From: Dennis Baker <helios!canal.crc.uno.edu!DCBCS@tssi.com>
Subject: Re: Sticking with your principles
Organization: Chessnews list (chessnews-request@tssi.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:12:00 GMT


On Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:48:55 GMT, azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
(John Paul Phillips) writes:

>In article <01GIT7W5C3IO8X2TXZ@canal.crc.uno.edu>, DCBCS@CANAL.CRC.UNO.EDU 
>(Dennis Baker) writes:
>> 
>> Uh oh.  I could get into trouble here, not to mention chancing that this
>> will all be off-topic.  But here goes...
>> 
>> On 13 Apr 92 12:29:04 GMT, azjohn@eagle.larc.nasa.gov
>> (John Paul Phillips) writes:
>> 
>> >    I believe that the church was called "Worldwide Church of God", because
>> >I'm currently attending their services. (They being nuts, well... I won't 
>> >exactly call myself nuts 8^) ). The people who has been members since the 
>> >early '70's have told me that Bobby was a member but left. They didn't know
>> >why, just that he stopped attending services. In a nutshell, (pun very much
>> >intended), the church practices most of the Jewish customs described in the
>> >Old Testament while believing that Christ is the Messiah. Thus, they 
>observe
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> 				Is this a *fact*?
>
>If you're referring to the practices of the church I described, yes. As
>to whetever Christ is the Messiah, that isn't a proven fact. Just a 
>possible fact. (If anything is true, then it's a fact, If not, then fiction)

I'm not referring to *practices*.  Who cares about practices?  What the hell
is a "possible fact?"  Something you want to be a fact, but isn't?

>> 
>> >the Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset and devote it to 
>services 
>> >and church activities. Also, there is some special days of observance, 
>like 
>> >the Passover and The Days of Unleavened Bread. Members believe themselves 
>to
>> 						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >be true Christians. 
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Is this a *fact*? (They believing it; yes. As to being actually true  
 >Christians, that's up to debate.)
>> 
>> >   I can't help but be curious... Dennis, why did you call that church, if 
>> >that was the one you were referring to, as "that nut group" ? Any facts to
>> >back that opinion up? (If they indeed were nuts, then I'll like to know! 
>;^)).
>> 
>> Perhaps you should first tell me just exactly what a *fact* is first! <grin>
>>
>Okay, Let's see... The Webster's dictionary's definition of the word "fact" 
>is as following....   Relax, I'm kidding. Facts are done deeds or provable
>truth concerning this debate.

Well *clearly* you can't *prove* any of your beliefs.  So why do you believe
them?  Sounds like a pretty good story?  Pascal's Wager?  The nice guys go
to heaven and bad guys go to hell thing?  You were brought up believing this
stuff, so who are you to quibble?  You think you're *special*?  The Earth is
the center of the universe?  It makes you feel all yummy inside?  It makes
you feel benevolent, caring?  What's the scoop?

>> 
>> As for backing myself up, yes, I can.  Can you?  My question to you would 
>be,
>> how do you know what you know?  Seriously.  How do you know what you know?
>> Or what you think you know?  Or what have you decided you know?
>
>Aaahhhhaaa..... now we're getting into philosophy. You're right, this is 
>getting truly off-topic. I could just say that I'm a figment of your 
>imagination, and that you're arguing with yourself. But I won't. (If 
>someone else try that argument on you, just kick him and say it's only his
>imagination. ;) ). 

Nope, guess again.  I don't buy any of that metaphysical melarky.  A kick in
head hurts!

>      Well, I must warn you... I'm studying to be a mathematican, and 
>historically, Great mathematicans have been philosophers.

What??  <My body starts quivering; I start getting the shakes>  Noooooo,
not a mathematician!!  Arrrrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!

Let me get your argument straight.  You're warning me that since you're
STUDYING to be a mathematician, and since great mathematicians HAVE BEEN
philosophers... wait, wait, I don't get it! :)  BTW, I recommend you start
with a good logical positivist like Kurt Godel. <evil grin>

>(To wit. Descartes, the architect of Cartesian system, wrote "Cognito, ergo 
>sum" e.g. "I think therefore I am.")  If you wish to continue this, we should
>resort to e-mail and spare other readers the boredom.

Continue what?  I think therfore I am?  What the hell is that supposed to
mean??  I mean in relation with the above?  Or are you "phrase" dropping! :)

Dennis Baker
<DCBCS@uno.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess