Commissar

Think about your friend who wouldn't give up until you actually went to see the movie with him and how enthusiastic he was about this; and that's just over a film. This is about the question. The ultimate question. The answer to life, universe and everything. He wouldn't be much of a friend if he ever gives up on persuading you about that (unless you persuade him to see things through your point of view first). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Know what it boils down to for me? It's insulting. Coming up to me and trying to change my mind suggests a doubt in yours that I've come to my conclusions about religion through anything but reason. It's superiority, the very superiority that Eldar claims atheists display towards Christians. It's telling me that I don't know how to properly live my life without the assistance of a manual written by antediluvian Middle Easterners.

We had a few guys like that back in college, too. And a couple more at finishing school. Your example with the restaurant or movie doesn't really hold up, though. My buddy could tell me about a great place to eat downtown. That's fine. Let's say I go, and end up not liking it. Now, if he keeps telling me about how great it is, and I tell him that I didn't like it and don't intend to go back, and he still doesn't shut up...guess how annoying that'd get? And that's over a restaurant. But hell, let's push it one step further. What if some of my buddy's fellow restaurant proponents started trying to get items from their favorite restaurant to replace stuff on the menus at every other restaurant in town? I'd be pretty ticked.

Yeah, I've been fortunate enough to be able to follow Ovechkin for a couple of years before he entered the NHL. He's one of those rare players that you just enjoy watching, because of his unpredictable nature and raw talent. I just wish he was a Leaf. Unfortunately for me, I haven't seen much of Crosby at all. All I know about him is basically what I read during the lo.. lock.. during that awful, horrible time when no hockey was played. It was mostly hype though. Still, he keeps producing, even if he's not yet dominant enough to win games all by himself. Edit: Doesn't look good for the Oilers tonite.. At least it's against Dallas, a 0.500+ team, and not against Washington. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You probably already know this, but the ESPN website's NHL section usually has some clips of all the action. Usually just highlights, but better than nothing, at least. I can't imagine never getting to watch an NHL game. Crosby was good, but I honestly didn't get the same vibe from him that you get from watching Ovechkin. Everybody is very well aware of when exactly he's on the ice - probably because he's the only guy on the Caps who can get it into the net with any consistency - whereas Crosby was kind of just another name next to Lemieux and the rest of that team.

As has been said ad nauseum in this thread, you can be Christian all you want without any trouble from the average atheist, agnostic, Jew, whatever. Right up until the point where you try to convince us you're right. And you get bonus points for actually quoting scripture to prove your point.

Eh. He was alright. He could've gotten a pair of natural hat tricks and I'd still end up preferring Ovechkin, though. I will say this: the Penguins didn't look like they were underperforming. Or maybe the Rangers were just playing terribly; all of their power plays went the same way. They'd manage to get it up into Pittsburgh's zone, they'd try a pass back to the blue line, the defenseman would muff it, and they'd have to reset. Come to think of it, that's pretty much the way their normal offense went, too. I still have no idea how they managed to get their goals.

It does seem rather odd to me that so much moderation occurs out here in Off Topic. There certainly are moderators who'll shut a thread down for...you know...going off topic. In one respect I can understand this; when all the little weasels break out the picture spam, a thread's essentially over with. On the other hand, many of the political/social/scientific - know what? I'm just going to say 'serious' - discussions tend to evolve in a way that's consistent with what you'd expect. Those'll still get shut down on a whim, though I've noticed that certain topics tend to get shut down more than others. I'm not suggesting bias, of course... I have a double standard. I don't much care if threads about anime or Star Wars get shut down, but it does bother me when lively discussions of the sort I mentioned above do. Prune them if you really need to - and I mean more pruning with regards to stuff that clearly doesn't belong in the thread, or simply has nothing to offer; you can check out the CBS Evolution Poll for examples - but by and large, I'd like to see a lot less moderation over in this section.

Well, underperforming is definitely better than having your entire team carried by a twenty year-old rookie.

OLN's showing the Penguins-Rangers game tonight, so I'm finally going to get to see this Crosby kid in action. Something tells me that I'm going to come out of it still wanting Ovechkin to win the Calder, but hey. I can be biased, since Pittsburgh actually has a good team.

You've lost me, bud. Edit: I know about IF, of course, but the rest of it I'm drawing a blank on.

No.

Eldar - how rude! Oh wait, this the 'Bad Boy' altz0rs!1 :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quit calling me Jerry. Actually, I'll see if I can get a mod to confirm that my IP's vastly different from Eldar's.

I actually liked Punisher, probably just 'cause I met a guy who did some advising on it. But it's also not really a superhero movie.

Mind your own business, if you don't want to join in the discussion, don't. We are just expressing our beliefs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He has a point, though. Nobody's going to convince anybody. And it looks like several people are going to be doing very poorly on reading comprehension when they're finally old enough to take their SATs.

Not a big fan of Spiderman, or comics/movies based on comics in general. Spiderman sucks 'cause it's based on a little emo prick.

Alright. Might want to look at who actually compiled the New Testament, though...

Hard to tell if you blokes are being serious or not... ...but if you followed the forums, you'd know who Cantousent is. Hell, even I know.

The Caps beat 'em, and my boy Ovechkin got a pair. Couldn't be happier.

The waters off Somalia are notorious for piracy. Not sure why this particular cruise line thought it'd be a good place to go.

'Christian' morality was around long before Christianity. The only thing unique about the ethics themselves is that they were combined with Christian theology. What'd be truly novel is if they were actually used. Turn the other cheek? Nah, we'd rather execute minors in Texas, thanks.

Actually, no. I have no problem - and I don't think anyone else in the thread would, either - with someone stating that they believe in Christian theology and leaving it at that. Try and argue the point, however, try and prove why you're right and I'm wrong, and of course I'm going to jump all over that. Has anyone ever seen me back off from a tasty argument around here before? I would argue it was made to castigate people who take creationism over evolution. That's a very, very bad thing...see my comments in response to Walsingham's attempt to get the thread back on topic. Atheists don't only hate Christians. Atheists, as a whole, can't be said to have any opinion on anything other than the shared disbelief in a divine deity. As always, you're treating atheism like a religion, a cohesive unit with set beliefs or goals. An atheist is not the opposite of a Christian. And I'd have been fine with that overarching theme. Trouble is, he tacked on the rider: "And here's why I'm right." I don't believe I've ever articulated precisely why I don't believe in the Christian God, simply because it's rarely relevant, and it could easily be taken as an invitation to a debate. If you want to tell us all why creationism is the cat's ass, be prepared for people to disagree, with evidence, or personal opinion arguments, or anything else that comes to mind. You're welcome to it; I've seen folks of the religious persuasion arguing against atheism before, and it never fails to be amusing. But my point was that if you want to put forth some sort of idea in the public space, it's best not to include religious sentiments if you want it to be considered objectively. I'm down here in the South, and it's in vogue for the folks with the hick accents and a literal litter of kids to preface every opinion they make with, "Well, I'm a Christian, so..." You have no idea what eye-rolling is all about until you've heard that prefix used with everything from film discussions to automobile choices. There's this culture of persecution developing primarily amongst evangelicals these days, and I just don't get it. They're as protected as anyone else in this country - they currently run it, in fact - but apparently you've never known oppression until you've been a white heterosexual Christian male. So yeah, keep that stuff to yourself. Know why? Because Hindus never get up and say, "Well, I'm Hindu, and I don't feel that Hindu values are being represented in the media these days. Let's ban Desperate Housewives." Muslims don't ask that sections of the Koran be etched into the walls of the Supreme Court. Jews never suggest that legislation be enacted to ensure the country remains kosher. I dare you to suggest that Christians never attempt to force their values on the American public. No one suggested that personal ethics ought to be derived from science. On the other hand, why should general scientific thought be derived from personal religion? Ethics and morals can come from all sorts of places. I'd posit that I'm a prime example. And, of course, ethics and morals are wholly subjective. I personally feel the Yellow Elephants are ethically corrupt, and yet a great many of them are Christians. And let's not rehash the Catholic child molestation scandals and the absolutely abhorrent handling thereof, shall we?

You'll put your faith, on the other hand, in the judgment of a council of bishops, convening hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, as to what ought to consist of his gospel, though? You'll put your faith, on the other hand, in a book that might be just a bit off on a few things - such as the age of the earth, for example. If it's literal, then it's just plain wrong; if it's a metaphor, then can you tell me what else is? What isn't? That's interpretation, interpretation by human intelligence, and we all know the problems with human intelligence, yeah? You'll put your faith, on the other hand, in a religion that can't answer any of the big questions, such as, "Why?" Why would God create us as imperfect? To see who can make it into heaven? What's the point of that? Why not just create Heaven and put everyone there? Because we wouldn't be tested then, sure. But what's the point of the test? It's a bit like me tossing some mice in a maze, and killing the ones who don't make it to the cheese. We have to prove our faith, yada yada yada. If God's omnipotent, though, then he could just create us all with perfect faith. But that gets in the way of free will, doesn't it? But if God can't create us without violating our free will, then he's really not omnipotent. If he can, and chose not to, then we're back to the mice scenario, and it all sounds more like a sick game than anything we ought to respect. Stop arguing about this. It's not the point of the thread.

Keep talking like that and you'll have Gromnir in here.

I listen to the commentators. You know, like how they tell you who has the puck, who scored the goal and such..? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know. But on Sundays where I'm rolling home from work, I try to catch football on the radio for the drive; I can get a good sense of who's doing what, but if somebody's called for pass interference I have no clue if it's justified or not. Not arguing, by the way, just genuinely curious, since I can never really tell if I don't actually see it.

Seems odd to me that he waited so long.

How do you know if a penalty's incorrect if you're listening to the game?