Support NeoGAF

[ManDudeChild]

Well since it's going to happen anyways, I'll throw in the obvious question: but is that free will an illusion? Well played btw, thread hijacked. :lol

IAWTP ... oh wait.

 

[maharg]

We know exactly where they are: Fallujah, Baghdad, Ramadi for starters.

And north, south, east, and somewhat west of those places?

 

[freaky zeeky]

I look forward to receiving your proof that there is something inherently lazy in the typical use of the term "god", and also proof that there is any such thing as laziness.

well, the onus is on those who constantly use it so cavalierly, as if the existence "god" is a given. to date, no one on this planet, i suspect, has seen any compelling evidence to attest to a "god." thus, the the referencing of "god," as if it is a truth to be held unimpeachably, is intellectually lazy.

 

[freaky zeeky]

Religion isn't backed up by science, sillyhead.

in other words, "religion" isn't supported by intellectual rigor. why, then, should "religion" be taken seriously? by "religion," you mean the common faiths, right? it is a rather broad term.

 

[Phoenix]

well, the onus is on those who constantly use it so cavalierly, as if the existence "god" is a given. to date, no one on this planet, i suspect, has seen any compelling evidence to attest to a "god." thus, the the referencing of "god," as if it is a truth to be held unimpeachably, is intellectually lazy.

Prove that faster than light travel is impossible, prove that aliens exist in the universe, prove that blackholes don't take you do another universe, hell prove that there aren't aliens at the bottom of the ocean. The absence of our ability to prove something does not make that thing impossible, nor improbable, just means that we lack the ability to prove it.

 

[freaky zeeky]

Prove that faster than light travel is impossible, prove that aliens exist in the universe, prove that blackholes don't take you do another universe, hell prove that there aren't aliens at the bottom of the ocean. The absence of our ability to prove something does not make that thing impossible, nor improbable, just means that we lack the ability to prove it.

however, without proof of "god," one might be more wise to preface their use of the term with the fact that there is no such evidence. absent anything testifying to this being's existence, why use the term in such a way as to allude to its state? for now, there is no "god." furthermore, since man has recorded history, there is no persuasive testimony supporting a belief in its existence. if i'm mistaken, can you point me to it?

 

[iapetus]

to date, no one on this planet, i suspect, has seen any compelling evidence to attest to a "god." thus, the the referencing of "god," as if it is a truth to be held unimpeachably, is intellectually lazy.

Well, there are plenty of people who claim that they have seen such compelling evidence - what you really mean is that there is nobody who can present any evidence that you find compelling to attest to a god. If you're trumpetting intellectual rigour, then perhaps you could scan your posts for such glaring errors in the future.

Also, I didn't see anyone referencing "god" as a truth to be held unimpeachably in this thread. You are going to get banned if you continually feel the need to bring the old "does God exist?" question into every thread where he gets name-checked. Religious trolling on either side is frowned upon.

"Catastrophic success" is a great phrase, to my mind. Very descriptive, and a fine example of a seeming oxymoron that actually has a useful meaning.

Not that it excuses what Bush is describing, of course. Not being prepared for success can be just as bad as not being prepared for failure in its own way.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

You can't trust Bush, same way with Kerry who voted to got to war with Iraq when congress voted, then voted against every other vote about Iraq afterwards such as more troops, and more money to help support more weapons and food.

Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?

BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.

As for the further vote, I'd have trouble voting for $87 billion too, if there was no plan to actually cover the costs and no actual plan for what to do with tens of billions of those dollars. Bush threatened to veto the thing, so it's not so simple as he likes to say.

 

[Alcibiades]

So it's a mess and a quagmire but progress is being made? What on Earth makes you think progress is being made (remember, progress is when things continually get better, not when the situation is better than the absolute worst-case scenario).

well, that the US isn't the government anymore is a good step

Listen to Bush talk, and you'd think everything was alright. How can you trust someone to solve a problem if you can't get them to even admit a problem exists?[/QUOTE]
Bush warns of worsening violence

I think he sees the problem.

He never really implies that things are 100% right, just that he sees hope for a better futrue, different certainly from "you'd think everything was alright".

 

[DJ Sl4m]

As for the further vote, I'd have trouble voting for $87 billion too, if there was no plan to actually cover the costs and no actual plan for what to do with tens of billions of those dollars. Bush threatened to veto the thing, so it's not so simple as he likes to say.

Of course he threatened to veto the outcome if they denied it, it only makes sence NOT to repeat history ala Vietnam by not supporting the war financially to go along with the number of troops.

Money is needed to fund the air patrols, and bomb drops, food, ammunition, more weapons, heavy artillary etc etc.

By not supporting the funding, yet approving the initial vote to go to war with Iraq Kerry proves he's learned nothing from the war he was himself in....

Great plan Kerry has, just as he's trying to leak info and point fingers that once the Presidential vote is over, Bush plans for more troops to deploy to Iraq, guess what ??? go read his plan on his own web site and he does too.

I bet if he was elected he'd be busting balls and threatening to veto an attempt to get more funds for the war too. (and rightfully so, it just shows how contradictory he is)

 

[Hitokage]

Kerry supported a different version of the 87 billion funding, whereas Bush threatened to veto his own bill on whether congress would make some of it a loan or a grant to Iraq. It WAS a complicated, or at least paticular, matter to both parties, contrary to Bush's "there's nothing complicated about supporting our troops" lie.

Really, the 87 billion talking point is total bullshit. Some people*cough* need to learn that there's more to a bill than its one line summary.

 

[fart]

lacerations of joy are running down my face

 

[Makura]

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."

- Georges Clemenceau

Perhaps Bush is Clemenceau fan....

 

[videogamer]

lacerations of joy are running down my face

Perhaps you meant "lacerates", not "lacerations"

 

[Jim Bowie]

in other words, "religion" isn't supported by intellectual rigor. why, then, should "religion" be taken seriously? by "religion," you mean the common faiths, right? it is a rather broad term.

Me thinks that you really ought to know the "god" we are talking about. Since Mr. Shadowred so clearly pointed out:

Presumably God knows what is going to happen, ie Revelations in the Bible. So do we really have free will or are we programed to act in a certain way regardles, but think we can act own our own.

Bible? God? Revelations? That could be anything! You guys are lazy, because you mention God without expressly stating the religion that it's from!

The Christian faith, the one we were talking about since you missed it, believes that there is only one god. We like to capitalize the "g" in respect of the guy that made us. The us refers to Christians, so don't have a cow.

Furthermore, to assume that something is impossible because of lack of proof is immensly foolhardy. For sure, to exclude all non-proof is to exclude aliens, black holes, and basically anything out of our local supercluster. Next time, please use a bit of common courtesy so everyone doesn't think you're a troll. Or at least a wee bit 'o reading comprehension.

 

[freaky zeeky]

while seemingly contradictory, there is truth to the term, as one can derive "success" from a string of "catastrophic" events. however, bush's declaration of a "catastrophic success" is no less dishonest than announcing "mission accomplished" upon the deck of the uss lincoln. the man is a deceitful murderer skewing language to suit his agenda. another example is the oft-touted concept of sovereignty; sovereignty is not to be awarded or accorded. there are numerous instances of this administration co-opting language in an effort to frame policy.

 

[freaky zeeky]

Me thinks that you really ought to know the "god" we are talking about. Since Mr. Shadowred so clearly pointed out:



Bible? God? Revelations? That could be anything! You guys are lazy, because you mention God without expressly stating the religion that it's from!

regardless of the denomination, the invocation of god is an act of intellectual laziness. the same applies to allah, buddah, et. al. i don't discriminate in my dismissal of "god." still, this is best saved for another thread.

 

[ShadowRed]

Me thinks that you really ought to know the "god" we are talking about. Since Mr. Shadowred so clearly pointed out:



Bible? God? Revelations? That could be anything! You guys are lazy, because you mention God without expressly stating the religion that it's from!

The Christian faith, the one we were talking about since you missed it, believes that there is only one god. We like to capitalize the "g" in respect of the guy that made us. The us refers to Christians, so don't have a cow.

Furthermore, to assume that something is impossible because of lack of proof is immensly foolhardy. For sure, to exclude all non-proof is to exclude aliens, black holes, and basically anything out of our local supercluster. Next time, please use a bit of common courtesy so everyone doesn't think you're a troll. Or at least a wee bit 'o reading comprehension.

There are theories about black holes, based on the facts that we know of from studying gravity and mass. Alien life on other planets are simply suppositions based on the fact that we see life here all around us, perhaps it exists on other planets. True we have seen neither of these phenomena, we can though postulate about their existence. We have observed nothing that we could even locally draw an inference from that there is a super human being some where running the universe or our existence. No one has observed anyone fly without the aid of a machine or chunk lighting with his hands or call down a plague of locust or pull a rib out from another man to create a woman. There is no frame of reference to assume that God possibly exists, where as there are many that point to the possible existence of Black holes and aliens

 

[fart]

Perhaps you meant "lacerates", not "lacerations"

good call

 

[freaky zeeky]

Furthermore, to assume that something is impossible because of lack of proof is immensly foolhardy. For sure, to exclude all non-proof is to exclude aliens, black holes, and basically anything out of our local supercluster. Next time, please use a bit of common courtesy so everyone doesn't think you're a troll. Or at least a wee bit 'o reading comprehension

i never argued the impossibility of its existence. i merely said that it is intellectually lazy to make invocations of "god" with the assumption "god" exists. there is a distinction. yes, i know i'm being exasperatingly petty, which is why i'll leave it at that. if you'd like to continue this discussion in pm, i'm more than willing to oblige.

 

[Dilbert]

freaky zeeky -- if you don't "stop" quoting random words in your sentences, I'm going to be "annoyed," if you know what I mean.

 

[etiolate]

I'm a catastrophic success in bed.

Oooh yeah!

 

[freaky zeeky]

No, it doesn't. Now you're being the intellectually lazy one. Say what you want about Allah, God, etc, but you obviously know nothing about Buddhism. The Buddha is not now and never was a god. He was a mortal man who attained enlightenment. Enlightenment is not godhood. If you don't believe in enlightenment, that's fine too. In that case he was simply a wise philosopher.

If you're going to argue this kind of thing, get your facts in line first. Know what it is you're arguing about.

yeah, before submitting the post, i stopped at its inclusion, thinking it didn't belond. sorry about that. actually, i know a couple atheists who also claim to be buddhists. isn't there a conflict there?

 

[Shinobi]

No, it doesn't. Now you're being the intellectually lazy one. Say what you want about Allah, God, etc, but you obviously know nothing about Buddhism. The Buddha is not now and never was a god. He was a mortal man who attained enlightenment. Enlightenment is not godhood. If you don't believe in enlightenment, that's fine too. In that case he was simply a wise philosopher.

If you're going to argue this kind of thing, get your facts in line first. Know what it is you're arguing about.

Buddhown3d.

Presumably God knows what is going to happen, ie Revelations in the Bible. So do we really have free will or are we programed to act in a certain way regardles, but think we can act own our own.

Hell, God knew that Lucifer would rebel...but if He went into his brain to change that (or any other thing we ever came up with), he'd simply become a dictator or a tyrant. Not unlike Bush and his desire to change Iraq on a whim...

what is "god"? the constant invocation of this thing termed "god," in the absence of any corroborating evidence testifying to its existence, is maddening. any mentioning of "god" should be accompanied by proof.

Prove that He doesn't exist. Shouldn't be too hard for you.

 

[BigGreenMat]

Of course he threatened to veto the outcome if they denied it, it only makes sence NOT to repeat history ala Vietnam by not supporting the war financially to go along with the number of troops.

By not supporting the funding, yet approving the initial vote to go to war with Iraq Kerry proves he's learned nothing from the war he was himself in....

I bet if he was elected he'd be busting balls and threatening to veto an attempt to get more funds for the war too. (and rightfully so, it just shows how contradictory he is)

It was pointed out already, but seriously DJ you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. Bush was not going to Veto a non-passed bill, being as that is impossible. You can't veto something Congress doesn't pass!! What Bush threatened to Veto was an earlier bill to allocate 87 billion for the troops by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts (I personally prefer this bill). This is what Kerry voted for, and it did not pass. What Kerry voted against was a later bill which basically was giving bush a blank check with no amendments about where this money was coming from or what is was going to be used for.

 

[videogamer]

nm and wtf happened to the previous post that was here

 

[ShadowRed]

No, it doesn't. Now you're being the intellectually lazy one. Say what you want about Allah, God, etc, but you obviously know nothing about Buddhism. The Buddha is not now and never was a god. He was a mortal man who attained enlightenment. Enlightenment is not godhood. If you don't believe in enlightenment, that's fine too. In that case he was simply a wise philosopher.

If you're going to argue this kind of thing, get your facts in line first. Know what it is you're arguing about.

Actually there are some modern Buddist who claim that Baddah was/is a god. They believe that the attainment of enlightenment makes you one with the universe or what ever and thus God or godlike.

Prove that He doesn't exist. Shouldn't be too hard for you.

With all due respect it's not up to him to disprove what hasn't not been proven.

Hell, God knew that Lucifer would rebel...but if He went into his brain to change that (or any other thing we ever came up with), he'd simply become a dictator or a tyrant. Not unlike Bush and his desire to change Iraq on a whim....

Still haven't answered my question of do we have free will or do we think we have it. From the Bible everything has already played out. The anti christ will come there will be war, famine death then Jesus will come and everything will be happy. If all that is true then how can we have free will if it's already determined what is going to happen?

 

[freaky zeeky]

This is what Kerry voted for, and it did not pass.

one reason he won't receive my vote. kerry wants to have it both ways, arguing against the management of an illegitimate war he voted for.

 

[Hitokage]

one reason he won't receive my vote. kerry wants to have it both ways, arguing against the management of an illegitimate war he voted for.

First you derail a thread, now you won't even READ what you're responding to.

Bye.

 

[ShadowRed]

Nm I'll pass.

 

[KingV]

There are theories about black holes, based on the facts that we know of from studying gravity and mass. Alien life on other planets are simply suppositions based on the fact that we see life here all around us, perhaps it exists on other planets. True we have seen neither of these phenomena, we can though postulate about their existence. We have observed nothing that we could even locally draw an inference from that there is a super human being some where running the universe or our existence. No one has observed anyone fly without the aid of a machine or chunk lighting with his hands or call down a plague of locust or pull a rib out from another man to create a woman. There is no frame of reference to assume that God possibly exists, where as there are many that point to the possible existence of Black holes and aliens

That's sort of the point, as a preface, I'm not particularly religious, but the real beauty of religion (as well as the thing that can make it so frustrating to argue against) is that it's completely based on faith. The idea of the Christian God, at least, is that you believe in him without absolute proof of his existence, but you infer it from things that happen around you, the beauty of the world, the fact that we are here, and that there is a here for us to be on. While I'm not particularly convinced that in seven days we were literally placed on the earth; as an allegory, having an omnipotent being guide the creation of the universe and the world we know is not much crazier than we were put here by aliens, or life just spontaneously generated on earth out of pure probability. Even if one of the latter events is the case, it doesn't really preclude the existence of a presence beyond our comprehension. While the human race knows a lot, there are many many things that we know literally nothing about, even in our own backyards.

 

[Shinobi]

With all due respect it's not up to him to disprove what hasn't not been proven.

He seems quite sure of himself, so I wanna see what kinda proof he has. God wasn't exactly the main issue in this thread till he brought it up, so if he can ask people to try and prove God's existance, I'm entitled to ask him to prove God's lack of existance.

Still haven't answered my question of do we have free will or do we think we have it. From the Bible everything has already played out. The anti christ will come there will be war, famine death then Jesus will come and everything will be happy. If all that is true then how can we have free will if it's already determined what is going to happen?

All the bible does is say what's going to occur. It doesn't say that everyone is programmed to do it. The very act of typing on a forum instead of sleeping in bed is a choice. So is eating a burger instead of a salad. So is tossing a chair into the stands and smashing some broad's nose instead of simply walking away. The consequences of said choices is another matter, but we're all free to make 'em.

 

[Incognito]

i think it's obvious who freaky is.

:lol

and shinobi, i don't believe in god. what now, my fellow follower?

 

[Mandark]

efralope: That is not Bush admitting there is a problem. He is admitting that there are obstacles (perpetually framed as "terrorists") and saying there might be a temporary upsurge in violence. However, nowhere does he indicate that a change in strategy is needed. In fact, it's the opposite, as he clearly implies that he intends to stay the course ("keep our commitments").

When I said "you'd think everything is alright," I'm talking about the direction Iraq is going in. Bush's line has always been that no matter what is going on, Iraq is headed towards "freedom" and "democracy," never acknowledging that Iraq may actually be farther away from those goals now than it was six months ago.

And will you please, please, PLEASE explain to me why you think there's progress in Iraq. The "transfer of sovereignty" may be an opportunity, but it does not represent any progress in and of itself. Every objective analysis shows the situation in Iraq growing worse rather than better.

Don't think so, we expected it to be shorter because we were expecting large numbers of surrenders and defections according to Rumsfeld and company. So we shouldn't accept this as an excuse.

Why is it when I explain what Rumsfeld means everyone acts like I agree with it? The ability to understand someone else's perspective, or even the meaning of their lies, doesn't mean I buy into it.

Do I need to renew my America-hating, tax-and-spend, soft-on-Commies, liberal credentials?

 

[Incognito]

mandark, the republicans won't read that csis report. i've posted it twice here, once in it's own seperate thread:

http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13978&highlight=csis

zero replies, of course. hell, there's even an executive summary spanning 10 pages they can read if they don't want to bother with the full 108 pages.

it's sad.

 

[Alcibiades]

well, there's progress in that a few years ago, US influence on the Middle-East wasn't really there. I guess I'm not measuring the progress in terms of where things were a few months ago to where they are now, but rather where they were under Saddam and where they are now.

I'm not sure Bush/Blair expected smooth sailing after inital troubles, and with US elections coming up, as well as Iraqi ones in January, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that things were never going to be better and that violence was going to always be less of a problem from month to month.

There probably has been some steps backward from a few months ago, but I don't think (and maybe I'm wrong), that the US and Allawi government are just going to cave in until the brink of civil war.

How soon it takes for things to start getting better and the specific plans that the Iraqi/US coalition have been coming up with, you're right, I don't know. I'm not sure if detailed, step-by-step outlines by the President (especially not on the campaign trail, and it's probably more appropriate for Powell or Coalition officials anyway) as to what the Iraqi gov/US coalition are doing is really called for, so much as what has been indicated as a general guide to what the US is doing to improve the situation. As far as I can tell, Bush's "stay the course" statement indicate that they are going to continue with rebuilding work and aid (schools, hospitals, etc...), police and Iraqi army training, attempts to capture hold-out cities, establish a smooth oil-supply, etc... I also assume (just my opinion) that these things are going to take a while and that patience from the coalition is going to be crucial.

 

[videogamer]

well, there's progress in that a few years ago, US influence on the Middle-East wasn't really there. I guess I'm not measuring the progress in terms of where things were a few months ago to where they are now, but rather where they were under Saddam and where they are now.

Uh, the US has had a fair amount of influence over countries like Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and UAE.

 

[Alcibiades]

Uh, the US has had a fair amount of influence over countries like Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and UAE.

Iran, Syria, and Iraq mattered more in terms of stability issues though...

that said, the influence over Saudi Arabia was totally because of the oil, I mean it's not like we could demand they outlaw extremism or anything (at least, we could, we'd just get hostile reaction and higher oil prices, not that US consumers are doing anything about driving more efficent cars and conserving fuel, but that's another story).

Right now though, things are looking a tad up. Just a couple of weeks ago, Saudi Arabia removed from teaching positions any Islamic fundamentalist clergy (probably due to their own problems with terrorism) that they say as negatively influencing children.

While I'm not saying that would have happened if the US had not invaded Iraq, it did make it more likely as a presence by us there sort of looms more than just in physical presence in one country...

 

[FightyF]

Right now though, things are looking a tad up. Just a couple of weeks ago, Saudi Arabia removed from teaching positions any Islamic fundamentalist clergy (probably due to their own problems with terrorism) that they say as negatively influencing children.

While I'm not saying that would have happened if the US had not invaded Iraq, it did make it more likely as a presence by us there sort of looms more than just in physical presence in one country...

It could be because of new US influence...but it also could be because the Saudi Monarchy wants to save its hide. Islam and monarchies are incompatible, and so they want to protect the position they are in.

 

[Mandark]

efralope: You've basically said that

1) the situation in Iraq is an "utter mess" right now.

2) The situation has not been improving since Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

3) The people who have been in charge since that point plan to do the same things they've been doing.

And from this you conclude that the people in charge should be left in charge, and that this will result in a change of fortune? Can you see how this confuses me?

You're making an assumption that I really disagree with: The only possible outcome is good, so it's just a matter of "when," and having "patience." I believe there are several possible outcomes, most of them very bad for the people living in Iraq.

The second is that it would take the US and Allawi "backing down" to cause major problems. My point is that what the US has been doing has clearly, objectively, obviously not worked, and there is no reason to expect them to start working.

It's also pretty obvious that Iraq hasn't given the US any substantial traction in the area, looking at the lack of progress in the Israel/Palestine issue and Iran's defiance regarding nuclear technology. Sure, Libya got on board, but Qaddafi's been sucking up to the US since at least 1999.

As for the Saudi Arabian teachers, I've read some tough talk from Mohammed al-Rasheed and some not-as-tough talk from King Fahd, but I haven't heard about any actual, large-scale change or mass firings.

 

[Shinobi]

and shinobi, i don't believe in god. what now, my fellow follower?

What do you think that makes you, unique? :lol

 

[Phoenix]

however, without proof of "god," one might be more wise to preface their use of the term with the fact that there is no such evidence. absent anything testifying to this being's existence, why use the term in such a way as to allude to its state? for now, there is no "god." furthermore, since man has recorded history, there is no persuasive testimony supporting a belief in its existence. if i'm mistaken, can you point me to it?

Indeed - tell all these sci-fi writers and physicists to stop using faster than light travel as well. Stop spending money trying to communicate with extra terrestrials. Stop trying to postulate about black holes, we haven't even proved they exist. As a matter of fact - stop acting like you are more than the dellusions of a mad man in a cave, because you can't even prove that you exist, that yesterday existed and that you aren't caught in the matrix.