are deluding yourself, I meant it not in a mean way, but in a sense that you honestly take obstinance for skeptical honesty. It is the line between being open minded and closed minded.

On top of this, you cannot take a scientific approach to Christianity, hell, not even a philisophical approach to a certain extent. I mean sure, you can look at it like this, but because you look at it from this state of mind, you will never find out what it means.

Besides, why are you so interested in Christianity? C.S. Lewis once discussed wish fulfillment in some athiests. Some wished there is a God by trying to prove the concept wrong.

[GUNWOUNDS]

it isnt a metaphor, though it does have symbolic meaning to wealth and it's destructiveness.

Yes thats what i think is being missed here.... i agree with the fact that excessive wealth is destructive as it gives you way too much independance from God... and only an extremely responsible person can handle that type of wealth and power.  But its hard to quantify wealth... If Bill gates is rich.. then that certainly makes me poor.  Acriku is against arbitrary judgement but i feel he is doing alot of arbitrary judging in terms of what is "excessive"   Wealth is very relative.

what I meant involving the punching bag concept is that you start discussions so people will retort, then you share your entire opinion on the matter. You wait until the trap is sprung, then you start to share your ideas.

why not just cut out the middle man, and tell us how you feel without the need of others. All I am saying is that there is a fine line between being analytical and being flat out obstinate. And when I said earlier that you are deluding yourself, I meant it not in a mean way, but in a sense that you honestly take obstinance for skeptical honesty. It is the line between being open minded and closed minded.

yea he does start out the convo pretty inocently like he is sitting on the fence with an idea he hasnt thought about much.  Then when you engage him he opens up with so much opinionated material that it lets you know right away that he has been thinking about this topic and preparing for battle for quite some time.  Alhough I'm quite use to it.

The thing that gets me is that i know acriku is able to think outside the box ... i mean he wants us to imagine the big bang where time and space didnt exist and all this stuff... but yet we ask him to think outside the box on christianity and he plays the "purposefully obtuse" role.  He is only open-minded when its convenient for him.

Besides, why are you so interested in Christianity? C.S. Lewis once discussed wish fulfillment in some athiests. Some wished there is a God by trying to prove the concept wrong.

Yes i know exactly what this concept is..... i was just like acriku when i was 18 yrs old..... i tried to prove christianity by attempting to disprove it until one runs into a brick wall and gets satisfied....except you never get satisfied.  Basically come up with an argumentative point that i could badger christians with in order to see if they could answer questions that i could not.  If the christian could refute me then i actually felt good like i was closer to the truth.... if the christian couldnt refute me i felt disappointed.  Eventually i ran into that brick wall i was looking for... and it was myself.  I realized that only by having an open mind can you even attempt to understand this stuff.  Its like looking at a lake and judging it when in actuality you need to immerse yourself into the water.  Realize that and you will finally get it.

Oh and I find it interesting that you detest atheists ganging up on you when you are doing quite the same (cheerleading in packs is what I call it).

Oh please... its not like you to whine like this.  You got a taste of what its likef or me in the forums everyday.... this is like the first time i havent debated a 6 page thread all by myself.  Its about time others carried some weight around here if you ask me.  Its not cheerleading, its people finally carrying their weight if ya ask me.  And i thought i was pretty respectful to you in my posts.  So i dont see why you are whining.  Anyways suck it up and lets get back to it.  There's more stuff i want to reply to in your last post and I'll get to it when i have time.

[Acriku]

it isnt a metaphor, though it does have symbolic meaning to wealth and it's destructiveness.

What?

what I meant involving the punching bag concept is that you start discussions so people will retort, then you share your entire opinion on the matter. You wait until the trap is sprung, then you start to share your ideas.

You might not find this settling, but I am going along as we speak. I do not have this huge point of view before I even bring the subject up. I bring it up to see what other people have to say about it. If I don't think they're being intellectually honest or rational, I'll point it out. It isn't a trap what I said, because my general argument was in what I said. You weren't walking into a room in the dark after I said come in.

why not just cut out the middle man, and tell us how you feel without the need of others. All I am saying is that there is a fine line between being analytical and being flat out obstinate. And when I said earlier that you are deluding yourself, I meant it not in a mean way, but in a sense that you honestly take obstinance for skeptical honesty. It is the line between being open minded and closed minded.

Like I said, I don't even know what I think about different subjects until I sit down and think about them. I do that when I have someone to respond to. If you can't think of an argument against something, what better way then to ask someone else? If trying to get a valid argument from someone is being obstinate, then I don't know much else to say.

On top of this, you cannot take a scientific approach to Christianity, hell, not even a philisophical approach to a certain extent. I mean sure, you can look at it like this, but because you look at it from this state of mind, you will never find out what it means.

What's scientific about this? I'm looking at it from a skeptical mind. I don't take arguments just because you said them and they seem to be the popular opinion. I take arguments that can stand on their own, and have support if they need it. Other than that I'm easily pleased ;-)

Besides, why are you so interested in Christianity? C.S. Lewis once discussed wish fulfillment in some athiests. Some wished there is a God by trying to prove the concept wrong.

Only a BILLION people claim they're Christians, so it is no wonder why I or someone else would be interested. Besides, you see any muslims around? I see some jews, and these arguments can even apply to jews through the old testament. Hell I used to be jewish ;-) I was never Christian, if you didn't know. Oh and your post reminds me of the ol' sayin' : If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. ;)

Yes thats what i think is being missed here.... i agree with the fact that excessive wealth is destructive as it gives you way too much independance from God... and only an extremely responsible person can handle that type of wealth and power.  But its hard to quantify wealth... If Bill gates is rich.. then that certainly makes me poor.  Acriku is against arbitrary judgement but i feel he is doing alot of arbitrary judging in terms of what is "excessive"  Wealth is very relative.

Did I mention anything as excessive? Refresh my memory here.

yea he does start out the convo pretty inocently like he is sitting on the fence with an idea he hasnt thought about much.  Then when you engage him he opens up with so much opinionated material that it lets you know right away that he has been thinking about this topic and preparing for battle for quite some time.  Alhough I'm quite use to it.

Yeah, like so many people will post if I start out aggressive ::) It's called getting people's interest so that I can engage them. Otherwise, PRP would be a pretty boring ass place. I'm complemented by your assumption that I've been thinking about this for some time, while I have not. But pride is a sin ;)

The thing that gets me is that i know acriku is able to think outside the box ... i mean he wants us to imagine the big bang where time and space didnt exist and all this stuff... but yet we ask him to think outside the box on christianity and he plays the "purposefully obtuse" role.  He is only open-minded when its convenient for him.

I can't even imagine the big bang, much less expect you to. It's beyond me. Anyway, I look, argue, and contemplate in the skeptical fashion. It's part of my nature. Sorry if you can't cope.

Yes i know exactly what this concept is..... i was just like acriku when i was 18 yrs old..... i tried to prove christianity by attempting to disprove it until i ran into a brick wall.  Basically come up with a argumentative points that i could badger christians with in order to see if they could answer questions that i could not.  If the christian could refute me then i actually felt good like i was closer to the truth.... if the christian couldnt refute me i felt disappointed.  Eventaully i ran into that brick wall i was looking for... and it was myself.  I realized that only by having an open mind can you even attempt to understand this stuff.  Its like looking at a lake and judging it when in actuality you need to immerse yourself into the water.  Realize that and you will finally get it.

I'm 19, but beyond that, I do want answers to questions I don't know. It's just you guys aren't capable to give me a reason to accept your answers.

Oh please... its not like you to whine like this.  You got a tasteof what its likef or me in the forums everyday.... this is like the first time i havent debated a 6 page thread all by myself.  Its about time others carried some weight around here if you ask me.  Its not cheerleading, its people finally carrying their weight if ya ask me.  And i thought i was pretty respectful to you in my posts.  So i dont see why you are whining.  Anyways suck it up and lets get back to it.  There's more stuff i want to reply to in your last post and I'll get to it when i have time.

Whine? Who is whining? My post was in a straight-forward tone. I just thought it was interesting, I wasn't complaining. And it most certainly is cheerleading when you come in and say "great posts tma and gunner, good job all around"  and then "great point" for every point TMA brings up. All you need now are some pom-poms and a skirt. But don't mistake this with complaining :P

[GUNWOUNDS]

Whine? Who is whining? My post was in a straight-forward tone. I just thought it was interesting, I wasn't complaining. And it most certainly is cheerleading when you come in and say "great posts tma and gunner, good job all around"   and then "great point" for every point TMA brings up. All you need now are some pom-poms and a skirt. But don't mistake this with complaining :P

Its whining cuz there is no reason to bring it up or "dignify it with your presence" so to speak.  Its not a big deal and the fact you felt it was necessary to type out a specific response to it shows that it was whining.  Sorry if you cant cope with me thanking people for not making me debate a 6 page thread by myself. For once its nice to not have to type out everything myself.  So i guess i am a bit elated so to speak.  I was thanking them becuz if they post more perhaps i can post less and i wont get carpal tunnel.   Plus i know you secretly want me to pat you on the head as well and say "good boy" ...and if you post something good i will  :P  ;)

Honestly tho i dont care about your debating style as far as the "trap"  ... thats TMA's beef... i also debate on the fly cuz i am usually taking a break from work or play and decide to chime in.  My beef was that you only seem to be open-minded when it comes to bizarre theoretical physics that are convenient to your belief but not when it comes to someone else's beliefs.  I can "cope" with it but it doesnt mean i have to like it and it'll just mean that less people will respond to you or less frequently.... which ironically is not what you want.  But who cares.. things will be what they will be.

[TMA_1]

lol goodness

I am not attacking you acriku, I am attacking your methods, hense the term "trap".

You may not come into a debate with a specific plan, but you carry your beliefs with you. It is pretty apparent that you have a specific belief system, as secular as it may be it is still a belief system. I guess what i am trying to get at is you have been questioning the validity of the church in Dune2k for a few years now. Why do you argue with the same people, with the same ideas and concepts if you are really trying to find the ultimate truth? It just seems to me personally that you do it for the joy of debate. I dont mind that though, it is pretty fun.

But please stop the political talk, for the love of God. If someone says something that is not a direct attack, or if that attack actually has a purpose other than pure insult, than dont point it out. It is as bad as the silly debate-club technique of pointing out logical fallacies in a person's post but not responding to what that person has to say.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I'm complemented by your assumption that I've been thinking about this for some time, while I have not. But pride is a sin ;)

ok buddy dont get too excited there.... we all know that you "hone" your arguements as is evident by the rehashed opinions you use frequently with slight modifications...  as well as the use of arguements that arent yours (ps501 actually brought this up before you did).  But its ok i enjoy the convo's nonetheless.  The thing i get tired of reading is you eventually degrade into insulting the person you are debating with instead of just saying "well lets agree to disagree".  We are all guilty of it so its not a direct attack on you.... i think its something we should all work on as a forum community.

[Acriku]

TMA: I said your post reminds me of that saying, I didn't say you directly attacked me. It had that feeling with it, though. OYou focused on the person instead of the argument, which reverts to the ad hominem fallacy.

Gunwounds: Yes it wasn't originally mine nor was it originally ps501's, this debate goes back probably as far as the bible, who knows. TMA was right in that I do this somewhat for the fun of it, and somewhat to get answers.

[gunner154]

The only person I could be argued to have made a punching bag out of was gunner, but he was asking for it. ;-)

That's bullshit, but if you really think so I'm fine with it. After all, you would think you were doing fabulous arguments and that mine were just crap, and I would be thinking otherwise. It's a metter of perception and it's better for a neutral person to judge this debate. That excludes people who have been participating in the discussion though.

And I don't see anything wrong with using debate-club techniques, TMA. I don't think you were criticising debate-club techniques in general, but nobody really points out logical fallacies without addressing the main issue. Completing the rebuttal is always the best rebuttal.

Now I feel tired of this debate, because by my observation (you can dispute this all you want, Acriku-, I don't care) you are not being really open-minded. Like I had mentioned before you have been simply reiterating the same argument (out of context) over again as a rebuttal to another argument (abandonment of riches) when the original argument (out of context) is still being disputed. I do remember arguing with Guns a good while ago about an issue with teaching noobs how to play Emperor, and he got tired of arguing. I genuinely feel that too, but simply because you aren't arguing. Period.

It's convenient for me to change the topic of discussion now. After all, no topic was specified in this thread, right?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Quick Say something controversial

[nemafakei]

What the hell is duck sauce?

[Dude_Doc]

At least one of these things will happen in the future:

1. People's Republic of China will become the leading economic power the next 10-15 years.

2. Syria and Iran will, in the future, create a union called Socialist Arab-Muslim Islamic Republics (or SAMIR), which will become the new "Soviet Union" in this age. More countries will join in, forcefully or by themselves, so the SAMIR will, in the end, become the whole Middle East.

3. The people of America will discover that there is no bin Laden.

4. Humans find evidence that there is a God.

5. Humans find evidence that there is no God.

6. Humans, living in today's generation, will see the Judgement Day.

7. An alien civilization makes contact with us within the next 50 years.

8. It will be prooved that homosexuality is completely natural, and not some kind of psychological decease.

9. The future will become very dystopic.

10. The future will become very utopic.

[Kiyouta]

Just No. 1 I think. The rest is bullshit. :-

[TMA_1]

what is Duck Sauce?

Tasty... thats what it is. ;)

[erjin999]

Its the code that Neo wrote to makes ducks say "qwack".  ::)

Duck Open Source.