Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 241 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Alderian (2425 D(S))
29 Mar 09 UTC
Retreat phase question
When during the retreat phase, if there is only one country that has a retreat to order, but they have no where to retreat to, why doesn't the game just move on?
8 replies
Open
chese79 (568 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Country Selection Random?
When countries are decided, I am assuming it is random? Just curious as I have or am playing 13 games and haven't been Germany or France yet.
6 replies
Open
sir692 (556 D)
30 Mar 09 UTC
New Game: Woodrow Wilson
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9775
18 hours, 108 points, points per supply center.
Please join, I've tried to start a game like this twice, to no avail.
0 replies
Open
Dunecat (5899 D)
30 Mar 09 UTC
Could a mod please pause this game?
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9767

We're only waiting for Germany to pause, but it seems he's signed off. If you could, that would be great, because it's 1-hour phases.
1 reply
Open
airborne (154 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Live Game?
at 8pm, GMT -5?
4 replies
Open
Bubbles (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
a normal pace game waiting for players and 30 points to enter
game it called woot
0 replies
Open
Shrike (139 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Multi-accounter check on 9468
Could someone do a multi-accounter check on game 9468? Specifically Germany and Russia, and maybe France.
14 replies
Open
Bubbles (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Who wants to play a very fast game of diplomacy
called demolish...please join my game
0 replies
Open
airborne (154 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Trying Again, Live Game?
about 3 hours from now.
15 replies
Open
Bubbles (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
New game witing for seven players
There is a new game moving at a very fast pace if anyone wants to join for 25

it is called Demolish
0 replies
Open
DipperDon (6457 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Viable Three-Center England Needs Replacement.
http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9298#orders
1 reply
Open
Glorious93 (901 D)
20 Mar 09 UTC
Communism - can it ever work?
Discuss.
95 replies
Open
Slifer556 (100 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
What does Support Hold to XX from YY mean ?
I know what to select for "support move to" but what does "from ..." mean ?
8 replies
Open
cteno4 (100 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Face-to-Face Diplomacy
In one of the threads, it said that EdiBirsan might know about places to go for FTF Dip. Is there a directory of this somewhere? Maybe he (or somebody else) happens to know of some in or around Seattle, WA, USA?

Long shot, but worth a try.
3 replies
Open
jasoncollins (186 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Another rules question
What happens if (as in the scenario below) X army attacks a country, and Y army supports X's attack. The attacked country was also supported, so the attack is rebuffed - but X's country also came under attack by a single enemy. X wasn't holding, but rebuffed - does it now count as holding for the purposes of defeating the single army attacking x?
4 replies
Open
jasoncollins (186 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
New game starting soon!
Game starting in 90 minutes, need one more person!

http://www.phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9748
0 replies
Open
jasoncollins (186 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Rules question - attacking/cancelling support
If x army attacks a country, and is supported by y army, but x country also comes under attack, does the attack x is making succeed against a single enemy unit?

Ie if x was supporting and y was attacking, y would lose the support from x - but if x is the one moving to attack, then the support shouldn't be lost?
3 replies
Open
Sicarius (673 D)
20 Mar 09 UTC
To Christians (and all religious people)
what is it that makes you believe
Page 9 of 9
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
americandiplomat (0 DX)
28 Mar 09 UTC
To all Non-believers:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=31&search=1%20Timothy%202:5-6
Thucydides (864 D(B))
28 Mar 09 UTC
@ Dexter

Your points are not ill-concieved, and you are on to something but let me show you how I see things.

In the sense of your green-light scenario, no, I don't apply this view to everyday life. When it comes to bare-bones perception and expectation, I live as everyone else, this is true. The reason is that so far, all I have seen are things I expect (or mostly anyway), and as such, since it is my nature to try to preserve the status quo (whether that's a good idea or not), I try to survive with what I know, how I know. This doesn't make it anymore likely that what appears to be real is real though, all it means is that up till now it has served me well enough.

Also, you implied that total uncertainty about everything would lead to some kind of fear or incapacitation. Not so. What it is, is a humbling of my assumptions, that every time I draw a conclusion from something, that I may be laid low and proved wrong at any time. When it comes to everyday life, you're right, I can't very well go through that thought process every time I take an action, and I don't. Because of some factor in my brain or in my very consiousness, I am not built to have the capability to incoporate that into every last decision. My intelligence does not span that deeply, and it is proof how unnatural/unorthodox the belief is.

However, when arguing, or when attempting to explain to myself mysteries in my own life, whether they be strange phenomena or inexplicable actions by other people, my belief system does cross my mind and plays a large role. I usually draw first a conclusion that is consistent with the real world as I know it and would normally agree with, say, a secular humanist (just because this is the cutlture I live in), but then if it is of great importance to me I will deconstruct it further, imagining some other, "other-worldly" explanations. These forays always end the same way, with me thinking, "Well, I just can't know for sure one way or the other."

As a result, I either end up ignoring the mystery, because I cannot know, or operating as if the secular humanist explanation is true. This is not because I strictly AM a secular humanist, it is because most other I know are, and this is a middle ground that most people can accept for a basis of actions. Granted, none of that may matter, for countless reasons (i.e., no one else exists anyway), but as I said, I intellectually acknowledge the possibility of an infinity of scenarios, but live mostly as though I pretend to know the answer.

The big difference then, between me and this hypothetical secular humanist, is that I do not presume to tell anyone what I KNOW to be true. I never tell them about what science has PROVED. I make no assumptions about what we have discerned from the universe and never assume that what someone teaches me, ideologically, is correct. It makes for a good argumentational standpoint, one that is fresh and can bring new perspectives on old arguments. It also makes for a belief system that inspires not only universal skepticism but universal respect, because, as I said, though my perception (that which I remember anyway), as yet, has told me that secular humanist worldview is most likely correct, this does not actually make it any more or less likely. The reason I say this is because I refuse to assume that just because I percieve something one way, that it is then inherently MORE likely. That is just not true.

As I live my life every day, some unconscious and mundane symptoms do exist from my belief system, though. One such, is that whenever people are arguing endlessly, I realize that neither of them is actually sure they are right. They just adopted a position somewhere along the line, without knowing for sure, and go on arguing. It gives me a perspectve on history and specifically the history of human knowledge. Science and it's early forms seemed to be very fickle in changing their views of the world as soon as new information was discovered. It made me realize, "if every single theory previous to the ones we have now have been proven wrong, what makes me think that the ones we have now are any more right? Don't we have a long way to go in history after I die?" Generally, my beliefs give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "we may never know."

Indeed, the skepticism I mentioned has affected my everyday life in another way, namely that I am no longer a strict Christian because I now know that no one in my church knows what they know for sure, but they claim to, and that is lying. That bothered me so I left. The same thing, however, bothers me about some hard-core scientist types, who say "we KNOW" this and "we KNOW" that. They just don't. And when they just won't admit to that fact, it makes me rather disgusted with the belief they represent.

But, as I mentioned with the whole universal respect doctrine, at the end of the day I do concede to all these people that though they may represent their belief in a way I dislike, it still may be true. I can never know.



So... sorry to go on and on like that, but as you can see I really do believe what I am saying I'm not just playing Devil's advocate. Bottom line is: yes, for simplicity's sake I do assume I know some things, but I never presume, between me and myself, and anyone who will listen, to say that I really truly KNOW it. I just pretend to.
iMurk789 (100 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
@ diplomat, you clearly have never looked into the theory of evolution or biogenesis. and you cant argue FOR christianity with odds. half the stories in the bible we've never seen happen in real life, have no evidence backing them up, and so therefore...the odds say it really IS impossible, not ALMOST impossible. for a number, its 0 in 1. dont come in here and try to argue for christianity with ODDS. im not ruling out christianity and saying its not true, but you cant argue for it with numbers. aethism could be true too.
Sicarius (673 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Actually I've read the bible in its entirerty.
start to finish.
wasnt bad except for all the 'begots'

also the koran, parts of the torah, lots of taoist wrintings including the lao te ching, some confucian stuff, buddist stuff etc.
Dexter.Morgan (135 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
@Thucydides - fair enough. Thank you for the comprehensive response. I do see value in realizing and admitting that we don't know something definitively (though you take it further than I do and apply to the point where it may irritate more than enlighten - but then that might simply be my opinion/perception)... that said, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and I agree that people insisting that they KNOW something or other can certainly be irritating... and get in the way of making a connection.

@americandiplomat - I find bible verses to be utterly unconvincing as evidence. ...as do I also see the plea that I "be on the right side of the fence" (like it's some sort of insurance policy) to be uninspiring. Scientific inquiry often has holes in it... that is, of course, why it is an active field of study... but those holes are constantly being reduced and eliminated and our view improves with time. But ultimately Science is about understanding HOW the world works, not WHY. I do not fault science for not yet understanding the early evolution of the cosmos any more than I fault History for not knowing anything much about human history prior to the written word. Neither lacking is proof of anything. ...all it does is confirm what we already knew - Science (and History) can only base what it knows on actual data. This is not a weakness - it is a strength. What we do think we know in Science we can feel pretty confident in. ...it is well supported.
Sicarius (673 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
"History can only base what it knows on actual data."
That I will have to disagree with you on.
unless its more like this
"History can only loosely base what it knows on propaganda, falsehoods, coloration, and actual data."
Dexter.Morgan (135 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
@Sicarius - fair enough... though History SHOULD be based on actual data (or at least the most reputable written accounts [including discounting accounts for bias])... It is certainly often the case that it is colored by propaganda, etc.... and sometimes even has falsehoods woven into it. Thankfully, often these things are later (or even concurrently) uncovered as historical documents that historians base their research on are generally painstakingly preserved - and are available for second and third looks. It is worth noting as well that the falsehoods and propaganda are often either for the personal aggrandizement of a corrupt individual or single country... and, even at the time of writing, are contradicted by many other sources... so that the seeds to the correction of the falsehood are plentiful. Holocaust denial comes to mind as a good example of revisionist history that is not at all likely to work due to the volume and authority of the data allied against it.
kibbo (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Through all this mumbo jumbo it comes down to BELIEFS in my oppionen. Though diffrent people argue diffrent things about how god is or is not real or how this religion is more correct or the right one. No one in todays society is going to be forced (like in medival and about 200 years after) to believe in this or that religion.
About the history part.... Can we disprove or prove anyhing or everything in the bibble? How do we know the big bang really happened? how do we know what anything is until it happens... this is were faith comes in :]
To have faith in something doesnt mean you need proof. Say for example scientology states that all mammals at one point or another came from sea fearing cretures. And some go far enough to state we evovled from apes? but were is this evidence?
Now must are probally saying YOUR BONE STRUCTURE (TAIL BONE)... But in the bibble od said he formed us in his own image so... how do we know what he looks like? Could he be anything and everything?
Sorry about that just some random thoughts... What makes me believe in God is that to say the human's are the only thing in this huge universe is just plain arrogance. I believe there is a God and he created us... and that heaven were ever it may be exist...
Well to conclude with 1 final random thought :\
How can people believe in hell but not heaven? for it states that if there is no heaven then there is no hell.
Dexter.Morgan (135 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
@kibbo - beliefs... yes... it is hard to prove things.
But... there is strong evidence for evolution - very, very strong. You can always get around such evidence if you are willing to simply say, well God made us that way (and all other life that way... and put fossils in the ground with the appropriate radioactive dating, etc. But then you can believe almost anything if you allow such unlikely trickery as your main premise... [not that you are necessarily]). "Scientology"? The religion of Scientology? I don't get what you are saying here. Do you mean Science? "sea fearing"? perhaps you mean "sea faring"? You might want to type more carefully as it confuses your audience. As to us being the only things in the Universe... it is usually the fundamentalist religious folk who claim that... most scientifically minded people would suggest that there are probably countless billions of races of aliens out there in the cosmos. On the last question - I don't know of anyone who believes in hell but not heaven. Heaven seems pretty unlikely to me... but hell many times more so. One more thing - you suggest that no one these days is forced to believe one thing or another... you forget the slaughters in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sudan where thousands have been killed because of their religion (and ethnic background)... and you forget places like Iran and Saudi Arabia where you can be imprisoned or executed for religious crimes (blasphemy, heresy...).
omarvino (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Hello. I must say that all the chatter about this is very good, even if you all disagree with each other. Personally my faith in the God of the bible wasn't real until I began to seek answers myself, such as you are doing. Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis was a book that helped me process many questions I had. For the most part the world is more complicated than people would like to admit. Not everything is simply black and white...it's more like: good, better, best, and bad, worse, and worst. Now in regards to all the suffering in the world, can anyone really think that it is ok for humans to be treated inhumanly. Surely no! As a believer I understand that everything God created was and still is intended for good. Again, how can I say this? because of free will. Free will is the only way there can be any worth to our existence and honoring of the one who created us. As far as free will goes, you might say "if God knows everything then how can there be free will". The answer is (and there may be other reasons, I surely don't claim to know anything that no one else can understand) a matter of simple reasoning. If there is a God and he created time, then by the very nature of being times creator he exists out of time. Seeing everything, from beginning to end, as now...as the present. This answers other questions like "how can God have time to hear everyone". I do believe in God. Based on what I have come to understand I have faith for what I don't. So yeah...I guess that's a short way of explaining things. There are other matters about God that I have also come to understand, these are just a couple that I find essential...among others. One more thing, I'm tired of people apologizing in apologetics. Theories about this are fruitless, the truth stands alone. Oh, and thanks for your comments about my interest in the military. I appreciate all of them.
omarvino (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Maybe there is intelligent life out there in the universe. I'm not going to say there is or isn't cause we don't really know for sure. It's interesting to think about though. Maybe some other life forms have a greater knowledge about God than we do at the moment. It's all quite possible. The bible addresses this planet and our existence because we have enough to worry ourselves with and work through as the human race, collectively. Whether heaven or hell seems likely to someone is besides the point. I mean really, who are you to refute something that you cannot prove false. Oh, and there's no way Jesus was just a nice guy who preached something positive. He was either who he claimed to be or a complete lunatic. When people are forced to act upon a curtain belief it is most wrong, and also very common in this world. Sadly though, it is a consequence of our sin. The sin I am talking about is pride, when one man believes he can speak for another. That is why people need to step in and act for others who can't very well act for themselves. The world is ruled by violent men, and violent men take it by force. Our aggression needs to be focused on all the wrong in the world. Hunger leading to starvation must come to and end...among other things. People should have the right to make a life for themselves. That is why patriotism is a good but the highest good. If we are only concerned with our own humanity then we will surely lose it.
omarvino (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
sorry...that is why patriotism is a good but "not" the highest good.
Toby Bartels (361 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
>The sin I am talking about is pride, when one man believes he can speak for another. That is why people need to step in and act for others who can't very well act for themselves.

So it's bad to speak for others, but good to act for others? Or is there another missing ‘not’ here?
omarvino (100 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Point taken. I guess what I was trying to say is that we must have the will to act upon and against the opposition of free will. Now in doing so we will have to step in to speak and even to act on behalf of another. It's only a glimpse of what Christ did for us on the cross. Maybe this is sort of what God had in mind with the idea of being his sons and daughters. In becoming like Christ...not Christ...but like him.


254 replies
gunboat?
wat is a gunboat game? is it like a variation of diplomacy? like chaos or sumthin??
1 reply
Open
DNA117 (1535 D)
29 Mar 09 UTC
Question about the division of points
I have heard from several people that you do not get extra points for going over 18 SC's. Is this true?
1 reply
Open
saffordpc (163 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
another game with a random title
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9747
24 hour turns 200 points to join. points per supply center
2 replies
Open
sean (3490 D(B))
26 Mar 09 UTC
Looking for the Best Statistics
Looking for the best statistics
If you beat these statistics please post here- replace the previous holder with your own name(and the number/%) but keep the other stats(and name) that you don't beat. Don't post stats that you don't beat!

53 replies
Open
Spell of Wheels (4896 D)
25 Mar 09 UTC
Public Press 10/24 Game 1
Public Press Game Global Chat
22 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
22 Mar 09 UTC
Where do I go to college?
Forum... help me decide my future
51 replies
Open
Glorious93 (901 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Replacement Turkey needed!
We need a new Turkey in our Central Powers VS Entente game.
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9063
9 replies
Open
Alderian (2425 D(S))
28 Mar 09 UTC
Hello all
Just wanted to introduce myself.
10 replies
Open
americandiplomat (0 DX)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Best Country to play as
I have found that France is the best country to play as, and that England is the worst
7 replies
Open
rlumley (0 DX)
28 Mar 09 UTC
Public Press 25/24!!!
Someone suggested in my last game to make it passworded so that people who don't knwo what Public Press is don't join! Here's the link. The password is "PublicPress".

board.php?gameID=9745&join=on&gamepass=8f3c5b8167f8749b5f29e552e4048e43
0 replies
Open
saffordpc (163 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
not a noob game
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9724
24 hour turns 200 points
1 reply
Open
sir692 (556 D)
28 Mar 09 UTC
New Game: Carthage
http://phpdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=9743

16 hours, 111 points, points per supply center.
0 replies
Open
Page 241 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top