Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Personal Information

  • Location
    The Dawn of Time
  • Interests
    Star Wars, Gaming, Art, Religion/Philosophy, Swords, etc.
  • Occupation
  • Resolution

Contact Information

  • Homepage
  • ICQ
  • AIM
  • Yahoo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Kurgan's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Yeah, well we'll always have the video games and the old EU, they can call it "legends" but whatever, none of this is real.
  2. How does GIMP compare to Paint.net? I admit I've used the latter a lot more. Of course back in the day we recall using other programs to create textures. Granted I haven't created anything for these games in a long time (ah, those were the days though!).
  3. how about actor Clancy Brown? (cause that's who it is) ;)

  4. Your av reminds me a bit of actor Tom Wilson.

  5. Well done. I thought she was tough as well, and it's true the fights could be short or long, sometimes depending upon luck (and because I had it set to realistic saber damage, which works for both you AND your opponents!). You can always run away and heal of course, so it depends upon your playing style. The temptation I have to face in fights like this is that I get impatient and want to have it over with.
  6. Did you check Massassi.net or Lucasfiles?
  7. It's Clancy Brown from "Highlander."
  8. Now if we move beyond the question of "God" why the Christian God, specifically? Because to me (despite my personal bias), only the Christian God really makes sense, to a believer. Why? Because there is no need to worship a Deist God. A Deist God requires our worship no more than an idol or a pantheistic universe "god" would. I own many possessions that I find useful or "like" but I don't "love" them. My computer or my books don't "love" me back like a person. So whether I were to fawn over them or not, makes no difference. My mother doesn't "need" my love to exist, but I do love her and that is the relationship that exists. The pagan gods might literally need our worship to maintain themselves, but they exist as merely parts of creation, not its source and the author of its purpose (making them little more than "super" humans, much like the caricature of the "big man in the sky" who will destroy you if you don't keep him happy). A "God" who is merely the name for the physical world is also not worth worshiping, since no relationship is possible with something that lacks intelligence. Yes, even the primitive intelligence of a family pet still provides for a reciprocal relationship of a kind of love. So to "believe" in a God, to have a relationship of a worshiper of a deity, only makes sense, to me, in the Christian God, because this God is all powerful, but also willing to give us free will, and willing to enter the creation for our sake and foster a relationship, not merely be a judge and king who expects obedience (as for instance in the classical Muslim understanding of God; who also seems focused more on rewarding physical actions with physical punishments or physical pleasures). The pantheistic or monistic God would really be "me" (or me saying I'm the universe). So I'd be worshiping myself. That's self esteem, not a relationship. Now there are certain Jewish, Muslim and other conceptions of God that are close to the Christian one, but I'm only positing the existence of one God. Multiple "gods" don't fit the definition of God (an infinite, all powerful and eternal being doesn't compete with other simultaneously infinite and all powerful eternal beings, and the Trinity doctrine is an ancient understanding of the oneness of God, not a multiplicity, as in classic paganism). If I can "make up" in my head an idea of God, that's fine, as long as it corresponds to the real God that exists. I can't say the real God doesn't exist, if I can just "make up" and guess what that God is like, anymore than saying a person isn't real if I can guess correctly what they are like before I get to really know them. Our knowledge of God is limited, but if God wishes to reveal Himself to His creation, then something of that God can be known. The atheist will point out that all religious experiences must be subjective, fallible and non-transferable. Fine. But some experiences of God can be more communal, even universal, as in the discovery of God through philosophical reasoning. Granted, a person can reason their way "out" of a belief in God as well, but I find such systems far less satisfying. One still attempts to come up with explanations for problems they've created, often substituting God-like solutions, which I think concede the point (like a universe that somehow "knows" us, created itself, and controls our very thoughts, including, presumably, rationality itself). Now if we are to quibble about "which Christian" God we're talking about, I make no distinction between the "God of a Baptist," or a Methodist, or a Lutheran, because they are all the same thing (I'm here excluding henotheists like Mormons). There is no alternative, as if God were a subjective creation (if God is, then "God" is not God, as the atheist would have it). I think the "God" of Catholic and Orthodox thought, streaming from the biblical record (which is merely a "snapshot" in time of the testimony of the Church, not the end-all, be-all as fundamentalists would have it), is the norm of Christian thought. If you want to debate with an Open Theist or Foursquare Gospel person or Oneness Pentecostal, have at it, but they're johnny-come-lately. Different perceptions of God are not the same thing as different Gods (and as my motto says, there can be only one).
  9. Now to answers those questions you said I brought up and should have answered: One needs to come up with a definition (or definitions) of what "God" (or gods) is/are, and then ask if there is a way to discern that. So if I think God is defined as an immortal human being living on Mt. Olympus on earth, I can presumably search for such a mountain, and in the absence of such a mountain, conclude that it is reasonable (for now) to doubt this being's existence. If I simply presume this being is a trickster who can elude my detection, I would have to come up with another way to falsify this being, but the idea that I can be fooled, means it's still reasonable to doubt their existence, at least for now. I've seen attempts to apply this sort of example to the Christian God, presuming that if the Bible says God "lives in the sky" and sounds like a "man" then if we go up in a spacecraft we can look around and if we don't see a man floating up there, we've disproven his existence. A less comical way of doing this is to examine the philosophical arguments given for God's existence as found in Doctors of the Church like Thomas Aquinas or Anselm of Canterbury. If we define "God" not as a magically powerful physical being residing in our universe but as "that which nothing greater can be conceived" (as Anselm did) then logically this "God" must exist (since we can't really imagine "infinity plus one"). These theologians and philosophers then discuss whether one can reason to the idea of the Christian God or if this merely posits a God akin to that of the Deists or some other conception. If we imagine "God" is a trickster who is fooling all of us, all the time, we can abandon rationality altogether since we can have no hope to know anything. The presence of those who have a differing opinions over God or deny the question entirely doesn't moot the discussion anymore than differing opinions (legitimate or not) on any other topic negates that topic (for example controversies amongst historians or scientists). I find the arguments they present to be compelling, even if not exhaustive. They are not arguing for a "God of the gaps" (we don't know something, so therefore God must be responsible; God is hiding just over the next hill we haven't explored yet), but a God that can reasonably be said to exist, even without show magic tricks or elaborate myths told to give some moral lesson. I think a person could find "happiness" of a sort, if we define it as physical pleasure. This sort of happiness requires no rational engagement. If we define happiness instead as satisfaction with truth, then yes, there too it is possible, but we have no way of knowing of that truth is really true or merely our perception of it. We can believe in universal truths and still be mistaken about them. Doing the right thing implies we know what the right thing is. But we can all "do our best" (what we think is our best). So yes, it's quite possible for atheists, I believe, to be happy. I would argue a greater happiness is possible for one who believes and follows the true God, but there I'm making a claim such a thing is possible. Most atheists I think would agree that a true believer might be deluded, but happy thinking he's chosen the best part. If God doesn't exist, then this "greatest happiness" is impossible, and its path merely a delusion. So the atheist has lost nothing, but the true believer "wins" if he's right. Otherwise both can be happy, but attended to in different ways. I believe that God does exist, and so the true believer has the greater happiness, but a degree of happiness can be had by others who do not cling to this deity. The atheist must admit that happiness exists for his "believer" brethren, even if he thinks the basis of this happiness is false (but if a relativist, he cannot deny, except for his personal preference, that this is legitimate).
  10. So you think I'm dishonest? I presume then you believe yourself to be honest, and you're hoping others will "side with" you for this. Am I missing your tone there? Resolving the question of God's existence and whether atheism is a good foundation for one's life won't be resolved in a single thread, and we both know most readers have already made up their mind before they read anything. This is a debate thread, but where's the debate here? I just see people asking questions and commenting on what others are saying. I guess "debate" has a lot of different definitions. But you want something like that... Great. Full disclosure: I have a bachelors degree in Philosophy and a Masters in Theology (actually "Divinity" which adds courses more akin to pastoral ministry), accredited. That course work includes one in sociology and one in philosophical anthropology, but apart from a course taught by an anthropologist (on Islam), I didn't take any courses strictly on anthropology as a social science. That doesn't make me an expert by any means. I too have been known to dabble and study on my own outside of this, as many people do. It is not merely "the love of wisdom," but an actual field of study and discipline, (to quote dictionary.com a bible of internet debates) "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" which of course includes natural, moral and metaphysical respectively. Despite colloquial usage, it is not limited to laboratory work or "musings" on deep subjects. Every human being with a functioning mind has a philosophy (or uses philosophy) whether they use those words or not, because everyone upon maturity functions with a view of motion, cause and effect, reality, right and wrong, how we know what we think we know, and contemplation of our existence. However, only those who professionally study and teach this discipline are properly known as philosophers. By "straight answers" I hope you don't mean "short answers."
  11. Which specific questions do you want answers to? (i.e.: Does God Exist? Do humans have free will?) Before we go on, do you have any degrees in philosophy or theology? Anthropology, perhaps?
  12. Kurgan

    Siege Mode

    It's me. Thanks for your support. If it was up to me, it'd still be running as we speak. I had some major frustration with the seeming lack of solid user-created Siege maps. Whenever I tried hosting them, nobody would join because I guess they got annoyed having to auto-download. The moviebattles thing is another story, those people apparently were happy to download multiple gigs of files and play together. It's been awhile, but out of curiosity (and to help educate the rest of us who might want to improve conditions), how do you "lame" objectives in Siege these days? The worst examples I ever saw were all fixed in OJP Basic, which didn't require an extra download from joiners, so it generally fixed things for me. I suppose somebody could grab a holdable object and "hide" somewhere, but there aren't many places to hide on the base maps that I can recall (ie: standing on the pillars in the center of Korriban, which is in open view to everyone). An admin or votekick needs to be present in those cases. It is annoying when someone even attempts it though... As for custom maps, I can see the issue there if there are more exploitable things like that.
  13. I come here occasionally just to see how things are going, been busier in the last few years. What brings in more people usually are new games and movies, but it's hard to keep any community active indefinitely, because Real Life . MTFBWY
  14. Didn't know that... I own the PC version (haven't played it in ages, didn't get very far to be honest). I did download TFU2 Demo for my Xbox360 (yes, I got that system last year finally), but I would have to put them side by side to see the differences. Certainly the resolution on my monitor is way better than on my TV, but the other stuff I'll look for. The graphics stuff doesn't seem that big a deal to me, but the additional content makes me feel like I got ripped off. At least the "hidden DLC" is free though...
  • Create New...