Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 507 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
wamalik23 (100 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
live game in 15
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22161
1 reply
Open
wamalik23 (100 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
live game in 10
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22160
1 reply
Open
KaptinKool (408 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
Why don't some profile's points line up?
When I consider joining a game I usually like to scan the user's I will be competing with, however some users points don't seem to make sense. For instance there is a user who has -50 D (Parallelopiped) in play, and a user (akilies) who has 303 D available and 99 D in play, but for some reason has a total of 646 D. Why do these errors occur?
14 replies
Open
Dreadnought (561 D)
14 Feb 10 UTC
Who are we and where did we come from?
Eh?
Page 5 of 12
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Parallelopiped (691 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
I met a girl once. She was very beautiful, stunning legs (shh, this is my story, I can have whichever legs I like in it). She had a great sense of humour, was into the same branch of abstract art as has always fascinated me and, what's more, she seemed to really like me (again, my story). We went on a few dates, had a lot of fun together, things seemed to be going really well. I then had pause for thought (it was spring, there was cleaning to be done - thinking seemed like the best option). I sat down and went through my options logically (some steps are omitted for narrative purposes) 1) I could try to persuade this girl to stay with me permanently 2) I could leave this girl and start the quest to find a different girl who would stay with me permanently 3) I could make no steps that would make a permanent arrangement with a girl likely. I set down some success criteria (I've always had a hankering after a family, a house with roses on a trellis and someone to grow old with) and decided that the logical step would be 1). So I asked her to marry me, she said yes. In front of all our friends and relations she and I vowed fidelity. Years passed and she remained faithful to me (despite the fact that she has incredible legs whilst in my dotage I have become fat and bald and tend to dribble when I get excited). If a friend now came to me and said he'd seen her conducting herself wantonly in St James' Park with the Russian ambassador I would logically assume that he was wrong. If a second friend came to me with the same story I would try to ask her about it. No doubt she would be on a business trip to London and her mobile would be on the blink. I'd write her an email and send a letter to the modelling agency for which she works (my story remember). A third friend might come up to me with a copy of the Daily Express showing the Russian ambassador canoodling a tall, blonde woman wearing my wife's coat (slightly grainy photograph, long lens, can't quite make out her face). Logic now fails me. However - I keep faith. I know her to be faithful. I know that this is not how she behaves. I know she promised not to canoodle the Russian Ambassador (we used a non-standard version of the wedding service). I believe that it isn't her in the photograph and that my other friends must be mistaken. When she comes home I'm sure there'll be a good explanation.
Logically I'm a moron. Actually I'm right. She is honest. My first friend made up the story as a joke and told the second friend. Things kind of got away from them when the Russian ambassador was actually having an affair with my wife's colleague (who had borrowed her coat on a lunch break). If I had given in to logic I'd have gone half way to wrecking the best thing that could ever happen to me. Fortunately faith got me through.
Faith has its own logic. Logic requires (in all but the most dull of maths text books) that you put different weights on different pieces of evidence. Faith can appear to defy logic to someone who values the evidence differently but can still be entirely consistent.
ottovanbis (150 DX)
16 Feb 10 UTC
good story, once again though it is subjective to your perspective and can't be taken at face value, still a good story
Parallelopiped (691 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
Subjective to my perspective? What is this, some kind of rap? It's not subjective to any perspective. It's a made up story within which framework there are objective facts. We live in a world where there are objective facts. Our problem is that we don't know them. In the story we - as the storyteller and his audience - know the facts. The real world might be like the story or it might not. We don't, and can't, know. That doesn't make it subjective to any perspective - it just means that we have incomplete information.
Timur (673 D(B))
16 Feb 10 UTC
Cool, Parallelopiped!
spyman (424 D(G))
16 Feb 10 UTC
I am not so we could say that you ignored logic in that story, Parrelopiped
Yes you had some evidence that your wife was cheating; but you also had evidence that she was not cheating on you: that is, you know your wife. Admittedly that evidence could be flawed, but so, potentially, was the advice of your friends.
That your wife was cheating on you did not necessarily follow from the evidence from your friends. If on the other hand you believed your friends to be infallible - then yes you would ignoring logic.
bbdaniels (461 D(B))
16 Feb 10 UTC
spyman +1 for defeating faith with logic.
Parallelopiped (691 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
Sorry spyman. I'm genuinely confused. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, developing my idea or making a related point.
I've been allegorical. Let me be direct. There is evidence to suggest that there is no God (alternative explanations for existence, failure in the personal lives of those that claim to follow him, for example). There is evidence to suggest that there is a God (some people seem to have a personal relationship with Him, for example). Either there is a God, objective fact, or there is no God, objective fact. We don't know. What we believe will depend on the weight we assign to different items of evidence. Either belief could be entirely logical or could be entirely illogical (was this Spyman's point? That if I believed my friends to be infallible, entirely accurate and honest then refusing to believe what they said would be illogical?).
Draugnar (0 DX)
16 Feb 10 UTC
@Parallel - spyman is saying you weren't defying logic, but using additional facts to come to the logical conclusion that your wife *wasn't* cheating on you, those facts being that you knew she had been faithful al those years and would have no motivation to change her fidelity patterns she maintained out of love for you.

At the same time, I see your point that it was your faith in your wife's lvoe that allowed that logic to rule supreme. In this case, faith was the evidence that led to the logical conclusion that it was a case of mistaken identity and she couldn't be cheating on you. Neither of you have proven that faith defies logic or that logic overruled faith. In fact, you have shownt hat faith in that can be the evidence used in coming to a logical conclusion.

What needs to be realized is faith is not blind obedience, but a form of trust. I have faith that the laws of physics aren't going to suddenly change and that gravity will continue to act as the outside force in Newton's first law of motion, preventing our atmosphere and ourselves from being flung off into space.

Scientists (and everyday people) have faith in "things" (laws of nature/physics, basic human and animal behaviors) all the time, the agnostic and/or athiestic ones just don't like to call it that.
nola2172 (316 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
I would like to weigh in briefly on the supposed conflict between faith and reason (I prefer that term to logic, which is more limited). While some may believe that faith supercedes reason, this frankly makes no sense. Rather faith informs reason, and reason informs faith. To quote the late Pope John Paul II, "It is faith which stirs reason to move beyond all isolation and willingly to run risks so that it may attain whatever is beautiful, good and true. Faith thus becomes the convinced and convincing advocate of reason." This is taken from Fides et Ratio, which can be found here (a long read, but nonetheless quite good):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
Parallelopiped (691 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
I'm not entirely conversant in the lingo but I believe the phrase is @draugnar+1?
Draugnar (0 DX)
16 Feb 10 UTC
@nola2172 +1 - my point exactly. The two are not mutually exclusive, but conversely, they can work together, each informing the other.
KaptinKool (408 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
@nola2172 - " faith informs reason, and reason informs faith" that is a very elegant way of putting it, I like i a lot.

@dexter morgan - I would say that Creationism does not go against the (2) point. Creationism would create a world that would not imply a Creationist origin (the Bible mentions that man can not). Therefore science could test and validate aspects of evolution without implying that Creationism was false. So whether or not you subscribe to Creationism you can't say that it isn't a valid philosophy.

Now if you want to debate philosophies that is a whole other messy argument (but why not). Also an example of an invalid philosophy would be if Creationism denied a mature creation.
KaptinKool (408 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
(the bible *implies that man can not *prove god's existence or his works)
@ abgemacht

In response to

" I don't think you can back up claims such as 'The Christians among you advance right alongside you with every new scientific advance'."



Sure I can:

1) I'm using a computer. (physics)


2) I've been vaccinated against polio. (Chemistry & Physiology)


3) I'm taking Tylenol Cold & Sinus to treat my head cold (Chemistry & Physiology)

Pretty much I'm advancing right along with the vast population of non-scientists who are quite happy with the strides science makes. Even among the most ardent Creationists, you'll generally find people who take anti-biotics when they are sick. Many Christians can and do adhere to their faith and applaud scientific innovation.
Timur (673 D(B))
16 Feb 10 UTC
convenient
Timur (673 D(B))
16 Feb 10 UTC
'Convenient' referred to the Kaptin's point, but could be a comment on many of these posts.
Parallelopiped (691 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
They are so very easy to find.
SEcki (1171 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
"Creationism would create a world that would not imply a Creationist origin (the Bible mentions that man can not). "

So, we cannot prove that theory by the hypothesis of the theory itself. Aha. Everything that will ever be endeavored therefore is already planted - but for deceiving the people and not making them see God.

This can all be true, yes. However, for me it is simply one thing - inelegant as hell. I wished an almighty creator had more sense of elegance. Or - maybe, just maybe - it is more likely that one book has some errors in it.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
16 Feb 10 UTC
@Crazy,

If that's what you meant then I rescind that part of my comments. I read that as "Christianity" advances alongside with every new scientific advance.

@KK

I feel Dexter has already elaborated on what I wanted to say, but to reinforce his ideas:

You can say that god created a mature earth 6000 years ago. You can also say that god created earth last thursday. In fact, you could say that every day, god changes the fundamental physical constants of the universe, passages in the bible, and turns poor black boys into rich white women. He then changes our memory so we have no knowledge of it. But, I digress...

As Crazy and others have demonstrated, you can have faith without having views that desperately try to deny the way we know the world works. There are plenty of things that science can't answer--why not put your faith in them instead?
In response to the idea that "perhaps one book has some errors in it"; I'd offer the counter that perhaps we'd interpreted certain stories in a collection of book incorrectly. It's one that's in line with the tradition of the Church and not reflective of a retreat. If physical evidence states that I should see this in a particular light, then it's perfectly reasonable to do so. It doesn't do a thing to take away from the value of Christianity, nor of trying to live one's life in accordance with Christ's teachings.
Basically this idea of a slow and steady retreat of religon (in the face of scientific advances) sounds nice I guess, but it has lead to inaccurate predictions as to the church not living "into the next century" for the past 400 years at least. When the evidence shows that it's still alive and well, and more active in more parts of the world than ever before.
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
16 Feb 10 UTC
@Crazy Anglican, In some ways, the church is timeless... by design no doubt... it can talk about salvation and mercy and eternal life and love and faith and never go out of style (because those ideas never go out of style). It can use a story from 2000 years ago that can't be disproved (if one assumes miracles [temporary violations of physical laws] can happen) - and yet is outside enough of the everyday world (you don't see miracles everyday... or probably ever) that you are entering a sort of club... The fact that there are miracles in the story - even though they are less likely in a typical real sense than the general outline of the story - they (the miracles) become a support for the divinity of the story. Santa Claus wouldn't be quite as charming a story if it involved migrant workers instead of elves and involved heavy use of UPS rather a sleigh with magic reindeer that travel impossible speeds in a night. No, in such a story, the "impossible" parts are necessary parts... they "prove" the magic of the story - even though such reasoning is circular. Anyway, I digress... I concede your point (though perhaps not in the way you meant it). I can believe that Christianity is potentially eternal - it has an engaging story that promises much (particularly things that are promised like eternal life are not available elsewhere), a great and power and mysterious group you can join, rituals you can partake, etc. Seriously, I do see its charm... perhaps it is forever. Heck, Hinduism has been around far longer than Christianity... and its stories involve more unlikely events and characters and general bizarreness than Christianity does. Maybe my premise was all wrong. Maybe its just different for some people. For me, when I hear something that violates basic physics and my everyday experience, my skepticism kicks in... for some, maybe its in their nature that when presented with something like that their faith kicks in...
Corwin (368 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
I am sorry, but I do not see how Faith and Reason can "inform" each other. Faith is a belief (a strong one). If it is "informed" by reason, and gets altered as a result, is it still a belief?

I think what Faith can bring to reason is the fact of its own existence in all human societies, proving itself to be a important aspect of human nature. Scientists maybe seen as people having Faith in reason, and often in themselves. However Faith is not informing them (in their jobs). Information is based on facts, not beliefs.

Scientists observe, create theories to explain what they observe, validate their theories through reproducible experiments. Scientist do not have Faith that the laws of physics will not change. Actually they know they do not know them perfectly. If one day someone drops a ball and it goes up instead of going down (nobody can say for sure that it will never happen), scientists will conclude that Newton's laws are incorrect or approximative. They'll just try and find a better theory that will become the "new" laws of physics, that's all. Scientists do not (or should not) have Faith that the established theories will hold forever. If anything it is the opposite. Theories exist to be challenged (this is why they are called theories, and not dogmas).

Sure, scientists have to assume that certain things are true to build their theories (conservation of energy for example), but it can hardly be called belief, even less Faith. These things are just observations that can not be formally proven to be always true, but can not be proven wrong either.

Don't get me wrong. I not anti-religious. Religion can be a wonderful thing, and, in some cases, can make someone a better human being. I also think that science and faith are not incompatible. One can be a good a scientist and a good Christian. I just think one should not be confused with the other. Since the begining of time (whenever one might think/believe it was), Faith has been used by human beings to explain the things they do not understand . Greeks thought lightning came from the Gods. Earth was once believed to be the center of the Universe. Etc, etc... However these "explanations have never proved to be reliable.
nola2172 (316 D)
16 Feb 10 UTC
Corwin - To say faith informs reason and vice versa is to say that faith provides the groundwork for using reason to determine other things and that reason provides useful bounds to what should and should not be considered an article of faith. This can mean that if an article of faith is unreasonable (i.e. to believe the particular item contradicts reason), then it should perhaps be examined. I should note, though, that reason is not bound by the empirical (as science is by definition), so to say something like "Christ is the Son of God", while it is not empiricially proveable, it is also not unreasonable, and thus is something that is an article of faith. This article of faith, then can be used to supplement our reason and give it something upon which to stand (i.e. if we start with Christ as the Son of God, then we can logically infer a number of other things). I will note that if you try to create a purely atheistic philosophical system (and by that I mean you can't steal anything from Christianity such as loving your neighbor as yourself or from any other religion for that matter), you are going to have a very difficult time doing so because you don't have anything on which to stand as a starting point (though that has not prevented some philosophers from attempting to do so).

I should also note on the science/religion topic that these two fields answer very different questions. Science is purely concerned with "how." Religion is concerned with "why." Science can not answer questions of why, and when it attempts to do so, it will always fail. As an example, if I were to ask why there is static electricity when I rub my feet on the carpet, then you could give an explanation about electrons and friction, etc. If I were to then ask about why electrons work that way, you might have further explanations with more detail, but eventually we would reach a point at which you had no answer better than "Because xyz is". For instance, why is there existence (matter/energy)? I can assure you with absolute certainty that science will not be answering that question ever, because it is not possible to do so empirically.

Religion, however, while it can sometimes give answers to "How" questions (for instance, how can I be a better person), is really about the "Why" questions. The question I just asked a minute ago about why there is existence can be answered by saying that God, in his infinite creativity and love, decided to create the universe and eventually us so that he could share his love with us.

Finally - I addressed things like geocentrism a few posts back, so I will not repeat myself on that particular topic.
ottovanbis (150 DX)
16 Feb 10 UTC
That is the human in you not the Christian Crazy two different things. Everything is subject llogram fyi, i did not intend to rhyme, you have an agenda and your logic is twisted by it. hope Crazy is feeling better by the way, hurray modern medicine
ottovanbis (150 DX)
16 Feb 10 UTC
questions of why cannot be answered correctly, so any attempts are bold and arrogant in the face of vast uncertainty. religion fails to seriously, philosophically answer any questions, all it does is provide a facade of security that I choose not to follow. it is mere folly in my eyes and to me my eyes are the only ones that matter
SSReichsFuhrer (145 D)
17 Feb 10 UTC
@ Crazy Anglican. You are right in many ways. evolution may be true in most instances. Who knows for now. But Creation story is not a parable like Jesus stories. We came from dust and to dust we shall return, our bodies surely can be evolution of monkies or fish, i dont believe that the hard to question part. I think what is hard to question is if we had early forms of ourselves, did they have souls too? Or were they simply animals like the rest? (atheist dont even answer this, ik you dont believe in souls i want a theists response)
Parallelopiped (691 D)
17 Feb 10 UTC
I have an agenda and my logic is twisted by it. Show me where Otto. Sure I have an agenda, damn sure I have a position and an opinion and a point but show me where my logic is faulty and I'll bow to your argument. Assert it's faulty without pointing to the flaw and you put yourself on dodgy ground.
dexter morgan (225 D(S))
17 Feb 10 UTC
@nola2172, why does God want to share his love with us? Why does God have love? Does God have instincts ("surprisingly" similar to our instincts)? If science is willing to dig into what love is and talk about motivation and biochemistry and cooperative behavior and furthering the species and symbiosis and so forth, why don't we apply the same question to God? Why is it always seem to be the end point in religious conversations - that God loves us? Why does God love? Why is science held to a different standard than religion? Actually I'll tell you why... Science keeps digging... and religion is more than willing to have the pat answer that feels good. We've got a loving parent in the sky. God is the handy cure-all - the thing that takes all questions ties them up with a little bow and says because he loves us. That's no real answer... and there's certainly pretty poor proof of it (see natural disasters and death in general)... it is akin to the parental "because I said so". End of story. Having a single pat answer with no consistent pattern of supporting evidence (i.e. much more evidence of indifference or even malice [though I don't buy the latter either]) is not answering the question. I'll say it again... it is a pat answer. Religion does not answer why any better than science... but science doesn't pretend to know the answer - and religion does. Pretending does not make it so. Religion should be commended for trying to answer the tough questions... but how can they say they are any closer when they are willing to stop cold with their inquiry once they reach God? Science at least, keeps digging and digging.
Noob179 (645 D)
17 Feb 10 UTC
this is the point in the thread where someone says....


JOIN MY LIVE GAME!

Page 5 of 12
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

338 replies
Conservative Man (100 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
Anon game please join!
2 minutes left
gameID=22153
0 replies
Open
jman777 (407 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
Live Game: 5 pt buy in, 5 minute phases. come join!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22089
2 replies
Open
tmg996 (147 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
JOIN SATURDAY NIGHT FAST GAME!
5pts 5 mins 3 more people
0 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
I would like an expert analysis of this ongoing game.
gameID=22117
How well did I play tactically, stategically, and diplomatically?
11 replies
Open
PatDragon (103 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
Live game, anyone?
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22149
0 replies
Open
azzaron (1765 D)
21 Feb 10 UTC
New Live Game
http://webdiplomacy.net/gamecreate.php
1 reply
Open
The_Master_Warrior (10 D)
18 Feb 10 UTC
Favorite Quotes
Any source is fair game. Ready, set, go!
68 replies
Open
jwalters93 (288 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
yet *another* gunboat. (again...)
well, the first one didn't work, so we'll try again...

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22134
4 replies
Open
azzaron (1765 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
"Gunboat"
What does "Gunboat" mean? I see it in the title of a lot of games....
10 replies
Open
jwalters93 (288 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
yet *another* gunboat.
i know, it's *another* gunboat, but it's only the second one i've tried playing. come one, come all.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22132
4 replies
Open
DingleberryJones (4469 D(B))
19 Feb 10 UTC
Assassination in Dubai
.
39 replies
Open
superplayer (100 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Nerd Olympics World Game
2 days to join. Game Name is Nerd Olympics. ID # 22083. 12 hour deadlines, and the pot is only 5 D! A great game for anyone who is an interim newbie-expert who wants to try this variant. A very rewarding experience for all! The title speaks for itself!
2 replies
Open
Bugger (3639 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Petition to Kestas: Server Downtime - More time NEEDS to be added to games
When the server goes down, it would be best to add a full phase of the game or at least 12 hours. Reasoning inside...

Side Note: Ghostmaker, I've PMed you about League games related to this, please get back to me about that.
13 replies
Open
Barn3tt (41969 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
30 point, wta, live game- please join
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22122
0 replies
Open
Conservative Man (100 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Saturday Quickie 2
gameID=22117 Please Join!
6 replies
Open
chad! (157 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
live gun boat
4 more people ten more minutes
gameID=22118
1 reply
Open
uclabb (589 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Reminder to People Who Joined goondip chaos game
Actually play! Don't miss your turn!

http://goondip.com/board.php?gameID=346
0 replies
Open
dr_lovehammer (170 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Saturday Quickie II Live game
We had 6 players sign in to Saturday Quickie.
Please join this game
Went to 10 minutes (slightly more manageable)
0 replies
Open
airborne (154 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Gunboat: SMS Dresden
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22116
50 buy-in, 1 day and 1 hour phases, one week to join
0 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Need one more for a live game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22113
0 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
gunboat live in 15 minutes
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22112
3 replies
Open
Lando Calrissian (100 D(S))
20 Feb 10 UTC
two more for a game
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22109
0 replies
Open
DingleberryJones (4469 D(B))
20 Feb 10 UTC
Question for Hockey Fans
Something I've always wondered. Why is hockey huge in Sweden and Finland, but not Norway and Denmark? Why is it huge in Czech Republic and Slovokia, but not Hungary, Poland, Austria or Germany (the 4 surrounding countries on the map)?
4 replies
Open
GlueDuck (129 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Live Game
Got a live game coming up in about an hour. 10 point bet PPSC

gameID=22100
1 reply
Open
azzaron (1765 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Live Game Starting Up!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=22098
0 replies
Open
Noob179 (645 D)
20 Feb 10 UTC
Blackberry users - able to access via mobile?
hi. I was travelling yesterday and attempted (for the first time) to log in using my Blackberry. I could see the map fine...but the chat text was superimposed over everything and nearly impossible to read. Has anyone else had this problem - and if so, is there a way to fix it?

Thanks in advance.
1 reply
Open
Page 507 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top