Pre-WC1 Ships

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Preacher
Difference is, I *know* where I'm headed when I leave, and it'll be a lot better'n dis place. Would that we all would be able to say that...:D
Click to expand...
Heh... unfortunately for you, virtually every religion preaches that such arrogance will only lead you in the other direction :p.
 
Originally posted by Preacher
...Actually, it's *millions* of people...

And, I WILL be one of them...someday--as will *you*, my prickly comrade.

Difference is, I *know* where I'm headed when I leave, and it'll be a lot better'n dis place. Would that we all would be able to say that...:D
Click to expand...

I will not be part of the chorus of the weak; I don't plan on dying like you.

And if you don't like the place you're in now, leave. If you have something to complain about, it may not be worth staying around for.
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
Of course I did. But with all the various discussions here, it's easy to get lost between the correct and incorrect interpretations and explanations of how things like this change throughout WC history. [I think discussion on the disparity of fighter defences between WC2 and WC3 tended to focus on armour, which, of course, having phase shields does not explain.]
Click to expand...

Shield strength is measured in centimeters of durasteel. And the change in 'cm of durasteel' protection is pretty easily explained... if you take into account the development of better armor materials, which allowed for more centimeters of durasteel's worth of protection for the same mass and thickness of armor.
 
Originally posted by LeHah


I will not be part of the chorus of the weak; I don't plan on dying like you.

And if you don't like the place you're in now, leave. If you have something to complain about, it may not be worth staying around for.
Click to expand...
Didja mean that you don't plan on DYING, or that you don't plan on dying "like you" (meaning ME)?...

Either way, yer wrong:

1) We'll ALL die, someday, and that includes even you (hate to burst yer bubble, but them's the facts...). Few people (but for those that have cancer, etc.) "plan" on dying. Yet, as someone once said, "Life is a sexually transmitted disease, with a mortality rate of 100%". That's why there's life insurance, wills, etc.. Even the Lizard King (Jim Morrison) was hip to this when he said "No one here gets out alive"...

2) NO one knows "how" they're gonna die (let alone WHEN), so you have no basis to assert that you won't die "like" me (esp. when I don't even know how I'm gonna die)....

3) I like the place I'm in now (well, *mostly*, anyway) just fine. Face it: We're HUMAN, and thus there's always "something to complain about". The point is simply that, once we die, we're outta here. As such, one must wonder WHERE one is going after they leave this life. I simply KNOW where I'm goin', and I'm satisfied that it's (to borrow from Dickens) "A far, far better place I go to now than I have ever been".

Originally posted by Quarto
Heh... unfortunately for you, virtually every religion preaches that such arrogance will only lead you in the other direction
Click to expand...
Wrong-o, mi amigo!... None of the following "major" religions preach that: Certain forms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Fact is, the remaining religions (them that DO preach that) can't ALL be right. And, if they "all" teach that, then they are mutually exclusive; you can only choose ONE. So, one must CHOOSE (very carefully, I would hope) which to believe.

I've simply chosen to follow the one which has proven itself, with an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt". Speaking of which, I suggest you read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell (among several excellent sources)...:cool:
 
Originally posted by Preacher

I've simply chosen to follow the one which has proven itself, with an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

Mmhh...
I thought that Christians do not need evidence to have faith in his religion,God,etc
And a truly religious man doesn´t need evidence as back up for his faith.
 
Originally posted by Preacher
Difference is, I *know* where I'm headed when I leave, and it'll be a lot better'n dis place.
Click to expand...
Oh? I take it you been there before then? I had a pretty good idea I was going to enjoy Hawaii but I didn't know for sure until I got there and experienced it for myself. Still, I had talked to people that had at least been there before deciding I was going to like it.

And I just love how some religious individuals can spout "We're the one true..." and "preponderance of evidence..." when damn near all of them say the exact same thing and none of them can prove anything to the majority's satisfaction.
 
Originally posted by Preacher
Wrong-o, mi amigo!... None of the following "major" religions preach that: Certain forms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc.
Click to expand...
Islam? Buddhism? Islam states repeatedly (in the Koran) that the proud and boastful will not be rewarded with Paradise. Buddhism is a religion that venerates a prince who gave up all his worldly goods to live humbly and thus get closer to eternal peace.
I cannot directly refute what you say about the other three religions. However, since you're wrong for two out of five, you have no credibility as far as the other three go, either.

Fact is, the remaining religions (them that DO preach that) can't ALL be right. And, if they "all" teach that, then they are mutually exclusive; you can only choose ONE. So, one must CHOOSE (very carefully, I would hope) which to believe.
Click to expand...
Riiight... and since all religions teach faith, then they are mutually exclusive... so atheism is the way to go? To put it mildly, your statement lacks reason and logic.
 
Originally posted by Marcml30

Oh? I take it you been there before then? I had a pretty good idea I was going to enjoy Hawaii but I didn't know for sure until I got there and experienced it for myself. Still, I had talked to people that had at least been there before deciding I was going to like it.

And I just love how some religious individuals can spout "We're the one true..." and "preponderance of evidence..." when damn near all of them say the exact same thing and none of them can prove anything to the majority's satisfaction.
Click to expand...

No, I've never been there firsthand myself--yet. However, I HAVE consulted those who have been there--most obviously, Paul, and Christ himself (not to mention the Scriptures as a whole). True, "...eye has not seen, ear has not heard,...", etc. But, we've been given--from an eminently reliable Source--at least *some* idea what it be like, and it's cooler'n cool!!...

As to yer second point, I'm wondering which "damn near all of them" yer referring to: If to Christians, then of *course* we're all saying the same thing; it's the same gospel to all valid denominations (Denominations themselves only arose because, stupid humans that we are, we have different ways of going about doing the same darn things).

And, you're right: No one can "prove" it (scientifically, that is) to the majority's satisfaction; that's where faith comes in. However, since when is "majority rule" the determiner of what is true?... If it *were*, we'd still be convinced the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, flies could spontaneously form out of rotting meat, etc.. JC his own self told us ahead of time that most would NOT believe ("...for narrow is the gate, and few there be that find it"), so we're prepared for the reisstance we encounter from others. Still, we long to share what we've found with the rest of the world...


Originally posted by Ghost Mmhh...
I thought that Christians do not need evidence to have faith in his religion,God,etc
And a truly religious man doesn´t need evidence as back up for his faith.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, you are correct, sir. *Once* one believes, evidence as such is not of primary importance.

However, the key is the word "Once"... You see, "evidence" of some sort, to some degree, is usually necessary to BRING one to the point of faith in the *first* place. After that, evidence serves in a secondary capacity: It is crucial to be familiar with the "evidence" (whether it's the facts that brought YOU to faith, or any other such evidence that exists, even if you yourself never heard it until afterwards), so that you can then "spread the word" to others. Whether or not THEY come to faith is their choice, but it is one's duty as a believer to tell others. The rest is up to Him...
 
So you need evidence to believe and later you will have faith and you will believe?
I don´t know how it works on you, but i thought that the Christian Dogma of the Resurrection of Jesus doesn´t need an evidence, it´s a fact!, i don´t know if you are a born-christian or you choosed to be christian in your adulthood, but AFAIK the church,school or family teach abouth the christainity without facts only the Bible.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Islam? Buddhism? Islam states repeatedly (in the Koran) that the proud and boastful will not be rewarded with Paradise.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Gospels pretty much say the same thing. Islam, however, offers no guarantee that the believer will enter Paradise; even if you live a mostly good life, your "bad deeds" might outweigh your good ones, and then you're outta luck, In this respect, Christianity stands alone-there is an objective standard to be adhered to, and a guaranteed reward when the standard is met.

Originally posted by Quarto
Buddhism is a religion that venerates a prince who gave up all his worldly goods to live humbly and thus get closer to eternal peace.
Click to expand...
As to Buddhism, I'm not sure that you did "refute" what I said; this faith does *not* teach that following another religion will lead you, ummm..."South"... Thus, the point made still stands.

Originally posted by Quarto
I cannot directly refute what you say about the other three religions. However, since you're wrong for two out of five, you have no credibility as far as the other three go, either.
Click to expand...
I care nought about my own personal credibility; this ain't about that. It's about laying down facts with, as much as possible, logic and reason. Thus far, I've done so, so any "credibility" is still intact.

Originally posted by Quarto Riiight... and since all religions teach faith, then they are mutually exclusive... so atheism is the way to go? To put it mildly, your statement lacks reason and logic.
Click to expand...
Speaking of logic and reason, where do you come up with the conclusion "...so atheism is the way to go?"?... Last time I checked, "mutually exclusive" doesn't mean that NONE are true; it means that only ONE can be true...

As such, if *all* can't be right, then you pick the one that seems the most "right" to your examination of the various claims & facts. Think of it this way: A jury is charged with the responsibility of deciding the truth between the 2 cases presented: They can believe either the Prosecution's case, or the Defense's case. They can't just decide that it's too hard and go home (and before you mention hung juries and mistrials, remember that when mistrials occur, the prosecution usually goes back and re-files afterwards...).

Finally, remember the principle of Occam's Razor; which says that, when trying to decide between multiple theories as to how an event occurred, all other factors being equal, the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is also the most likely to be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top