Posts made by frood

Woops.

I should check in here more often. I’ve fixed that problem now.

@Shining:

MD, it will never make sense if you never give it a chance,

Well, I tried to make sense of it for about 30 years, including three years at bible college. I think that qualifies as “giving it a chance.”

@Shining:

it’s called faith because it can’t make sense to a person who doesn’t believe.

Please re-read that about 20 times. Thank you. That pretty much proves my entire point. If you can’t come up with something that makes sense to someone who isn’t already a believer, you’re going to have a hard time convincing more people to become believers.

Try this version: "Our carpet cleaner will stain your carpets black. Unless you accept that that’s the best thing to do to your carpets, obviously you will never understand why our carpet cleaner is the best. But it says in the Holy Book that “thou shalt stain thy carpets black,” so do it and be saved!

Just replace “staining carpet black” (bad idea) with “believe without any proof” (imho also a bad idea) and you see that the argument doesn’t really stand on it’s own very well.

If your belief system has no validity unless underpinned by a certain set of assumptions called “faith”, you have to ask yourself on what basis that “faith” is justified.

@NoMercy:

Hey Switch,

as a Chrisitian, I have a general concern for the lost. I will not force anything upon them.

…(snip)…

The bible explains perfectly the situations going on.  And Actually Frood echo’s a lot of people in the bible mentioned. In there mentions the “people” where always looking for “signs”  but they are warned to not look for signs.

Gaa. Don’t you see how empty that is? I can just as easily say “As a Free thinker, I have a general concern for the misguided and muddleheaded.” I’m only lost from the viewpoint of your frame of reference. From my own, I’m recently saved, and you’re the one who needs correction. Who’s to say between the two of us which is right? Me or you? I vote for independent, verifiable reality, not assumptions that have to be accepted “on faith.”

And again with the Bible. Who cares what it says, when the issue is whether the whole thing is true. Let’s see something independent that corroborates it.

I still have no takers on any bets that the Almighty will lift a finger to give me an incontrovertible sign. PM me, name you odds and your bet. I’ll give the Almighty 12 months from today to find some time in her busy schedule.

Don’t you see how convenient it is to say “Don’t look for signs”? You basically explain away the need for proof, and make people feel guilty for asking to see it. Very handy when you have no actual proof.

Consider this analogy. An unfaithful husband comes home from cheating on his wife. His wife is suspicious and demands to know where he’s been. Instead of a direct and honest answer, the husband says “I can’t can’t believe you have to ask. I’m Insulted. Don’t you trust me? You should not be doubting me, what kind of wife are you?” Very convenien, and manipulative. You feel bad for asking, and the husband (or the Church) gets off without having to answer the hard questions.

Once you see it that way, it becomes pretty transparent. From within however, it is impossible to make an informed decision as to the truth. Information is withheld, and you have to go on faith, which only works as long as you accept that system. Once you reject the call for blind faith, the whole system crumbles, and there is no way to rebuild it, because even the need to accept things on faith must be accepted on faith. Well, that doesn’t work for me, so sue me.

Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly.

• Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein)

Yeah, well, that didn’t work out for me, and I at least have had the good fortune to have heard about this whole scheme.

So I suppose if it’s true, I’ll end up in hell. Fortunately, I don’t believe in it.

Just as an experiment, try thinking from a different set of assumptions. The Christian system is only compelling once you accept its basic beliefs as true. But if you try thinking without them, try thinking with a different set of assumptions, you see that from the outside, Christianity is logically inconclusive as far as proving the truth of anything.

Or, as another experiment, try coming up with an argument that does not rely on your assumptions. Show me, without relying on faith, that faith is necessary.

“God has stopped by this board many times through those proclaiming his word.” - that’s lame and you know it. All I’m asking is that an omnipotent being occasionally do something himself, or that claim of omnipotence starts sounding pretty shallow. And the more impressive miracles in the Bible don’t count either.

I don’t give a rat’s tuckus what a bunch of people 1,930 years ago wrote about Jesus, or what some desert tribe wrote about their patron deity 3,000 years ago. That proves nothing more than any other ancient text.

Independent. Verifiable. That’s the sort of proof you need to come up with. I expect it will arrive about the same time a 12-foot tall old guy with a big white beard shows up on my porch and introduces himself as the almighty.

Browsing through quotes for another thread, I came across this:

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
-Lazarus Long

That’s a U2 song.

The song was explained to be as being basically about the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (was it?) - anyway, the place where he gets betrayed by Judas. The song is from Judas’s perspective, the kiss is the kiss with which he betrays Jesus.

Playing the tart is a metaphor, referring to being unfaithful to the one you claim to love, eg. having mixed loyalties, etc.

A lot of the words make sense - the last supper, Jesus talking about what is to come, taking the money, and then Jesus ultimately forgiving Judas.

That’s what I believe the song is about, it makes sense to me. I’m not religious, but I believe 3 of U2’s four members are (or were, back then) self-described Christians (of the liberal, political activist stripe)

Oops, sorry - when I said worthless Christian, what I meant was that I felt that I was a worthless example of what a Christian should be. I felt guilty, inadequate, etc.

I have nothing against Christians, I just don’t share their belief system.

I spent roughly 20 years fighting my inner nature and trying to believe. I suppose that was a “choice.” Then I finally realized I couldn’t change who I am and how my mind works.

If you think that that amounts to “sinning by choice” I suppose you are free to think of it that way. But that logic only works internally from within your belief system - there’s no external validation. All these religious arguments end up being circular, sometimes it’s just bigger circles. No one comes out and says “Jesus must be the saviour because Jesus is the saviour and therefore what he says must be true and he must be the saviour” although sometimes it comes close to that.

Mr. Ed could also say he’s the saviour but that wouldn’t make him the saviour. I could say it and it wouldn’t prove anything. So why does the fact that someone said it 2000 years ago (or someone wrote that he did) mean we have to believe it?

I spent 20 years desparately wanting some reason to believe, I think that’s a fair effort. If God is out there and wants to show up on my doorstep and turn water into wine or call down fire from heaven, I’ll be impressed and admit I was wrong. In the meantime, I’ve got other stuff to do.

God, if you’re reading this board, then please stop by anytime. Given your omnipotence, I don’t think it’s too much to ask. Or if you really are too busy, have one of the angels swing by with a flaming chariot to give me a tour and explain how souls are made. Whatever. I’m sure you can come up with something impressive.

All right, I’m now taking bets on whether I’ll have a personal, verifiable visit by the almighty. I’ll take any odds (how about 1,000 to 1). However, it can’t be something lame-ass like a homeless guy shows up and that’s really God visiting me etc. I think there has to be non-burning fire as a bare minimum. A huge crack in the earth with view of tormented souls would really seal the deal. However, I’m not holding my breath.

Mmmm. Sacrilicious.

I vote for “Killer”, “Fang” or “Death”

@ncscswitch:

@Jennifer:

I honestly don’t think there are other options, Jerm.  I only see two options for the after-life:

1)  You go to heaven and live your days in bliss worshipping God.

2)  You go to hell and live your days in torment because you realize that God no longer loves you.

And that my friend is the sign of a closed mind.  Everyone else be damned, I have the one true and ONLY way.

Also, that second option above is in direct contradiction to Christian principles.  I leave it to you to figure out why it is not consistent with Christianity (darn shame when the Pagan knows more about Christianity than half of the Christians).

I know this is from way back, but I have to comment on this. As a former Christian, I have to agree with Switch - a lot of Christians aren’t very Christian. Hell was the first Christian idea that I had to struggle with and eventually discard. It just doesn’t make sense:

1. God created and loves us all unconditionally
2. God invites us to love him (her/it - don’t understand how a superhuman being can have a gender)
3. If we worship God etc., then we get to enjoy an eternity of bliss
4. If we don’t accept Jesus as our saviour, then we are condemned to an eternity of torment.

So how do you reconcile #1 and #4? Especially in a western liberal democracy, where everyone otherwise believes that what you believe is the one thing you should never be punished for.

Our admittedly imperfect state will punish us for murder, arson, theft, etc. but you can have any faith or political view and as long as you are not hurting others, you have freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of expression.

Then on the other hand we have this supposedly all-loving Creator. If you fail to believe in him ON FAITH (ie, without solid, empirical evidence), then for that failing this loving God will sentence large hordes of his children to eternal torment. If that’s how it works, then God essentially created a universe the end result of which is untold suffering.

I was born a skeptic, and raised Christian. I spent decades in internal turmoil for my failure to “just believe.” I’ve finally let go of that and the last two years of my life have been the happiest, most fulfilling years of my life. I’m a little miffed that I had to spend 18 years feeling extremely guilty, inadequate and generally like a worthless Christian, but my glass is half full, and I have half my life left.

Finally, I just couldn’t believe in a God who would make so skeptical by nature and then condemn me for it for eternity. Now I’m no longer a worthless Christian, but a good and happy person, and at least the rest of my life won’t be wasted.

You just can’t have a loving God and also eternal punishment for such a harmless sin as expecting just a bit of evidence for what you are asked to believe. It’s not consistent.

I especially can’t believe in a God that would punish anyone who doesn’t fit Jennifer’s definition of what it takes to be saved.

Pardon my ignorance, what is a shuck-shuck?

Yeah, that’s called “observation bias” or “confirmation bias” - I can never remember which though… Both may be at play here. We remember those experiences that confirm our beliefs, etc.

@ncscswitch:

I have not installed tripleA on my new PC yet, but I think that has a built in combat roller.

Yeah, it has a built-in one, but it also offers a PBEM option, that I have not checked out yet. I assume you have to just tell it how many casualties you are going to take, just wondering if anyone had used it. I guess the place to ask would be over at tripleawarclub.org or whatever it’s called.

I just tried to check out DAAK but it won’t let me play without creating a game # or something.

How do I get into a tournament or game here? I’ve never played that way before, in fact, I’ve only played AA about 5 times total. Anyone want to pick on a newbie? Of course, it would be tricky for me to use AACalc (everyone here calls it Frood, but that’s just my domain name), because I could doctor the output and you’d never know. For that matter, I guess anyone who knows how to spoof an e-mail address could impersonate it. I wonder, how could I validate that? I guess that’s maybe why DAAK is used for tournaments, because it actually tracks the game.

@ncscswitch:

I’ll bet Frood (or any other Dicey) does not even CONSIDER the odds of a die landing on edge in the sims.  But it is an extremely rare option that CAN happen.

That’s an awesome suggestion! I could program it with a 1 in 3 million chance of leaving each die balanced on one corner. The effect of this will be instant nuclear armaggedon on the enemy force. Sweet.

Speaking of odds, I am trying to figure out if there is a better way to calculate them than by running a battle 10,000 times. It should be doable mathematically. Eg. with just one tank on each side, you know that there is a 1 in 3 chance of either side winning, and a 1 in 3 chance of mutual destruction. However, it gets a lot more complicated with more units of different types, esp. with subs and aircraft and opening fire etc. But in principle it should be possible to calculate the percentage of each possible outcome individually just once. I don’t know if it would run faster, because there might be millions of possible ways a large battle could run, but it should be completely accurate anyway.

The question is, does anyone know how to calculate those odds? Even for a single round of 8 armor v. 8 infantry, as a moderately complex example? What’s the formula? Math nerd, anyone?

Also, just wondering if the e-mail format is working for people. Will it work with TripleA? I don’t have that working right now (Java problems), so I don’t know how the PBEM works. Is it just manual entry of the e-mailed results?

@ncscswitch:

As I recall from a previous discussion…

Most folks are using Firefox, and a few are using Opera.  I think the Opera and IE numbers were about the same (for those who responded).

Do not recall exactly, it was many months ago, and I did not go looking for the topic :-P

I checked the stats for my site (and aacalc accounts for abou 80-90% of the traffic), and about 60% use IE, 35% use firefox, and the rest are Opera, unknown,  and Mozilla. Some freak apparently used the “links” browser.

Maybe IE users are just tired of reporting glitches and beind told that their browser should support standards (although in this case my code was broken)… or they don’t know how to copy and paste a URL into an an email.

All right, I’ve tinkered with the output a little more, including fixing a bug that only showed up in Internet Explorer (which I don’t use often). In IE the dice table was completely screwed up, I hope that didn’t turn a lot of people away. No one told me about it, so I don’t know how long this was a problem.

Hey all - just noticed this thread while checking the pages that had linked to my AACalc page.

I’m glad I did because the e-mail option had never occurred to me before, but it should be pretty easy to add. The weekend is pretty busy, but by end of next week I would expect to have that operational.

The other thing needing work is that the newly correct rules for AA fire mean that the number of possible outcomes is greatly increased, with the result that the statistical breakdown becomes harder to read - a bunch of outcomes each occurring a very small percentage of the time.

What kind of output detail is best - simply
"6 units remain 23% of the time
5 units remain 14%
4 units remain 9%

etc."?

Or should I make some attempt to add more data to that:
eg. " 6 units remain (avg loss of 14.3 IPCs of units) - 23 % of the time"

or doing averaged values for IPC, count and punch as well? More data=more clutter, but also more useful? Perhaps a hover popup that shows further breakdown?

Also, do people care more about what they have surviving, or how much they have lost?

Dan (frood.net)