Recent posts by Stefan88 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Should _____ be banned ( Or silenced )?

Originally posted by Vanguarde2:

I have evidence that Carados is making it with AlisonClaire, evidence I will produce if pushed. And it’s.. video evidence.

I think I speak for myself and all other mods when I say: “Can you whisper me a link?”

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Farewell, Matt and Welcome, Jonathan

Originally posted by emily_greer:

We may some day do a flow chart!

Welcome and good luck!

Flowcharts are awesome. I demand a flowchart!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Chat?

aC can’t time travel, he’s just been around so long that there is a high probability he’s already answered the question once before.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Rooms

Those stickies will also tell you how to whisper, which will work just fine if you want to have a private conversation between 2 people.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All religious groups

How far you can bend Christianity (I can’t speak for other beliefs) depends on how much of the context you choose to apply. At the most basic level, this is seen as taking verses independently to prove points, ignoring how differently they are understood when read within their chapter or book. At a slightly larger scale you see examples like the literal interpretation of parables. They are parables used to illustrate a point, not something to be obeyed to the letter though the point it is trying to prove might be. One wrung further up the ladder you’ve got the example of the book of Revelation, which for the most part is the recording of a vision. Some people believe the events described in there will play out as they are written (some claim that we are after chapter ## and we should be ready for whats coming in chapter ##+1) when there are a few examples which show that the visions are not in chronological order. These are all things that you can chose to interpret differently, but not only if you remain ignorant about the context in which they lie.

I know I keep coming back to context, but it is an incredibly important thing for exactly this reason. People have done horrible things “in the name of God” by playing on people’s combination of belief and ignorance in the Bible. People aren’t perfect and our grasp of the Bible will always be lacking something, but by studying the Bible we can avoid these catastrophes.

EDIT: I hope I got what you meant this time :-P

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Knowledge that has no possibility of being wrong. Certain. Absolute. Knowledge that is true, completely and utterly true.

That still leaves room for dynamic knowledge as I described it before. I’ll bring this back to an earlier point. Is an omniscient God and choice possible? I’d say yes if dynamic knowledge was the case, which doesn’t seem far fetched seeing how the omniscient description of God is derived from the assumption that he is omnipotent and much more complex a being then we are.

What you are arguing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that if static certain knowledge of a future even exists, then there are no alternatives (within a single universe for people into the multiple universe theories). I can’t see an argument against that personally.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All religious groups

Christians sometimes do deliver it poorly. Expeccialy the extreme consevitives that screem your going to hell if you don’t accept God in your face. :) When I say extreme conservites I mean the people who think that women shouldn’t wear pants, rock is bad, women shouldn’t cut their hair, and other rules on the same level of sillyness.

A world with a lot of women complaining about how unmanageably their hair has become and having to wear skirts all the time with no rock music as a relief later? They really must think we’re going to hell, they’re trying to warm us up before we go. :-P

Granted, science is based on logic and evidence where religion is based on belief and piety

I wouldn’t call religion completely without evidence. I still cringe every time someone yells Jesus never existed since there are more than enough records (Christian and other wise) to show that he did. The only debate on that issue as far as I’m concerned is whether he was the Son of God or a really convincing madman who believed he was the son of God so much that he stuck to his delusion through torture and execution, with others doing the same after him.

I’m starting to defend Christians now, which means the atheist arguments are starting to appeal to absurdity.

Or maybe you are seeing some points differently than before and they don’t look crazy anymore. Don’t worry, I doubt you’ll suddenly convert to a religion just from that.

You still mis interpreted what I said, They might agree 99.99% but they’ll come across one paragraph and interpret it slightly different to there friend, even if it’s just one thing, which hence my point is, no one follows the exact same religion.

I have to agree with the TheBSG’s response to this (the first paragraph at least). In the case of Evangelical Christians, we try to bring up these issues, explore the Biblical and historical context and share our perspectives on it. The greater the amount of context provided, the more people tend to agree. In fact I believe its Biblically commanded keep exploring the Bible and our beliefs in Matthew 22:37 where Jesus says “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”. If God wanted us to follow Him blindly, it would have been a pretty bad move to ask us to use our minds.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

That is still with the assumption that certain knowledge is static, that the choice doesn’t alter the information or that the information becomes invalid. You ignored this earlier by simply saying I don’t know how to debate and restating your point. Not appreciated.

If your definition of certain knowledge is the absolute unchanging knowledge of a future event, then I’d have to argue that this certain knowledge might not even exist except for cases where that particular event is certain to happen by some other means. This would not account for all events, if any, and is not applicable to the discussion.

If, however, your definition of certain knowledge is accurate knowledge of a future event (which is the definition by which I stand), then we come back to the point I made at the start. The observer can know what happens at any point in time, but that doesn’t mean that the information it holds remains constant. As the future changes the information changes to suit, the observer is still perfectly informed of all events at all times, but the events that occur at future times are not always the same ones that were initially observed.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Humans inherently cannot posses certain knowledge, so the entire issue lies on God’s side of the court. Since you have apparently ignored some of my points from before, I’ll just ask a questions instead of argue in this post. Do you believe that certain knowledge of a future event has to be static in nature? Remember that this is the certain knowledge possessed by a being capable of having knowledge of multiple points, if not a continuous range, in time regarding all of space and then also the dimensions of the universe beyond the four already mentioned that His existence implies must exist. Is it not possible than this being can hold dynamic certain knowledge? Always knowing what the future is even though the future may not be set.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All religious groups

stefan, I believe rainmaker was being somewhat sarcastic, as far as I know, everyone knows that nobody is perfect, I belive that is a universal truth.

Doesn’t mean I agree with the hint of arrogance in there any more than before. Christians who proclaim the word of God without even trying to understand where other people are coming from have driven away more people from Christianity than draw them to it. Its not the message I have a problem with, its the delivery.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / YOUR religion?

I am a Christian. Those who choose Atheism must be very deppressed and feel hopeless. I wont go on creating a unneeded arguement.

You’re not going to convince anyone Christianity is worth while if you don’t try to understand in which ways the thinking of non-Christians isn’t like Christians and in which ways there is no difference.

Are you depressed because there aren’t 47 virgins in heaven waiting for you? You’re an atheist to the Islamic idea of heaven, after all.

I’ve always wondered, and this has been joked about before, but does the Qur’an explicitly say the 47 virgins are of the opposite sex?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / YOUR religion?

Evangelical Christian

Evangelical is best summarized as “of the Bible”. We base our beliefs as much on scripture as we possibly can. I have been to the churches from a few denominations and I hold to their core beliefs (with only once church being an exception so far), they just have certain rituals attached to them which are not commanded in the Bible which I don’t feel much obligation to adhere to, but respect since its not in conflict with the Bible.

I tend to strongly disagree with people who call themselves Christian just because they go to church since I find church itself is the least intellectually engaging time I spend dedicated to learning more about God and the bible. I prefer Bible studies, which is where a small (usually) group of people gather and explore certain segments or concepts of the bible with as much regard to textual and historical context as possible.

I also attend university bible talks hosted by Evangelical Students (part of Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students) at the university of Queensland, which I tend to find a bit more engaging than church since it is aimed at a much more specific audience and they offer studies to go with their talks, so its a lot more in depth than most sermons.

Please don’t get the idea I have something against going to church, I just find there are better ways to learn about what you are believing. Church is still a great place to worship God and socialize with people with the same beliefs as you which great when there are now so many people calling themselves Christian who have only a vague idea of the Bible and don’t attempt to change that at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / All religious groups

Where Jehovah is a (the?) name of the Christian God.

It is what mainstream Christians used to believe is the name of God since all written account only had the consonants written down. Later archaeological finds favor Yahweh (same consonants in Hebrew), but the Jehovah’s witnesses (who would refer to themselves as Christians though many others wouldn’t) stick to Jehovah.

They see small differences between them as very significant, even among sects of Christianity.

Historically, this has led to some ridiculous disagreements. Luckily its not as common nowadays (in the two countries I’ve been in, don’t know about the rest). It appears they have realized to some degree that things they disagree on tend to be ritualistic things that were handed down within the church that had been treated as part of the belief.

and the irony is, hardly any 2 christians believe the exact same things.

You should meet Christians who actually study the bible, they tend to agree a lot more on beliefs. Then again, every second cult claims to be Christian so I’m not surprised you came to this conclusion. On top of that there are a lot of people who think a Christian is someone who shows up to church every Sunday or because their parents were Christian that they are too. Personally I think thats the same as saying you are a muslim because you walked into the mosque one day or because your parents were muslims. Its an issue that annoys me to no end.

monotheistic religins include the very well-known christianty, judaism, and islam, and those get divided even more because of varios squabbles through-out history such as luthers 95 theses, the crusades (some muslims supported the crusaders), and the inquistion.

Many of these conflicts were caused by difference in beliefs, they were not the reason for their differences. Then there were also the ones where the various religions were manipulated used as motivators for war. The crusades were one of the worse examples of this.

there is one thing, I forget what it’s called, it’s believing that all religions go to the same heaven, so, muslims,christians,buddhists, etc. would go to heaven, however all religions are still fighting with each other, and there’d be no way all religions could agree, I guarantee that.

I’m not certain, but I think that is Universalism.

so sorry to let everyone know……

If you’re sorry to let everyone know then please don’t. Christians celebrate the gospel, they don’t preach in sorrow or in arrogance because those things just don’t mix with the message.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

Not exactly so simple, you are making assumptions whether you realize it or not. You are assuming that as soon as a being far more complex then us perceives the future in manner unique to him that it would have the same effect as what we guess us perceiving the future would have. Another assumption is that as soon as someone possesses certain knowledge of the future that there cannot be choice. It could be that the knowledge becomes invalid or the information changes as the future changes. We may never know since we currently have no way nor idea of how to test it.

Finally, you assume things are simple when we are talking about how things behave in time, the 4th dimension, when we have no idea how things behave ahead of us in said dimension. If it was so simple then all your other assumption might be justified, but frankly we have no idea.

This is becoming more of an obscure science discussion than about “God, the Bible, and religion”.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

That doesn’t address the problem that if any being knows the future for certain, then there is no choice up until the future resolves. If god knows whether we are going to heaven or hell for certain in advance, we have no choice in the matter. We may have the illusion of choice, but we don’t have the choice. Having the choice means having more than one possible outcome, and if god has certain knowledge, there is only one possible outcome, therefore no choice.

See final paragraph. You are assuming we know about something we cannot test until we invent a time machine. Not to mention that if God exists (as presupposed in the “is God a loving God?” discussion) then the universe is definitely more complicated than the 4 dimensions we witness since you’d need at least one more dimension to account for the spiritual realm or whatever you want to call it. And thats the simplest way I can think of accommodating it, not the correct way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

No idea what happened to my 2nd paragraph… edit wont work… what I meant to say there was:
Biblically speaking, God does predestine some people to be “saved” (our word for being a Christian. Do word searches like “foreknew” and “predestined” at http://www.biblegateway.com for examples, I recommend books from the new testament). There are some who believe that this logically means that the rest were also predestined to be damned. Obviously that is with the assumption that all are predestined. This is however not supported biblically and, to the contrary, there are verses that support the notion that whether we are damned or not is still determined in this life (same website, same recommendation, search for “works” or “faith” for some examples). Throughout Biblical history, God repeatedly offers mankind a second (third forth… nth) chance to return to Him if they should choose to do so. It begins with not annihilating Adam and Eve at first disobedience, goes on to number of times Israel turned to and away from God (happens a fair few times) and then finally when God pays for our sins with His own Son, Jesus Christ. (I know some people aren’t too sure what it has to do with anything, but I also know some people won’t appreciate me jumping topics).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / God, the Bible, and religion - a Kong search for truth

This topic brought up a few points which I didn’t have answers to, so I did some thinking and talking to try and get some answers.

The major argument at this point, correct me if I’m wrong, is that either God is not loving or God isn’t omniscient since a loving God wouldn’t knowingly create someone to be destined for hell. Firstly, I’ll present my point that if the Christian God is in fact the true God, then people are not predestined to damnation (I’ll try to do this with Biblical basis, so if you’re not interested in that feel free to skip it, its the two paragraphs after this one). After that I’ll share my thoughts on why I believe the above argument doesn’t present a problem to this.

Biblically speaking, God does predestine some people to be “saved” (our word for being a Christian. Do word searches like “foreknew” and “predestined” at http://www.biblegateway.com for examples, I recommend books from the new testament). There are some who believe that this logically means that the rest were also predestined to be damned. Obviously that is with the assumption that all are predestined. This is however not supported biblically and, to the contrary, there are verses that support the notion that whether we are damned or not is still determined in this life (same website, same recommendation, search for “works” or “faith” for some examples). Throughout Biblical history, God repeatedly offers mankind a second (third forth… nth) chance to return to Him if they should choose to do so. It begins with not annihilating Adam and Eve at first disobedience, goes on to number of times Israel turned to and away from God (happens a fair few times) and then finally when God pays for our sins with His own Son, Jesus Christ. (I know some people aren’t too sure what it has to do with anything, but I also know some people won’t appreciate me jumping topics).

God repeatedly offers people the choice to come to Him or go another way. Compare this to the loving parent who offers his/her children teaching and guidance. Would this parent of a 18 year old tell him/her exactly what to do in life? No, they give them all the knowledge they can and let them live their own life, whether they are setting themselves up for serious hurt or not. Which do expect from the loving God/parent? Allowing you to choose your own life or forcing you to do it their way?

Before you can say that because God already knows who you are and will be your fate is predestined, there are (at least) two assumptions you must make after presupposing there is a God to begin with. The first is that God perceives time and space in a manner similar to ours, even though he can observe multiple points along the time line ahead of time. I’d say that should the Christian God be the true God, that this is almost certainly not the case. The Christian God is more complex than we are (ref: trinity) which makes it highly unlikely that his perception of reality is similar, especially when considering that He is omnipotent. We can’t say that his perception of our future has any specific effects if we don’t even know how God perceives.

Secondly, you have to assume that time and causality behave exactly as we expect them to. Regardless of religious view, I can’t see how that can be proven. With religious view, I don’t see how we can know more about God’s system than He does.

PS. Lol+pity@poor vista users.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The worries of a non-existent afterlife

Having a limited number of life makes it more valuable. Having infinite life makes it bland and normative.

Thats only assuming they are similar in nature and constant. If your eternity was the same thing over and over then odds are it would get boring to the point that you look for a way to get out of it. But thats only if your assumption that it is constant is valid.

If you’re belief is that afterlife is just like the current life then yes, it would demean the value of this life. But once again that is only if your assumption is valid. If there is a significant difference between this life and the afterlife then you cannot say because we have more of one the other is worthless. Especially not in the case where the current life impacts on the after life. Its like saying the ink in your pen is worthless because you have a lot of paper. (In the case where the current life doesn’t impact on the afterlife, substitute pen and paper with unrelated objects… still doesn’t make sense)

I was only trying to that it doesn’t matter what religion you are, so long as you are a good person it won’t matter whether there is an afterlife or not you have helped others through life. One belief is that Paradise or Hell are merely states of mind, for example upon death everybody goes to the same place with the same benefits. If you were good then you know you have earned it, but if you were evil you realize how good your God really is and this feeling of guilt IS Hell itself

But if you just helped someone through life instead of helping them towards an afterlife, (assuming your view is right… and no I don’t mean killing them) haven’t you just short changed them? Haven’t you just improved on a brief part of their existence rather than use that time to try and improve the greater part? Whether (you believe) an afterlife exists or not should greatly impact on your behavior towards other people.

I am only really in the moment I am currently in, and thus living for a moment in the intangible and implausible “future” is illogical, and somewhat silly to me.

You never plan ahead? I strongly doubt anyone patient enough to take the time to participate intelligent discussion doesn’t live for a future on a frequent basis. Go to school/work? Thats just a means to an end, not living in the moment in most cases. You could imagine a similar relationship between life and the afterlife in some cases (although with the variety of ideas on the afterlife out there, only a small portion of them)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / when oil, gas, and coal runs out

There seems to be some evidence that the rising prices are not really a case of supply problems,

Its probably not why prices have gone up in a few western countries. I’ve read that US oil and fuel reserves are at an all time high after the price increase, so its definitely not a supply issue.

When you think of a typical oil reserve, you get this picture of a huge underground cavity filled with the unprocessed stuff just waiting to be pumped out. In the case of shale oil (badly named), its a solid thats underground that needs to be mined out and processed into synthetic crude oil before being processed further (there are some newer technologies that do some of the processing before mining it out).

The actual process of converting the solid to liquid hydrocarbons is pyrolysis. As the name suggests, there is a fair bit of heat involved. So basically, you end up using a lot of energy just to get something that resembles crude oil… and then you have to keep processing it before its useful as an oil/fuel.

There are certain applications where you can just burn the shale directly as a source of heat.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / when oil, gas, and coal runs out

I’ll sum up the rest of my post here: “People kill for shiny things and we’re running out of shiny things”

When someone wants something someone else owns bad enough, they tend to do bad things to get their hands on it. Lets take my former country of residence as an example: South Africa. Twice the British raped both native and settler alike to get shiny things (Gold and diamonds) (not intentionally insulting the British… history just tends to do it for me). And that was just to get richer, when we’re talking about oil and coal, we’re talking about people fighting to preserve their lifestyles. People going to war (or more likely sending someone else to war) for their right to go on the internet, drive a cars and watch TV. There are a lot of great alternative technologies out there, but I’m predicting a few more wars before they come into proper use. They’re just too much for certain people to get used to.

Its not just coal and oil either, we’re running out of everything we pull out of the ground. In many parts of the world we are processing ores at a lower grade than what we used to throw away. And fun thing about processing lower grade ores is that it takes more energy per ton of product. Shale oil mentioned before is a great example too. Shale oil is like the anti-greenpeace. Not just is it a fossil fuel, but it requires a lot of energy (read “CO2 production”) to extract the actual oil from the shale.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The worries of a non-existent afterlife

If there is truly a deity then would it not take you into it’s version of ‘paradise’ just so long as you play by the rules?

You make it sound like such a simple thing. What exactly it means to be “playing by the rules” can be incredibly complex in some belief systems.

the large scale point of view works just the same without after (your own) life

I think we disagree on what exactly the large scale point of view is. If an afterlife exists, those who come after you will eventually enter into it as well. The human race can’t continue forever. Unforeseen catastrophe or Armageddon aside, we’re destroying the planet at an incredible pace. No matter what our actions in our lives, odds are that the human race, all those we’ve influenced after us and everyone after them, will die. At that point there is either nothing for all, or the after life is all there is.

Should that afterlife follow the example used before of an eternal afterlife with your place in it determined by what you did in life, then it should have drastic impact on this life too, beyond just leaving the world for the next generation. I’m all for leaving the world for the next generation, but its a losing strategy in the long run if this world is all we have.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Underlying Structure of Knowledge

Scientific understanding is purely mathematical.

Maths is but a modeling tool kit we use to describe what we think and see. Pure maths has no purpose until it is applied, assigned an application with understanding from outside mathematics.

Personally I’m of the school of though that it is not possible to determine all the laws of the physical world. The model is simply too complex for us to comprehend and there are too many variables to account for. Whether or not there is something beyond the physical world effecting is a whole other dilemma, but we’ve got our hands full so lets ignore that.

A bit more on topic, like most people on this thread, I agree that a hybrid approach would be best. Near pure logic might have gotten us a long way, but we don’t have anything capable of that so we’ll have to find another way. Even if we were beings capable of purely logical thought, empirical evidence is needed for the law of non-contradiction to be of any use. Any law you derive by logic needs to be checked empirically. You need to look at your data to see whether or not your law is valid, but at the same time your law must not only seek to simply abide by the observations but to explain them.

Empiricism can bring with it the temptation to draw a regression line and think you have a law explaining a bit of your world but, by definition, you are merely predicting what you’ll see next based on what you have seen. Logic is required to understand your observations and deduce a law.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The worries of a non-existent afterlife

you have one life, its precious. afterlife cheapens life.

Thats only if you believe what happens after life has nothing to do with life. Many religion believe their entire unmeasurable eternity is determined by the relatively short few decades of your life. To me, that doesn’t sound like they’re cheapening life. Sure this would mean life isn’t the only existence you experience, but it determines the nature of of a much larger existence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Meteor in 2029

once it has hit there is not a lot we can do. I say we should send Bruce Willis up with a bomb and a sound track by Aerosmith ;)

Can we still do that without an asteroid? :-P

(Ranting ahead, read at own risk)

Detonating a meteor in space is a logistical and technological nightmare. Lets just look at what it takes to get there: The thing they missed in the above referenced movie is that the asteroid is moving towards you ridiculously fast. The only way to land would then to be traveling in the same direction as the asteroid so that there’s a much smaller speed difference. That means you need to fly a ship in the direction of the asteroid, turn around and start flying back. Of course this has to be done over a large distance otherwise you either run out of time or shower the earth with chunks of asteroid and cause a slightly smaller armageddon.

When you’re moving tons of equipment to plant the bomb and all the supplies needed for the crew to survive the trip, we’re talking about a heck of a lot of fuel needed to move that mass around… which adds to the mass itself. You’d have an incredibly difficult time getting off of earth before you get anywhere.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The worries of a non-existent afterlife

You presuppose there is nothing and then debate its existence. The only answer you’ll get from an argument like that is the assumption you started with, without any validity.

Ignoring that, you are assuming all there is to the human being is the body. If science has taught as anything, its that we’re always missing something. Saying that all we see is all there is has always turned out to be a mistake. In this case, all we see is the body that dies, but we can’t just go from that and say that whole human being dies without assuming we know everything about what makes us what we are.