"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

The Historian wrote:

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of
the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in
considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember.

Nor I. Nor the one that emerges from postings in the newsgroup
archives.

We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group.

Mention of St. Bill's conflict(s) of interest remind me of the good old
days of rgcp.

But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

Mr. Klem was a deeply troubled, poisonous man. I hope he has found
peace at last.

Very interesting, Neil. Evidently I didn't know him so well. I played
him a number of times on ICC, and we had some conversations here, but
never did he strike me as "deeply troubled," or "poisonous".

Perhaps Angelo and you knew him better, or you're more perceptive than
I am, or both.


A couple of years ago Tom was among a group of vociferously anti-Goichberg
posters. I was among Bill's defenders. At the time I didn't realize it's a
mistake to defend anyone in this newsgroup. The person you're defending
almost never acknowledges your efforts, and mostly all you're doing is
adding fuel to the fire.

One of the more idiotic arguments at the time, believe it or not, was how
well I knew Bill Goichberg. Whenever I defended Bill I was accused, by a
several posters who had never met me, and didn't know a thing about me, of
being in cahoots with him.

Since high school I have seen Goichberg exactly twice: Once at Foxwods in
the late 1990s, and two years ago at the USATE (where, by the way, he
thanked me for defending him in this newsgroup!). I spoke to Bill on the
phone one other time, I think, during my brief and utterly uneventful tenure
on the USCF membership committee, and he has emailed me a couple of times. I
stated this several times but the "kill Bill" crowd would have none of it.
At one point I made an offhand, obviously facetious remark to Tom about
murdering him and he threatened to sue me for something. That was the
beginning of my first hiatus from this newsgroup. By the time I'd returned
Tom was posting as a "woman."

My impression of Klem, overall, was close to Neil's characterization, but I
must say towards the end we were cordial.

BTW, my only contact with Tom was in this newsgroup.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.

That is what I suspected. It's consistent with an earlier theological
argument with which the two of us were involved, too.

At times in my life, I have considered myself to be a religious person.
As a result, I am sympathetic to the belief in God. On the other
hand, I like to consider myself intellectually honest as well. That
tends to make me impatient with the intellectual sleight of hand that
apologists favor.

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from. Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute. While
it's certainly true that we know nothing of the being we have come to call
God, at some point his existence becomes necessary to bridge the gap between
nothing and something. I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

a great deal of interest about Tom Klem

Thanks for taking the trouble to post this, Angelo. I am becoming
somewhat less ignorant about Tom, I think.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.

That is what I suspected. It's consistent with an earlier theological
argument with which the two of us were involved, too.

At times in my life, I have considered myself to be a religious person.
As a result, I am sympathetic to the belief in God. On the other
hand, I like to consider myself intellectually honest as well. That
tends to make me impatient with the intellectual sleight of hand that
apologists favor.

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from.

This is a valid point. A rather large part of the problem is that it is
very nearly impossible for any scientist to secure funding for research
into *any* theory to rival the "Big Bang".

Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not an astrophysicist. Do you
expect Vladimir Kramnik to be a world-class hockey player?

While
it's certainly true that we know nothing of the being we have come to call
God, at some point his existence becomes necessary to bridge the gap between
nothing and something.

No, that's a non-sequitur. It doesn't become necessary. What happens is
that a point is reached beyond which there is no *rational*
explanation.

I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

Science most certainly *doesn't* do that. Rather, it provokes
*investigation* with the intention of making us less ignorant.

To this end, maybe you should read the book: "Intelligent Thought",
edited by John Brockman...(I take the liberty of assuming, from what
you have written above, that you have not yet done this).

http://tinyurl.com/y77dlj

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.

That is what I suspected. It's consistent with an earlier theological
argument with which the two of us were involved, too.

At times in my life, I have considered myself to be a religious person.
As a result, I am sympathetic to the belief in God. On the other
hand, I like to consider myself intellectually honest as well. That
tends to make me impatient with the intellectual sleight of hand that
apologists favor.

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from. Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute. While
it's certainly true that we know nothing of the being we have come to call
God, at some point his existence becomes necessary to bridge the gap between
nothing and something. I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Vince Hart wrote:

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.

That is what I suspected. It's consistent with an earlier theological
argument with which the two of us were involved, too.

At times in my life, I have considered myself to be a religious person.
As a result, I am sympathetic to the belief in God. On the other
hand, I like to consider myself intellectually honest as well. That
tends to make me impatient with the intellectual sleight of hand that
apologists favor.

My problem with Dawkins is his militancy. Science has not begun to scratch
the surface of the origins of things. To say everything started with the big
bang is simply to beg the question of where all this stuff, or that
primordial speck of big-bang matter, originated from. Dawkins can't answer
that question any better than could the hairiest prehistoric brute. While
it's certainly true that we know nothing of the being we have come to call
God, at some point his existence becomes necessary to bridge the gap between
nothing and something. I can poke fun at religions as well as the next guy.
Saints flying through the air, prophets and miracles, resurrections and
transubstantiation are fair game. Science can prove that people can't fly or
rise from the dead. But it can't explain where everything came from, and
gains nothing by labeling as an idiot everyone who suspects there might be
an intelligent origin, or originator.

I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer.

Oh, I rather think that although he may not consider these people to be
idiots, he may consider them to be, at best, deluded. He has argued
vociferously to that effect.

I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.


Same response. Not idiotic. Deluded.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Absolutely correct. Perhaps you have read the book "Intelligent
Thought", which I recommended to Angelo. If not, I recommend it to you,
too.

Vince Hart wrote:
I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Talking about idiots, here's one idiot who said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

Here's another idiot who said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who
set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is
or can be done." --Sir Isaac Newton

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:


I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer.

Oh, I rather think that although he may not consider these people to be
idiots, he may consider them to be, at best, deluded. He has argued
vociferously to that effect.

I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.


Same response. Not idiotic. Deluded.


My response would not be the same in both cases.

I do not think that the idea of a first cause is delusional although I
do not think that it rises to the level of "proof" of God's existence.


On the other hand, I have a huge problem with the idea that everything
in a magic book should be accepted as fact to the same degree as
knowledge derived by application of the scientific method. For many
such believers, I think delusion is the proper description. For
others, I think profound intellectual dishonesty is the culprit.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Talking about idiots, here's one idiot who said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

Here's another idiot who said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who
set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is
or can be done." --Sir Isaac Newton

Why would you label either of these men idiots?

I received an e-mail from John Donaldson (which he sent to many
players) regarding thoughts on the US Championship. Then I see my reply
was posted here by Sam Sloan without my permission.

I do not know why a response to an e-mail I was sent by someone is
being posted here on this forum. I did not post this here, and I would
ask anything I wrote in private e-mails regarding my opinions on the US
Championship be deleted by the moderator unless I specifically post
them here.

I have no interest in sponsoring or organizing any US Championship, and
never said I was. This makes it seem like I posted something here or
wanted it posted here, when I was simply responding to an e-mail sent
to me by John Donaldson.

Ben Finegold