Cantousent

I hated Uru, but I've enjoyed all of the other Myst games. In fact, I plan on buying Myst 5. The only game my wife and I have played start to finish together is Dark Fall, so if you guys get an interview with the Dark Fall folks, let me know! :D

Have you considered that this puts you apart from the crowd? You are unique and any search bearing your name will bring forth you. Isn't that an honor of sort in an anonymous world?

Puuk wrote a nice treatise there. I'm playing Anarchy Online right now. It's not my favorite, but it's free. At any rate, I thought City of Heroes was great. Sure, I tired of it eventually, but it kept me entertained for months on end. It was the perfect assortment of powers, graphics, solo, and cooperative play. I played several different character types and found that the other players were generally a decent bunch. Some of them were incompetant, but I'm sure some of the more experienced players thought I was incompetant when I first started.

It's irony that I've been fighting wiht folks in this thread when I share many of their same ideals. I'm all for gay marriage. As a matter of fact, I don't think we should have civil unions at all. If marriage is the basis of our equality, then we should settle for nothing less than outright marriage. ...But no middle ground of civil unions. Gay and lesbian couples should have the same option as straight couples and all of them should fall under either married or single. I disagree with the idea that any religion should be forced to perform a marriage for anyone not in good standing. To force a religion to perform a ceremony is discrimination in and of itself. I don't think that will be on the table in the United States because it will almost ensure the bill will go down to a crushing (and I mean crushing) defeat. So, if the marriage is performed by willing churches or a justice of the peace, I'm all for homosexual marriages. I simply fail to see why I should judge someone based on his desire to sleep with other consenting males. Not my cup of tea, but not my issue anyhow. I'm completely with taks on the issue of marriage as it concerns the federal government. I don't see why the federal government should be involved at all. Marriage is not a federal issue and I see no end of nightmares for both sides in the long run if the US government steps into the act. It's bad enough that the feds used to punish married couples. I railed against that for years and it was one of my main reasons for arguing that gays should be forced to be married to share the same benefits. Now that the penalty is gone, I still think gays should have the same opportunity, no more, no less.

1,920,000 And I was born the day before we landed on the moon.

So speaketh the king of the jaguars!

Really, I don't want prayer in public school. I'm a Catholic, for crying out loud. The last thing I want is sectarian persecution of non-protestants. I think private prayer in school is perfectly legitimate, but it's also impossible for the government to prevent it. Would I be up in arms against the mandating Muslim prayer in school? Of course, Commissar. There's no doubt. ...But I'd also be up in arms against mandated prayer from any religion. I think my posts pretty much paint a consistent picture: I'm for the separation of church and state as long as that doesn't lead to persecution of church by state. As for the military thing, I was irritated at some earlier posts in the thread and that's when I stepped the tempo in my own posts. I wrote my post about civil war before you were hot and heavy in this thread.

That, I don't understand. Let me just make a quick statement: I don't have real animosity towards you guys. The quote from Plato applies to me just as much as it does to anybody in the entire thread. So, I got excited and wasn't particularly nice, but sometimes, as Vixen pointed out, Christians feel like folks are gunning for them, even when it isn't true. Christians probably do whine about things, and I'm there whining with everyone else. ...But don't atheists feel put down sometimes? ...And isn't it sometimes true? We all advocate our positions, although I'm sure we're not so jaded that we state things only because others believe them to be true. So, we've traded a few barbs and Di had to shame us (or at least me) into being civil. That's not so bad. No real harm done, just a couple of message board cowboys busting up the place. A brawl maybe, but not a showdown.

Yeah, but mine was a real language. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mine is transliterated Greek.

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing what you said. What I understand from your post is that you are a liberal intellectual elite because you can read. However, if that weren't your meaning, I'll take it back. At any rate, I'm happy to let folks read our posts and decide. At any rate, we have more in common than you know. After all, I'm a liberal intellectual elite inasmuchas I can read.

kai gar ekeinoi hotan peri tou amphisbetosin, hopei men echei peri hon an ho logos ei ou phrontizousin, hopos de ha autoi ethento tauta doxei tois parousin, touto prothumountai.

I did not state that the government was good because the preponderance of offices have been held by religious persons. My meaning, just to be clear, is that religious folks were in power and yet democracy flourished. My premise was not that successful governance required religion, but you obviously feel as if your argument would be helped considerably by trying to change mine. I did not insist on any Judeo-Christian ties, you're the one who brought up the argument, not me. Since my position has been, throughout the thread, that religion and state should be separate, I don't see what your problem is in that regard. On the other hand, I see quite a few folks engaging in outright hostility to religion in the first place. If you want to entirely separate religion from politics, then you must deny religious folks the right to hold office. Good luck. Let me take a break from responding to Commisar to respond to Lucius. "Well you did try to make it sound like 'you atheists might as well give up, cuz the military is on my side', or wasn't this your intention?" Yes, if the atheist want to forcibly deny religious folks the right to hold office (which is the only way to entirely prevent religion from influencing politics) then they will lose because the population and the military will be against them. Which brings me back to Commissar, our self proclaimed liberal intellectual elite. "'The Africans are black.'" I would take this statement as more or less accurate. I would not waste my time or yours in correcting you by pointing out that not all Africans are black. South Africans can be white. Throughout the continent, you will find the exceptions that prove the rule. Still, the majority of Africans are black, which is what I take this statement to mean. In the same way, I would hope you wouldn't waste my time by putting words into my mouth. Look at Lucius. He paraphrased me in a snide way, but *shrug* he was more or less accurate in regards to the heart of my post. Now, you assumed that I meant that every single person in the United States is religious? Really? Because I stated that the population is religious. If you took that general statement to be a blanket statement about the population that ALL Americans are religious, then it would be impossible for the military to be moreso, woudn't it? Now, we're both reasonably intelligent folks, right? You can make more snide comments or just accept that there it was quite a jump to think that I meant every single member of the military is religious. As it is, the post in question is undoubtedly extreme, but it is also a good assessment of the situation. The United States, at this point in time, is not moving towards a Soviet style ban on religions. Finally, we get to the part where you play psychologist with Lincoln. So, you pull out Lincoln and Jeffeson. Fine, but it seems to me that you would look for outright atheists, not a president who left enough confilcting views that he can't be pinned down at all and another president whom you claim adopted the manners of speech for the sole purpose of winning an election. What I'd like is to continue this discussion with intellectual honesty, and I find yours lacking.

Perhaps he's supernaturally deluded.

" After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population." Nowhere do I say that every president has been religious. Furthermore, I never claimed that every president was "evangelical." In fact, I never mentioned the word evangelical. You seem to have a talent for attacking arguments I didn't make. Is there any doubt that we've had religious people in government since the founding of the country? I didn't use "all" or "every" in my post. Some of our elected officials over the course of history have publicly stated they were atheists. That fact does not change my statement in the least, unless of course you wanted to confuse the issue by intentionally misunderstanding what I said. Oh, by the way: I don't know how to take your comments about Lincoln. After all, Lincoln referenced God is speeches during his run for and during the course of his Presidency. So, are you saying it was all an act? Are you saying that he converted right before he ran? Are you telling me that he believed that all reference to God and belief should be eradicated from public life, but changed his mind late in life? Because, as it stands, he refers to God during his presidential speeches. I'm willing to take for granted you've done your research on both Lincoln and Jefferson. As for Jefferson, I wonder if he would support the efforts of the ACLU. I don't know, but you have a talent for reading things that are not there in my posts. Perhaps you have a knack for not reading things that are there as well. "For good or for ill, the people are religious. Even more problematic for atheists, the members of the military are just as religious or moreso." Here it is again, the "all" that didn

I'm currently reading Shadow of the Hegemon. It's quite good. Of all the books, Ender's Game is my favorite. Ender is my favorite character. I like some of the others, but Ender really is the best of the bunch. Anyhow, having read some of the books in the series, I can appreciate the EnderWiggin name a bit more.

Silly stuff, but the Juhani one was total comedy. I laughed out loud.

I love Tolkien's work and I'm pompous. So, like all other pompous people who love Tolkien's work, I'm an Elfophile (Alwyn). Hence, I gave myself a pretentious name like "Eldar," which I hate. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything else that suits me. If we all met in person, I'd buy a round of beers and crack silly jokes and goof off and then I could be some sort of silly, funny name, Like "BonzarO" or something. Online, though, I'm a complete "Eldar."

The irony, right? The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade? To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion of other factors. The real question is, why? Why is the ACLU willing to defend political organizations who have an anti-democratic stance while attacking religious organizations? If a religious sect created a political party, would the ACLU defend its right to march in parade? If not, why not? After all, neo-Nazis are far more dangerous than religious organizations. ...Or, rather, the driving force behind neo-Nazi thinking is far more dangerous than religious thought. After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population. It always saddens me when folks complain about religion and politics as if someone who is a devout adherent to a religion should be forced to deny his faith upon running or winning office. How silly. This is the United States of America. If the people are willing to vote for religious people, then it is religious people we shall have. What's worse is that folks will present such a hostile view of religion in general that they alienate religious folks who would otherwise support many of their proposals.

Like taks, I voted for Bush. I really didn't vote against Gore as, when I looked at the plans both proposed, I was certain that my wife and I would do just as well under either one. Afterwards, however, I became more of a Bush fan. I didn't vote against Kerry. I firmly believed, and believe still, that Kerry wants to do the best thing for the country. I just don't agree with Kerry about what the best thing would be.

...Or an even better maniac. Of course, I'm sure you're quite a good maniac already.

I'm a firm believer in Democracy. I'm an "all my heart" democrat (or republican, whichever term you like best). I see that the system has shortcomings, but I'd rather live free in a lousy democracy than be a slave in a stable tyranny.

I just wonder exactly how the Pope approached the argument. If he said that relativism is wrong, I tend to agree. If he said that we should always take the extreme view of relativistic arguments, then... I dunno. At some point relativism becomes license to argue for anything. "There is no law by which a decent man must abide."

That's okay, TEETH, you're not spamming. The problem with relativism is this: if everything is relative, then where does our tolerance stop? I believe we should not indiscriminantly kill people. Should I be tolerant of someone who does? This is an extreme example, but true relativism is a trap. For what it's worth, I doubt that NPR gave a truly accurate accounting of the Pope's views. You, yourself, gave a rather simplified view of relativism at any rate.

If Christians honestly thought that the United States government was working towards shutting down their religion, then the government would crumble. Furthermore, the Christians would win. ...Not by negotiation or discussion, but by sheer force of arms. For good or for ill, the people are religious. Even more problematic for atheists, the members of the military are just as religious or moreso. The atheists can't eradicate religion in the United States. It's a fight they cannot win and a fight any self-respecting Christian should not want. The violence and turmoil would dwarf any terrorist act in our history by such a degree that even making the comparison in advance cheapens the potential loss of lives. I shudder to think of what would happen. The very idea scares the hell out of me. ...But, make no mistake, I view my freedom and my conscience as above man made laws. If it comes to a fight, I'm in it. Luckily, we dont' have to worry about it. Maybe the Soviet Union was capable of shutting down religion, although they really weren't, but trying to imprison believers and shoot priests doesn't work here. As the ACLU acts against religion, the population resists their efforts even more stenuously. For my part, I am against mingling religion and state. The primary reason is simple: I don't want to be on the receiving end of persecution based on my religion. Human history is long, but some people have looked back only a scant hundred years and decided that religion is on its way to extinction and that it's only a matter of time, a very short time at that, before religion is completely eradicated. Fair enough. We'll see. ...But don't put me in a position where I, and every other Christian, feel as if I will be persecuted for my beliefs. The end-game in such a scenario won't be pretty for anyone. As for you, Archmonarch, I took no real offense at your post. I ask for no apology, but I'm more than willing to claim forgiveness if it means anything. A little arrogance now and then is not so great a sin. The vast majority of us here are a rather arrogant bunch. Hostility towards religion is nothing new. There is virtually no argument against religion that is new. Plato blieved in a supreme being of some sort, but he also balked at the idea that God created matter. Why? Matter is imperfect, how could God have created it. Plato also believed in the gods. Confuses the hell out of me. There are just so many religious beliefs that keeping track of them is a pain. Not every religion leads to violence. Not every religion believes in life after death. Not every religion professes the existence of an all loving God. So, we cannot hold all religions accountable for the evils of society. Moreover, mankind has been killing each other over higher ideals throughout it's span on the earth. The Greeks fought and died for freedom. Sure, there were other factors, but freedom was the rallying cry. The Soviets fought and died for communism. Then, of course, we muddy the waters by combining ethnicity into the mix. If we're to equate ethnicity with religion, why not add culture as well? If we add culture and ethnicity, why not talk about racism? If we add all those things into our discussion of war and mayhem, then we're no longer really talking about religion anymore at any rate. Religious people have been the source of great evils in this world. Still, the issue is quite complex and naming religion as the source of the evils of mankind does not do justice to the issue at all. I thought that the "religious zealots" were the folks who put things in terms of black and white. Apparently, there is quite a market trading in stark claims supported by generalities.