| New Thread | Mark All Read |
Many features including posting and editing will be disabled.
Login on the right or create a username here.
Alien Swarm
-
Re: Alien Swarm — Josh 3 days ago at 2:16 pmI just tried it out! It is pretty fun. I think my friend name is "ThisBitterRose" if you want to add me.
-
Re: Alien Swarm — Josh 2 days ago at 4:15 pmA bunch of tools who just want to go rush off by themselves though....
-
Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear
“I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did.”
His words came at me like a speeding fist, like a sucker punch, yet somehow in that moment I was able to duck. And once I recovered and composed myself, I managed to say, “I don’t buy it.” Because I didn’t.
-
Re: Those Aren’t Fighting Words, Dear — steven 3 days ago at 10:38 amgood story. thanks for sharing!
Stephen Hawking is releasing a new book soon, "The Grand Design", in which he has changed his position on the universe's beginnings. This article states that Hawking now believes "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" as opposed to his earlier statement from "A Brief History of Time", "If we do discover a complete theory ... of why it is that we and the universe exist ... it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we would know the mind of God". I haven't read "A Brief History of Time" but I always assumed Hawking was an atheist based on responses he's given in interviews.
My question is this: Is Hawking, in your opinion, gaining respect among the scientific and atheist community for affirming atheism or is this the equivalent of an academic "well, duh!"? He seems to be stating the obvious from a scientific standpoint, and call me cynical if you want, but also making a marketing ploy, kind of like "Atheists read my book because it'll confirm what you already believe! (Haha, more money!)" Obviously his motivation is deeper than greed, but seeing as how Hawking is an advocate for evolution it's like he's throwing in with Sagan and Dawkins by saying "extra-solar planets are yet another reason why God probably doesn't exist". Seeing as how evolution does not necessitate the existence of a creator, the existence of extra-solar planets adds little to the argument of the unpresent creator.
In my opinion, I think Hawking has been an atheist for some time and just needed something new to back up his beliefs. I'd like to hear some opinions.
-
Re: Flame on! — babada 4 days ago at 8:13 amFrom the holy book of Wikipedia:
Hawking has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings) to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife, Jane said during their divorce proceedings that he was an atheist. Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." Hawking compared religion and science in 2010, saying: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." On September 2, 2010, Hawking was reported to have written in The Grand Design that the laws of physics can create the universe out of nothing and that his previous use of the word "God" was merely rhetorical.
-
Re: Flame on! — Dan 4 days ago at 9:50 amYeah, he's an atheist. Just 7% of scientists claim a belief in God, so this shouldn't be a surprise.
-
Re: Flame on! — Joe 4 days ago at 11:09 amFor the sake of citation, this article claims 9% have total faith in a god while 14% have a faith marked with some doubt.
-
-
Re: And One — Dan 1 week ago at 1:04 pmYes.
-
Re: And One — Joe 1 week ago at 1:36 pmSo great.
-
Re: And One — steven 1 week ago at 2:57 pmtotally great.
-
Re: And One — Karl 1 week ago at 2:59 pmI understand the Bible reference, but not the video game reference.
-
Re: And One — Joe 6 days ago at 4:03 pm
-
Re: And One — Dan 6 days ago at 8:51 pmThe exclamation mark is a quest pickup symbol for World of Warcraft (and other games?)
-
Re: And One — steven 5 days ago at 5:58 pmdiablo 2 had it as well. so it's been around for awhile.
-
Re: And One — Mike 5 days ago at 7:15 pmI can't believe WoW ripped off Diablo like that!
-
Re: And One — Dan 5 days ago at 10:31 pmGod damn it, why won't they stop stealing from English!?
-
-
-
-
Wishing Well was a close second.
-
Re: What is your least favorite Dominion Action Card? — Dan 1 week ago at 10:51 amChancellor. It requires a tortured imagination to dream up a case where Chancellor provides a benefit. My second is Treasure Map.
Show/Hide I disagree with you on Saboteur.-
Re: What is your least favorite Dominion Action Card? — Tim 1 week ago at 3:44 pmI have used Chancellor effectively but never found it to be consistently effective.
-
-
Re: What is your least favorite Dominion Action Card? — steven 1 week ago at 11:11 ammy least favorite is by far treasure map.
i also disagree on saboteur. if it hits a province, then you can turn it into a duchy, which effectively turned a previous 6 point turn into a 3 point turn. this is identical to what other attack cards do, such as militia, with the notable difference that militia is affecting your current turn (causing you to get a duchy instead of a province), while saboteur is affecting a previous turn. militia will only sometimes prevent you from getting a province, just like saboteur will only sometimes take a province and turn it into a duchy (or if you prefer to word it another way, prevent you from getting a province on a previous turn).
I'd say it is pretty impressive...
-
Re: Must see — steven 1 week ago at 3:07 pmwow, i'm very impressed. thanks for sharing.