(Especially when considering despite popular claim the Bible never actually dismissed the OT).

You keep claiming this (That the law of Moses is still in effect) despite being proven wrong over and over and over again. Read Acts chapter 15 and stop parroting this nonsemse.

So Boerd said
You keep claiming this (That the law of Moses is still in effect) despite being proven wrong over and over and over again. Read Acts chapter 15 and stop parroting this nonsemse.

The Law of Moses is not the entire Old Testament. The Law of Moses wasn't even around during Genesis. In fact, Abraham didn't know what you were talking about if you mentioned The Law of Moses.

This is pertinent, because of the Word of God has both the correct emphasis on permanent cosmic laws that have always existed, cosmic laws that exist in the future, and civil laws that are just meant for a certain time and place. The Law of Moses and certain OT laws are important because they are cosmic, universal truths. Some of them, aren't cosmic, universal, and forever lasting.

Jesus, well he fulfilled the ones that are Eternal and the Laws that are just Temporal.

So what is the difference between a cosmic rule and a not cosmic one? Can you list examples of both? Do cosmic rules have exceptions? If so, where are they listed? Does the Bible itself make the distinction clear, or is this pure interpretation?

Imperfectionist said You do not need to see "Religion", the monolith, as an inherently negative force, as you seem to. You, as a rational person can look at the words of Muhammad, who said to give to the poor, and Buddha, who preached kindness to all, and Jesus, who said to treat your enemy as your friend, and say "Though I do not believe in your divinity, I highly admire these just sentiments." That doesn't make you a bad atheist, and it definitely doesn't make you a bad person.

I'm not arguing that it is an inherently negative force, it is a tool that can be used for good or evil.
It's the idea the idea that you need Religion for things such as learning, spirituality or morals I am arguing. There are other ways of obtaining it, to claim you do need Religion for them would be to suggest that atheism is an inherently negative force because it cuts people off from learning, spirituality or morals.

Imperfectionist said You can, through rational thought, discern the just from the unjust, and attempt to explain your conclusions to others, without making them defensive or insulting their beliefs.

Which I have. The issue though is that Religion is often seen as a personal/sensitive topic, one that people are strongly encourage to avoid talking or debating about. It's a thing people choose to keep very close to them and allow themselves to get easily offended when questioned. So it is pretty difficult if not impossible to expect me to be able to explain my conclusion without seeming insulting to people's beliefs, if what I am arguing does not agree with said beliefs.

Imperfectionist said Just because a moral code has its base in a tradition of faith, that does not mean it is inherently bad. That's what I think you aren't getting. :(

It's not.

I think it's a poor way to decide on something, and if you expect to hold up to logic and reason needs to be re-evaluated by another means. But simply being born out of faith does not make the proposed idea inherently bad or evil. But that wasn't even what I was getting at earlier.

What I was getting as is all of the good morals we do have did originally start from things other than Religion. Religion may of done a good thing in repeating them, but it did not start/create them. That is not an attack, that is not claiming anything spawned from Religion is inherently bad. It is simply stating and giving enough credit to the human species that we are able to develop our own basic morals without a Religion making them for us. Brovo basically stated this too, so I'm surprised he's now turning around and calling this an Inquisitor style attack on Religion.

Imperfectionist said EDIT: Just to say this, the grandfather that I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the one with the Doctorate of Theology who assists people in their lives through secular means... He does nothing question. There are thousands of religious scholars throughout history and today who do nothing but question, and have stronger faith because of it.

I was aware of this, any Christian I have ever talked to who wasn't So Boerd admits that everyone must ask questions constantly and that it's part of growing. But by extension, if God is to exist everything is God's work and plan. So to question any of it is questioning God's work. It's doesn't have to mean disbelief in a god, it doesn't have to mean being unfaithful, but it is still questioning the work of God which is what I was trying to get at. In the same sense you question your parents when you ask them something like "Why do you put the cookies so high up?". You are not disrespecting or being un-loyal to your parents, but you are questioning them.

The issue though is in Religious communities there are certain questions that is frowned upon much of the time, you may get a lot of religious scholars willing to ask those questions anyways such as "Is there no God?", "Is being Gay really wrong?". But you will get many people who for asking such questions may be banished from their church, kicked out by their overly religious parents etc. And as much questioning as may be allowed depending on the branch or individual, if certain questions get asked, or certain conclusions are made they do not adapt but divide. And the damage that can be caused from society constantly dividing itself up over certain disagreements, some who question, others who treat it as hard-coded can be ginormous.

Imperfectionist said EDIT 3: Last one, a question: what is your goal, Gwazi? What do you truly want to change by arguing this?

This is what often throws people off when they debate with me, since most people go into a debate hoping to persuade everyone of their point and then leave.

I'm not like that, I go into a debate to learn the different sides/viewpoints of a topic and learn from it. That being said, I am not so gullible or easily swayed to simply accept and believe anything someone tells me when they disagree. I look at their argument, I evaluate it, I look for it's pro's and con's, I weigh it out and then decide if the argument stands and holds up to it's criticism. If it does, I'll reflect on it some more and then adapt it into further stances and opinions.

If I hadn't done this I'd still be a Christian Feminist, Homophobic, Pro-Life, Anti-Weed & Vaccine hater. When instead I'm a Atheist Humanist, Straight Ally, Pro-Choice, Pro-Legalization (But still don't smoke for preference of remaining sober), Vaccine supporter.

So in other words, I'm not truly trying to change anything specifically. I'm trying to get minds working, idea's following and conclusions being made that hopefully benefit all parties involved. But I still do so under the arguments of my certain standpoint or viewpoint, there's not much learning going on if I'm simply being told stuff and it's not being compared to my own viewpoints. There's barely any growth if what I'm being told never has the chance to face off against it, nor is there any growth if I keep my current standpoint absent and unquestioned/challenged.

It just so happens, Religion has been the only topic I've found where the vast majority of argument's I've seen/faced have not gone beyond "Do not question God", "Read the Bible", "Just have faith" or "You're Immoral". The first simply being not questioning something, which is not the way to learn. The second failing to prove why the Bible itself is something to be treated as a valid source, the third meaning faith as in without proof or evidence. And I'm not going to accept an argument or claim without proof or evidence to support it, and the latter simply being an insult at the individual and contributing nothing to the debate at hand.

Brovo said Gwazi's goal is the same as that of any inquisitor: To prove his own belief by somehow disproving someone else's belief. It's one thing to occasionally banter about philosophy. It's another to try so hard to validate your own beliefs that you open with one of the most frustrating and classic double logical fallacies of all time: A loaded question that also presume's the opponent's answer.I said it once Gwazi. Gonna say it again. Stop being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't help your case. At all.

Brovo, you of all people should know better than to confuse questioning/debating Religion as an attempt to prove one's own belief.

And I don't even see what the double edged question here was.

Here I mentioned Atheism 2, which as described at the man presenting as atheism but using of the perks/benefits of Religion, and then asked for people's thoughts.
I then did proceed with my own opinion, but it was not part of the question being asked.

Imperfectionist said I don't think he's being dishonest at all, and that's what I want to get at. I believe there is some entirely legitimate reason for him to fervently argue like this, and I don't know what it is. I feel like, if I don't understand him as a person, I cannot understand the context of his arguments... Thus, the question.I would greatly appreciate a thesis statement, if you will, that puts things into your perspective, Gwazi. And then, I will see what I think, and respond in kind.

I've already explained why I argue points and get into debates.

But to tackle why I argue this specific topic in the way I do, well like I also said above I still enter it under a certain point/viewpoint. And in the case of Religion my finding's have led to in a nutshell be largely similar to how Richard Dawkins see's it. It is something that primarily thrives on obedience to parent's and teaching people to not question the existence of God. It is also something that countless people can testify to being the kind of thing that destroy's families and relationships when religion and belief's begin to differ. This is a complex topic however, and it is impossible for me to describe it in something as short as a thesis without it being misunderstood.

But to keep it as short as possible from here on, although Religion is something that can inspire good and help people in their lives with a sense of purpose, meaning and spirituality. It also comes with a number of flaws. First that it start's with a claim "God exists, this is what he says", treat's it as fact and then sets out to prove it. Rather than going "This is the evidence, what can we make out of this?". Secondly when evidence is brought up it is constantly dismissed with claims such as "It's Gods Plan" or "It's a test" (Also, children are constantly told they suffer forever for not believing or worshiping, I think we can all agree that this isn't moral). Thirdly Religion is largely built in a way that the benefit's is provided requires the Religion, so if the former two points make you question enough either stop believing or be cast out of your church it can cause you to lose it all. Fourth, it does this when as I detailed in length in the OP Religion is not by any sense the only means of getting such things, where instead of trying to make source of say happiness or spirituality in the individual it becomes dependent on their beliefs. And on top it will constantly make the claim that Religion is the only way, which is an outright lie. 5. It is not all good and happy teachings, it also support's stuff like homophobia, banning certain foods, stoning of certain people, putting women 'in their place' etc. I once had a grandparent try to disown a grandchild because she was not conceived in marriage, basically punishing her for something that was by no means her fault.

I could try to go a bit more, but you wanted a Thesis, and that's about as close as I can try to put it without it being twisted by somebody, that with the clarification/reminder of that I agree there is some good from Religion. But it is not all good, there is a lot of bad, bad which in my mind cannot be ignored. Especially when the good can be gained from other sources, without the bad slipping in, which in a sense is what the guy stating Atheism 2 was trying to say. But he made the mistake of acting like getting these things was borrowing from Religion, and not say simply from another source as if only Religion truly could provide it, but Atheism 2 cheated a bit in taking some of it.

So Boerd said You keep claiming this (That the law of Moses is still in effect) despite being proven wrong over and over and over again. Read Acts chapter 15 and stop parroting this nonsemse.

And whenever I did claim this with you I also showed you where I was referring to, and showed why what you reference doesn't work. This is a finished argument that your source didn't hold up in. You're free to keep disagreeing however, that's your choice.

" If any Religious person is reading this, please answer this question: If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people? If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being."

Double logical fallacy right there. Using an extreme example then presuming your opponent's answer, answering in advance, and proclaiming victory before any discussion could even occur.

This is as bad as asking an atheist if they would go raping people if the law suddenly allowed it tomorrow, then using evidence of that to prove that laws against rape are unnecessary and declaring victory. It's a broken question in two painfully obvious aspecs, Gwazi.

:( I really, completely and utterly hate those emotes ( this one and this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...

EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

---

Ahem. On to Gwazi. Thank you for that post, Gwazi, it is well thought-out and does exactly what I hoped it would, by giving me a bit of insight into your past and your perceptions. Based on that, what I think we have is the oldest form of logical dissonace: separate assumptions, based on alternate and entirely legitimate experience.

Your post there, especially your thesis, is the post of someone who has been burned by his faith... And nothing I can say can argue against that. You are ashamed of how you once were, and you're trying your damnest to make up for it now...

"[Religion] is a tool (emphasis mine) that can be used for good or evil."

"Religion is often seen as a personal/sensitive topic, one that people are strongly encouraged to avoid talking or debating about."

"So it is pretty difficult if not impossible to expect me to be able to explain my conclusion without seeming insulting to people's beliefs, if what I am arguing does not agree with said beliefs."

"It is simply stating and giving enough credit to the human species that we are able to develop our own basic morals without a Religion making them for us."

"any Christian I have ever talked to who wasn't So Boerd admits (emphasis mine) that everyone must ask questions constantly and that it's part of growing."

"Religion has been the only topic I've found where the vast majority of argument's I've seen/faced have not gone beyond "Do not question God", "Read the Bible", "Just have faith" or "You're Immoral". The first simply being not questioning something, which is not the way to learn. The second failing to prove why the Bible itself is something to be treated as a valid source, the third meaning faith as in without proof or evidence. And I'm not going to accept an argument or claim without proof or evidence to support it, and the latter simply being an insult at the individual and contributing nothing to the debate at hand."

"It is something that primarily thrives on obedience to parent's and teaching people to not question the existence of God. It is also something that countless people can testify to being the kind of thing that destroy's families and relationships when religion and belief's begin to differ."

And then, the two paragraphs that begin with "But to keep it as short as possible from here on, although Religion is something that can inspire good and help people in their lives with a sense of purpose, meaning and spirituality, it also comes with a number of flaws." and end with "But he made the mistake of acting like getting these things was borrowing from Religion, and not say simply from another source as if only Religion truly could provide it, but Atheism 2 cheated a bit in taking some of it."

These choice quotes, in complete honesty, paint a picture of someone who is bitter about his past, and is applying his bitterness to this argument as a form of pathos. I can replace every instance of the word "religion" in that post with the phrase "the Christianity I grew up with"... And, like I said, there's no way to argue with that. You're talking from experience, and it's not as if I can say "you can't use your past experience as part of an argument!" That's ridiculous. All I can say is that you are closing yourself off from some of the most beautiful and insightful experiences a person could ever have by painting your negative childhood experience with Christianity as representative of all religions everywhere and throughout history ("the monolith"), and summarily rejecting faith as a legitimate aspect of humanity (ala Dawkins, who I think is simply a very sad person).

Growing up a not-quite-usual person in the Southeastern United States, I have had my own bad experiences with Christianity (and I do not call myself a Christian), but I do not argue against religion, as you have seen in this thread. I argue for universal morality, something I believe that, given time, all people can embrace. "Please see how your thoughts and actions are harming others" vs. "Faith in supernatural beings is a long-standing delusion of the human race, and divorcing ourselves from it would be a positive step in the right direction."

I might not have understood you or your arguments correctly (in fact, I'm quite sure I didn't), but that is the impression they leave on me

Here's a short couple of PMs from Brovo and myself. His first comment is about what I said at the top of my last post.

Brovo said

Ah, ad hominem based on personal preferences. Stay classy.

In all seriousness though, I figure I should give some background: I've repeatedly told Gwazi in the past not to fire these types of loaded questions, because they only lead to offense and flame wars, and because they go nowhere. I also know, in detail, his history with religion. This is purely personal, it has nothing to do with philosophy or logic. This is a forum about , the occasional discussion about religion is fine, hell even talk about it or inquire about it or set up an equalized debate or so on, but one does not start an equalized debate by asking the opposing side if they would all be flagrant rapists if what they believed wasn't true.

I mean really. Could you imagine someone walking up to you and starting off by saying "as a Christian I believe that unless you secretly believe in God, you must be a flagrant pedophile rapist." Would you construe that as any sort of start to a civil debate?... Of course not. Gwazi isn't here to debate, Gwazi is here to reinforce his own sense of belief by attempting to tear down the beliefs of others and start fights, and it comes from his past with religion. This happens to a lot of people who leave religion initially and some don't get past this stage: The sense of belonging and sense of purpose one has with religion is lost without it for a while, kind of like... Jumping off a ship into the sea. You eventually swim to an island, but while you're in the sea, it's a very depressing place.

You don't create civility through attacks on personal beliefs. Most importantly: Thunderf00t's targets, or Richard Dawkin's targets tend to be the types of people that are either extremist zealots and/or openly damaging society with their beliefs. Gwazi is targeting anyone who happens to believe in God, absolutely without any discrimination between those who simply believe and go about their daily lives as decent people who don't proselytize others, and the extremists he ran away from.

Essentially speaking: He became the very thing he hates so very much, a fundamentalist. And he's so blind with that hate that he starts fights and asks such insanely loaded questions that could only be construed as offensive by anyone on the opposing side just to fuel his own reasoning: There must be loads of Christians on RPG with crazy loony toons beliefs! Look, they're all angry at his totally credible claim about rape! (Even though, I might add, half of his opening statement was .)

There. Clarified a bit? I'm rough with him because it's the only way to get it through his skull: That being intellectually dishonest and asking a ridiculous question which you then answer for the opposition, and declaring victory, ... That's just... Yeah. Straight up dishonest to try and "win." That's not right. As an atheist he shouldn't be doing that kind of thing if he seriously hopes to seek out a life led by reasonable skepticism and not boogeymen.

Imperfectionist said
I got all of this already from the "thesis" I asked for (and he provided graciously), and said as much in my reply to it. I am sad for Gwazi, because he has obviously never been part of a truly supportive, moral and loving community, and his childhood was obviously filled with negativity and self-doubt. That sucks, and I have been in a very similar position, so I have at least a small taste of where his mind is at this point in his life.

My response to his flawed question was not "lolz Gwazi uses double logical fallacies to prove his points! What a dumbass ", which is the only way my flawed perception can take the comment that you made.

It was "here's a better way to think about the point I believe in his heart Gwazi wants to make." Being smug and making already pigheaded people more stubborn and more defensive... :( Doesn't help anything. And I said as much.

EDIT: May I post this in the thread? A clarification would be useful for anyone reading.

Brovo said
Except he doesn't learn. I've tried. He added me on Steam and we talked, I tried to help him and teach him and be gentle, and he learned absolutely nothing. You can't teach people who don't want to learn, and it's blatantly obvious when he starts with loaded questions like that. He doesn't want to. Not from you, or me.

Also, I didn't call him a dumbass, he tried to state that his point was not a logical fallacy nor intellectually dishonest so I bluntly pointed it out to him. If you interpreted the smileys as being smug and mean, I apologize, that was not their intended meaning, I usually use smileys to indicate a light of heart emotional state. If I make a dreadfully serious point (like I am now) I state it as such.

... But with Gwazi, I already know he's... Not going to bother to learn, because he hasn't for the past two years, so...

EDIT

Go ahead, but in advance if that stuff gets reported, I'm not going to be held liable for it. :p

Imperfectionist said :( I really, completely and utterly those emotes ( this one and this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

Because remember: Having a personal problem with the appearance of the smileys, excuses then calling me an asshole.

Try again. I'm not being hostile, I'm being blunt. I'm telling him straight up what he's doing wrong because he's attempting to do the exact same thing towards the "religious" (which is pretty broad: There are religions without any deities in which this question doesn't function whatsoever and religions where people do not believe their sense of morality is derived from a deity.)

Now I'm not sure why you chose to ask for this thread to be reopened when the opening question is literally provoking fights, but I don't think that pointing out to people how smug I appear to be whilst in the same breath calling me an asshole... Is helping your case.

Yeah, that wasn't very open and loving of me, and I apologize for calling you an asshole. You explained your impetus, and it makes a lot of sense... Sorry.

I re-opened the thread because I was having an interesting conversation and people were making interesting points, and without warning nor stated reason it was closed and deleted. I posted a polite thread asking why that was, and Mahz was a dear and re-opened it.

Imperfectionist said
Yeah, that wasn't very open and loving of me, and I apologize for calling you an asshole. You explained your impetus, and it makes a lot of sense... Yeah. Sorry.I re-opened the thread because I was having an interesting conversation and people were making interesting points, and without warning nor stated reason it was closed and deleted. I posted a polite thread asking why that was, and Mahz was a dear and re-opened it.

Ahh, that explains it.

And no worries. Misunderstandings on both sides, tone is often lost through text, shit happens, shit happens.



Still. Nothing else need be said from me for now, I think. Back to the skeptical cave.

:P Can I be Aziz? But yes, I think I'm done as well, now that we've cleared that up.

If someone asks me a question here, be warned that I'll be out of town without Internet for the next few days. I'm not intentionally ignoring you.

Imperfectionist said
:( I really, completely and utterly those emotes ( this one and this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

Are you just meeting Brovo for the first time?

mdk said
Are you just meeting Brovo for the first time?

Aww, I knew you still loved me.

Brovo said
Aww, I knew you still loved me.

You responded to my post without a quote. . . that's why I only posted just now.

Okay, so the problem is that "Cosmic Rules" these are moral things. For one thing, God is the Law-Giver, he is perfect in both logic and in empathy and love. . . such a Law Giver is perfect. A Cosmic Law is something like Jesus'es need for self-sacrifice on the Cross for us to get to Heaven, or that sin has to be punished, that sort of thing.

Israel had to do things which were both eternal and temporal, but to do them, even if they were temporary, was moral, and not to do them was immoral. Israel still has the Eternal Law of God's promise on it, that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse them.

Brovo said "If any Religious person is reading this, please answer this question: If you found out your God didn't exist, would you now go out raping and murdering people? If not then you just proved that you don't need Religion to be a moral human being." Double logical fallacy right there. Using an extreme example then presuming your opponent's answer, answering in advance, and proclaiming victory before any discussion could even occur. This is as bad as asking an atheist if they would go raping people if the law suddenly allowed it tomorrow, then using evidence of that to prove that laws against rape are unnecessary and declaring victory. It's a broken question in two painfully obvious aspects, Gwazi.

Noted, I'll admit to this being a bad habit of mine that needs to be broken.

Imperfectionist said :( I really, completely and utterly those emotes ( this one and this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...

EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

You don't need to worry on my account. :P
I'm more than used to Brovo acting that way, and honestly I prefer it that way. It gives me a closer insight to his actual opinion and thoughts than I would get otherwise. I say closer since after having read those PM's you and Brovo exchanged it became apparent Brovo was not being 100% honest/straightforward with me.

Besides, I'm big on the idea of people need to develop thicker skin and learn to handle criticism and disagreement's better rather than take offense. It allows for not only debates like this to become more common, but it also allows though who simply aren't as good with words to state their point without being dismissed as assholes. Lastly it also simply teaches people to be tougher in general and helps avoid a culture where we simply censor things or shelter people, resulting in undiscussed topics and more people who simply cannot handle honesty.

Imperfectionist said I might not have understood you or your arguments correctly (in fact, I'm quite sure I didn't), but that is the impression they leave on me

Note: This is also encompassing the stuff stated over the posted PM's.

There was a decent enough stated, with both of you that was both right and wrong.

I think you hit a nail on the head I had in fact missed myself, the whole being bitter about how I used to act religiously and am now in a sense expressing it out. This is something I did stop to reflect on and it rung true when I did think about it. However, I don't necessarily see it as a problem. Most people who passionately argue or disagree with something due so for a reason, a reason that has either effected them personally or was an injustice they saw and observed.

To clarify a miss-statement, I do not see or treat all Religious people the same like Brovo has claimed. I've told him several times that it is the structure/system of Religion and how it effects people I have issues with. Not the individuals within in. I know many good and amazing people who are religious, but none of them by any means need their Religion to be good people.

Also there was a misunderstanding on my childhood in that it was a generally unpleasant one. Now I can't blame this conclusion since the only reference I made to my family in this thread was a negative moment, but my childhood was not a terrible one (granted not the best either), but none of it's issues were caused by Religion. Which I will explain in a bit.

Now my childhood was happy, but not perfect to clarify. I grew up with Autism so bullying in school was common, and for many hours after school I was in therapy. Therapy that often amounted to the therapists getting mad at me, then me coming on to argue with my Mom basically every day while my Dad was almost always at work. As a result, I have not grown close to my family, I grew very separate from them and learned to gain happiness and reliance on friends instead. So whenever someone claims "I love my family! Me and my parents are really close!" you'll probably get a very alien look from me. However, none of this was the result of Religion. My parents were religious, but casual Christians.

My whole deal and exploration with Religion started when I was 14, when my Grandparent (The one mentioned earlier who tried to disown his granddaughter) died, who was a very strong Catholic. Now I got along with him fine to clarify, I still miss him to this day. However, his death got me thinking. The most religious person I know was dead, and this was also the first time I lost a family member. It got me seriously reflecting on the afterlife an what's awaiting me. So I made the choice on my own to study my own Religion, because my Mom's answers of "Just Ignore the Bible and just listen to the Ten Commandments" wasn't cutting it for me. The Bible was meant to be Christianity, how could I possibly be a Christian by ignoring it?

So I jumped right into it, and this lasted for 2-3 years. It mainly consisted of planting myself in an online Christian community to learn more about Christianity, and although I was raised a casual christian I was still raised Christian and that God was fact. So I was quickly swepped away and fell for a number of things I'm ashamed of. Mainly the utter disregard I gave to science, and how I treated the LGBT community during that time. Now, if it was just this group I could of easily left and simply dismiss it as a bad bunch. But it was something I was noticing out of almost every religious person (except for one Pagan friend I made) I ran into.

During these 2-3 years I was also exposed to the arguments of a number of atheists, and eventually they got through to me and I started to call myself an Agnostic. Then during this time I got learning more about science, and the other side of Religion. The receiving side, people who had to deal with rough religious upbringings, were discriminated against for not being Religious etc.

Overtime as my knowledge on Religion and Science grew I started identifying as an atheist instead and eventually after having seen enough of the negative's of Religion I looked back at my own family. My finding's were that there was not really much influence religion did hold in their lives, but what influence it was wasn't good. It was purely blind faith without proof, and it wasn't actually contributing or adding anything of value.

So I do agree that not all religious people are bad, not everyone who is religious will be crazy hateful extremists. But it is a system where when I went into it did not show by benefit, only methods to cut off one's standard of proof, and in more extreme families destroyed families, relationships, and was making big moves against scientific advancement and the LGBT community. So I have not found anything good or positive in the system of Religion, but that doesn't mean I hate everyone who is religious.

->I will also note though, I have a huge desire for knowing the truth even if it's hurts. I believe truth and honesty always is preferable to lies and dishonesty, no matter the circumstance. And when I look at Religion through a scientific stance it also irks me to see so many people except something that uses so many logical fallacies to support itself because there is no actual proof or evidence to support it. This does play a decent role in my position, but if not for the other reasons listed above I'd probably be fine with Religion as long as it wasn't getting the way of how our next generation get taught in school.

----More aimed at Brovo, but it was stated to you so you might as well read as well----

I noticed a repeated criticism that I am simply unwilling to learn. I've already explained this though, I am open to learn and being proven wrong. But there has not been anything shown to convince me that Religion can be a force for good. At least not in a way that isn't easily replicated by another method. You've seen constant proof of me absorbing new info on this Guild and change a stance as a result. Hell my transition from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice was largely due to the debate me and Jorick had on the topic.

But in regards to Religion I just haven't seen compelling reason or proof to change my stance, in the same sense you are not changing your stance because you have not received the same from me. That is not unwillingness to learn, that is skepticism and having certain standards before changing your stance on a topic.

What good has come to you of atheism that can't be replicated by other means?

And when I look at Religion through a scientific stance it also irks me to see so many people except something that uses so many logical fallacies to support itself because there is no actual proof or evidence to support it.

There isn't any proof to support anything. See: Munchausen Trilemma. The only question is, what axioms we choose to accept so we can draw truth from observation. I choose to accept that our senses can be trusted unless there is reason to doubt them. Ergo, having physically percieved God, I, for myself, accept Him.

The bible very accurately predicts how Christians will be treated on the internet.

ActRaiserTheReturned said You responded to my post without a quote. . . that's why I only posted just now. Okay, so the problem is that "Cosmic Rules" these are moral things. For one thing, God is the Law-Giver, he is perfect in both logic and in empathy and love. . . such a Law Giver is perfect. A Cosmic Law is something like Jesus'es need for self-sacrifice on the Cross for us to get to Heaven, or that sin has to be punished, that sort of thing. Israel had to do things which were both eternal and temporal, but to do them, even if they were temporary, was moral, and not to do them was immoral. Israel still has the Eternal Law of God's promise on it, that God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse them.

Okay, so Cosmic laws are moral things. God perfect because he's perfect... This extends to the state of Israel...

... But this still doesn't really clarify it. What defines a cosmic law and what does not define a cosmic law? There are many, many laws in the Bible, so how can you easily tell them apart?

So Boerd said What good has come to you of atheism that can't be replicated by other means?

To be honest if I was Christian it probably wouldn't be a good thing, I don't really have the err... Luxury of being able to believe in something quite so fantastical and remain a stable person. Atheism is a natural end point to logical skepticism: If I can't prove it's physically real, I cannot believe in it. This has been more helpful for keeping me sane and stable than anything else in my life really.

Perhaps it is not the insanity that can cause belief, but the exposure that can cause insanity.

@Gwazi: At work so can't make a long post, but if you seriously think an extreme hatred of all religion indiscriminately isn't blatantly unhealthy... Then you really are beyond learning anything. Hatred breeds nothing but more hatred. Nobody wins, and everyone suffers until they are utterly consumed by it. It also overpowers rational thought.

Also, apparently my being extremely blunt with you presuming you would be mature enough to take it was a bit unfounded when you then state, boldly, that I lied to you... Somehow.

Tydosius said
Perhaps it is not the insanity that can cause belief, but the exposure that can cause insanity.

I find that willingly allowing myself to believe incredulous claims harms my perception of what is real and what is not. Ergo why I initially reacted harshly towards Wayne in the mental thread (which I have apologized to him for), and why I can't be Christian. Look at Manson. Dude was nuts. Dude thought he was Jesus. Dude did baaaad shit.