| are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79354] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 02:10  |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hoops!
Did you forget the times I said that the ideas are those of God?
Is that unimportant to you? If we both see Hulk Hogan at
an autograph signing, and you claim he was wearing the
yellow shirt, and I write he was wearing the red, does this
mean that there is no Hulk Hogan?
>Asking as a non-believer, which of you Christians should I listen to?
>Which of you is right? How do I determine that?
We all agree on how you can be saved. You do not believe in
such things. There is your problem.
>It seems to me that many different religions can be thought of to have a
>"unity and quality of the message". I don't see any religion as having
>a right of exclusive use on that concept... ("...hello? US Patent and
>Trade Mark office?")
Clever. Still, you have to decide this for yourself. Are you here
to debate, or do you care about which is right? Do you believe
in the possibility of rightness? Of God?
>I personally wouldn't use the word fraud. For me, it is merely a
>question of certainty. If I can't be certain about one part of the
>Bible, can I be certain about another? (These are "unity and quality"
>issues of course...)
No, they are verbal and historical issues that you use to dismiss
the content.
>> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
>> there to witness it.
>The same can be said of the Jews, the Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79356 is a reply to message #79354] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 05:25  |
Mark McCurdy
Messages: 35
Registered: February 2006
|
Member |
|
|
>
The Jews are still looking for messiah. Or are atheists.
Could they have missed him? Just a thought.
Hindus? I am not convinced. Are you?
I notice you left off the buddhists.. Of course, no God...
That leaves us with 2 things.
Make up your own beliefs
or
Jesus Christ.
I made my choice.
> From a philosophical point of view, I would say that you are absolutely
>correct. I might be so bold as to make the conjecture that the
>existence or non-existence of the entire Bible is interesting but
>possibly unrelated to the reality of Jesus...
But even the slightest examination of this claim would destroy it...
>> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
>Interesting. Short, sweet, touches on all the things that many people
>WANT to believe. "Do you know of any other book that matches the
>credentials of the Bible?" [SHRUG] In a word, yes... To pick one
>example, we know way more about authorship of the Quran than we do about
>authorship of the books of the Bible. ...but wait, I thought we weren't
>going to compare credentials?
Clever. Substance-free, but clever.
Doug, let's give this NG a break OK? This is clearly pointless.
>Sorry, I couldn't follow you there... Are you suggesting that I should
>feel threatened?
No. I imagine you will grow comfortable with your beliefs
being dismissed with a wave of the naturalist hand.
>Aren't all religious decisions based upon personal need and choice?
As are choices to buy gasoline. That does not mean that
gas pumps are a myth created by man to comfort himself.
DCHi Don,
I responded to you on the 13th.
I assume you didn't get?
Chris
Don Nafe wrote:
> Hey Chris
>
> I was wondering if you got my email re: computer upgrades.
>
> DOn
>
>
> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
> news:45fe8f01@linux...
>> HI Deej,
>> As long as the board posts into the BIOs you will have a chance to make it
>> work. You might have to mess around with the BIOs CPU settings.
>>
>> Chris
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79358 is a reply to message #79356] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 08:08 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>> http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_Mo del.aspx?ProductID=1839
>>>
>>> If it works with the 175, then maybe I'll be good. This mobo has been out
>>> of production for a while so the 175, 180 and 185 may not have even
>>> existed when it was in production. We'll know for sure on Tuesday night.
>>>
>>> Here's some other info that is interesting. Looks like the GA-K8NS Ultra
>>> 939 has an equivalent sibling, the K8NSNXP-939. This might be a good
>>> Paris mobo with a single core 939 CPU.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Deej
>>>
>>>
>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>>> news:45fe0a2c$1@linux...
>>>
>>>> HI Deej,
>>>> I know that board works with eh 165 and 175 so you should be ok.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like I'm getting ready to load an unsupported Opteron 185 CPU in
>>>>> my Gigabyte K8NS Ultra 939 mobo. It's a 939 form factor CPU and appears
>>>>> for all practical purposes to be identical to the AMD 64 4800 x 2 CPU,
>>>>> except that the Opteron wafer is a bit heftier and instead of each core
>>>>> running at 2400GHz, the Opteron cores are running at 2600GHz. There is
>>>>> some marketing hype BS between the two which describes the L2 cache of
>>>>> the 4800 as 1MB x 2 whereas the Opteron 185 is described as 2MB. Other
>>>>> than that, I can't see any real differences and if the Opteron heat
>>>>> sink is up to spec, it seems like this would work
>>>>> .............sooo........anyway, I gotta' try this. I'm going to put on
>>>>> my blast suit before boot up.
>>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>> ADK
>>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>> (859) 635-5762
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>> ADK
>> chrisl@adk
|
|
|
|
| Re: are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79359 is a reply to message #79358] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 08:13 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
proaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>> (859) 635-5762
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.comNope nothing came in
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:45fedc68$1@linux...
> Hi Don,
> I responded to you on the 13th.
> I assume you didn't get?
>
> Chris
>
>
> Don Nafe wrote:
>> Hey Chris
>>
>> I was wondering if you got my email re: computer upgrades.
>>
>> DOn
>>
>>
>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> news:45fe8f01@linux...
>>> HI Deej,
>>> As long as the board posts into the BIOs you will have a chance to make
>>> it work. You might have to mess around with the BIOs CPU settings.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> OK then. The 165 is supported but the 175 is not.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_Mo del.aspx?ProductID=1839
>>>>
>>>> If it works with the 175, then maybe I'll be good. This mobo has been
>>>> out of production for a while so the 175, 180 and 185 may not have even
>>>> existed when it was in production. We'll know for sure on Tuesday
>>>> night.
>>>>
>>>> Here's some other info that is interesting. Looks like the GA-K8NS
>>>> Ultra 939 has an equivalent sibling, the K8NSNXP-939. This might be a
>>>> good
>>>> Paris mobo with a single core 939 CPU.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Deej
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45fe0a2c$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>>> HI Deej,
>>>>> I know that board works with eh 165 and 175 so you should be ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like I'm getting ready to load an unsupported Opteron 185 CPU
>>>>>> in my Gigabyte K8NS Ultra 939 mobo. It's a 939 form factor CPU and
>>>>>> appears for all practical purposes to be identical to the AMD 64 4800
>>>>>> x 2 CPU, except that the Opteron wafer is a bit heftier and instead
>>>>>> of each core running at 2400GHz, the Opteron cores are running at
>>>>>> 2600GHz. There is some marketing hype BS between the two which
>>>>>> describes the L2 cache of the 4800 as 1MB x 2 whereas the Opteron 185
|
|
|
|
| Re: are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79363 is a reply to message #79354] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 09:54 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e views of those closest
> to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
> are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
> years later, right?
That comes across to me as a quite flippant answer. I truly believe
that I am asking legitimate questions, and I do not always believe that
I receive legitimate answers...
> That's hilarious... Your atheist assumptions are as clear as
> can be aren't they? Any view of history that includes Christ
> as a reality, is not scholarly.... ok Doug.
Again, this seems rather flippant to me. I have already told you that I
am not an atheist. Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
Some Christians are offended by the term CE - hence my advice...
> Of course, the opposite of atheist is not Christian, it is theist...
Sure, as the opposite of agnostic is gnostic...
> Looks like you have a few more on the other side than you thought.
Ummm, not sure what you mean by that... Would you please rephrase that?
> The belief that only the natural world, as we understand it,
> is real, is not agnostic, it is atheist.
Have I ever argued for "the natural world" being real at all?
> It is an act of faith that "science" as we know it, can
> explain everything.
What have I said to you that implies that I think science has anything
to do with religion? (Unless you consider "thinking" to be a science?
I don't think ;-) thinking is a science...)
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic"
Cool quote.
> Which is it? How do you differentiate between atheism and
> agnosticism?
Well, there's strong atheism which believes that there is NO deity, and
there is weak atheism that assumes there is no deity but admits to a
lack of knowledge about deities. This is orthogonal to agnosticism,
which believes there is a deity, but doesn't know the details. Of
course, we should then add on a discussion of the term gnostic, which is
about direct knowing. Gnosis differs from the Orthodoxy in the sense
that (in my
|
|
|
|
| Re: are people just a little too paranoid?" [message #79364 is a reply to message #79363] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 09:56 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
words) the Orthodoxy seems to believe that it is not
possible for the individual to know things at the same level that Jesus
knew them...
> And so, there it is. Christianity is the opiate of the masses.
> Ok, well. I certainly see where you are coming from.
Is that a flippant answer or a legitimate one?
> Define enlightened.
:-) I'll let you know when/if I find enlightenment...
> Being a non-atheist, would you say that you are a theist of
> any kind? What sort?
I was raised in the Unitarian/Universalist environment and still hold
many of the beliefs, if that's what you're asking.
> Now, there are reams of objective reasons for believing in
> God.
I do not deny the existence of God.
> I spent years with doubt about all this. My temptations
> were never drugs and drink and a lot of the other stuff we
> get involved with. My temptation was, and it took a while to
> realize this, atheism.
Rather Quixotic, wouldn't you think? I don't believe I have that same
issue...
> The first was the day I realized, from years of study and reading,
> that Darwinism is garbage. It is the last of the 19th-century
> mystery religions.
Darwin was searching for an explanation for something. With the
evidence he had, I think he did a mighty fine job. Does it answer my
questions about the world? No. Does it answer my questions about God?
Of course not. I don't even consider Darwin when I think about
religion...
> The other was the realization that nothing else, nothing, is as
> likely to be true, and fits the reality of human life, as well as
> the words and thoughts of Jesus Christ.
I'm glad that resonates with you. Many people feel the same about the
words and thoughts of the Buddha. Many believe the same about Mohammed,
and many feel the same about Joseph Smith...
> Rubbish Doug. I was running out the door to a birthday party.
> I did answer you. Did you see it?
I did indeed, and I see that you have replied to it. Thank you. I must
run out the door myself, so I'll read and reply to that one later.
> First, Thad is clearly a bigot,
I do not see that personally.
> and while he would not use that
> word, he regularly expresses hate for millions of people, some
> of whom would take a bullet to save his life.
Is this supposed to be some kind of guilt trip you're laying on him?
> Second, your views are clearly heretical with regards to
> Christianity. Do you deny this?
I readily admit that my views are sometimes in disagreement with
ORTHODOX Christianity.
> You do not answer to me.
True. And yet you throw that at me as if you are morally superior?
Doug">At the end, you will agree with one or the other. They too,
>came to a closing point."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
