[quote=Brovo]If by financially you mean you haven't moved out yet and pay your own bills, then trust me when I say you haven't hit that level yet.[/quote]

Yes this is what I meant.

[quote=Brovo]One thing, from several months ago... Congratulations?... I was also specifically talking about religion... Something you apparently missed. No worries though.[/quote]

I brought up Joricks example because that was something that happened on the Guild that you would of been around to see. Most of my other changes/revelations took place in other places that you would not of been there to see. Also that was a big total stance altering change. I may get small update's and alterations to positions constantly due to new information, but it would be a bit redundant to list all of them because it's more an informational update than a change of stance. Also there's only so many serious topics to have stances on: Abortion, Drug Legalization, Religion, LGBT Rights, Gender Equality, Education etc. And those are honestly the main 6 I simply have the most knowledge & interest then. And if my overall stance/position on those changed so enough it occurred more than once every few months, then I'd be a pretty big floater then wouldn't I? :P

Besides, I realize you were talking specifically about Religion. But I felt the need to highlight that I have on several occasions absorbed new information to the point I would totally change my stance on the issue. It's just that Religion wasn't giving the same level arguments that the other topics were which is why no change was being observed here.

[quote=Brovo]Thunderf00t and Richard Dawkins target people that are to society and/or those who openly attempt to slow scientific progress in the name of their religion to a cult-level fanaticism. Bill Nye only fights creationism in the classroom--not all religions on the planet, and specifically made the point of stating that any adult can . Neil deGrasse Tyson has nearly always focused on science to the exclusion of faith, because like Bill Nye, he only fights it when it crosses into his territory: Science.[/quote]

Before I go into details with specific people, I will make a single argument that does apply for all the examples. They all do at least criticize faith/the idea of believing something without proof or evidence to be flawed and illogical.

Thunderf00t I can grant other than the point made above does mainly target the extremist, and in further reflection the same would also apply to Bill Nye & Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Richard Dawkins does argue Religion in general. Arguing the very system of it should be questioned and that it spreads like a virus, and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1DL7cIdjk]he does specifically argue even moderate/casual religious people and the idea of just respect or passing someone's blind faith.[/url]

[quote=Brovo]The vast majority of atheists generally don't give a fuck about theism, and that's... Generally how it's supposed to be. Kind of like how one does not give a shit about candles if they don't have any. They only care if some candle salesman then comes by and attempts to shove the candle in their face or down their child's throat.[quote]

A fair point, but to play devil's advocate.

Majority opinion or views is not always correct. I mean in the past most people though the sun revolved around the earth, that it was ok to discriminate based on skin colour. But we know today that these things are false. I know those aren't great examples mind you since your arguing not giving a shit and those examples were about active beliefs or behaviour's. But simply the fact that most people think _______ doesn't make it right, nor does simply not caring about ______ mean it's the right stance.

Note: This is specifically a devil's advocacy in regards to the specific quote above though. I do notice this is argued much more down below where this point isn't too relevant anymore.

[quote=Brovo]And we're back to extremes, joy. Yes, lets punish the religious now for crimes they did centures ago, like in the Crusades. While we're at it lets punish me for having German ancestry-- somewhere down the line my family lineage served in an invasive force that murdered, pillaged, and raped villages as soldiers of the Reich, the Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or a barbarous tribe.[/quote]

That isn't the same thing, one is active beliefs, values and a system followed. The other is part of your genetic make up which you have no control over.

[quote=Brovo]A Teapot orbiting the Earth is acceptable because it displays the ludicrous nature of blind faith without evidence having to resort to a rape claim about the opposing side. Basically: It's a positive claim, it requires no need to point at religion, it just posits blind faith in the teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is irrational. I know all about Russell's Teapot, why are you lecturing me on this?[/quote]

It wasn't meant as a lecture but a comparison as to why the idea of simply passing/allowing blind faith isn't a good practice.

[quote=Brovo]-A list of examples of non-religious related wars and conflicts-[/quote]

I never claimed that all conflict was caused by Religion, only that Religion was a cause of conflict and violence.

[quote=Brovo]Fact of the matter is this Gwazi. There will always be religious people. Holding absolute xenophobia towards them will do nothing but make you paranoid and miserable.[/quote]

Simply accepting something as ok though because it cannot be 100% removed is not always an effective outcome though.
There are thing's that should not be accepted even if we know it will not completely go away, if one of those things is moderate religion though is going to be addressed further below.

[quote=Brovo]Except that the Catholic Church has funded scientific progress for centuries (censoring the bits they didn't like albeit, but gotta give credit where credit is due), and Judeo-Christian art, literature, music, and architecture all were so wildly successful that they still hold core parts of modern society.[/quote]

True, credit should be granted where it's due. But funding scientific results they do not is ultimately harmful to science.

[quote=Brovo]Atop this, many "religious" conflicts were generally orchestrated to acquire resources or to put mercenaries to work. There were a couple of the later, less successful crusades that were issued by the Pope specifically to just give the rampaging bored mercenaries something to do other than slaughter villages and rape people in Europe. So he sent them to the middle east to go slaughter people and rape women there instead... Not for actually, religious, reasons[/quote]

Eh... That's more changing the victim than stopping violence. That seems more of a case of "These people are of value/use to me, they aren't. So kill them instead" which I would not value any higher than a Pope who simply allowed the Mercs to kill his own people. Now the argument could be said "But it's tactics/logical, they are his people", that is true. However if we look at it as a global perspective, if we want more peace and cooperation among different groups of people we aren't going to get it by simply allowing other people to die in order to save our own.

If it was a case of say a Pope using Religion to stop a war? That'd be different, but simply changing the victims doesn't sway me.

[quote=Brovo]Except when your hatred is so extreme that you take it all the way out onto a role playing forum who when I last polled them on oldguild was roughly 52% christian, and there's only maybe a half a dozen full out fundie psychos amongst them... And yet you broadly target them all... And repeatedly try to get under their skin, even as multiple threads on this subject by you get closed or deleted for being flagrant trolling, flaming, and hate speech. Can you at least see how this behaviour is completely unacceptable?[/quote]

We can probably also get similar results on a poll that was something like "Do you believe weed should stay illegal?" or depending on the group you caught "Do you think LGBT people should not marry?", but we would still argue them even if it was majority opinion. However, I realize you're pointing at the fact I'm going after Religion as a whole, not just the extremists who actually cause the issues. And I will admit, I probably should loosen up and focus it on those who are actually doing harm.

I don't purposely get under their skin though, I am blunt with my opinion and that just happens to bother people. Granted I won't take any efforts to change my approach or method simply because people get annoyed by it, but getting people's skin is not an actual goal of mine.

As for the Mods closing the thread? They have almost never left a reason or explanation as to why they close a thread when they do so. They simply close it suddenly without a word. As a result for all intents and purposes it's just as likely they simply do not like to see people in conflict on the Guild, rather than say the thread is simply being flaming, hate speech or trolling. I've seen threads closed down before that were actually very good and interesting just because one person was upset by the way things were going. And having seen people wishing to avoid conflict by almost any means before (My High School friends are largely like this. If there's some conflict in the group they ignore it completely until it builds to the point it simply is impossible to ignore) I was fairly willing to simply assume the Mods/Admins didn't like seeing conflict on their site and would close a topic whenever it would start to show too much.

Lesson of the story: The Mods/Admins should really make a post about why they're closing the thread before the close it.

[quote=Brovo]If everyone said everything that was on their mind the entire world would be a blood bath by Tuesday. There's such a thing as a little white lie. Even then, I've made it very apparently clear to you before I don't hold a high opinion of your loaded questions. I've even called you intellectually dishonest before. What makes you surprised to learn this stuff? How is it dishonest that I never told you? Not telling you is not being dishonest: It's literally just not telling you.[/quote]

People have argued the value of white lies to me before, but I still find it to be something that purposely feed's a person false information, which as a result leaves them less aware and less prepared for the truth which can ultimately hurt them in the long run, even if the intention of it was good.

As for simply not telling people? Not as bad as a white lie because there's no false information to take it's place and cause harm. But it's still holding back info that as a result of being held back leaves the person not as well aware or equipped. 

Note: Obvious exception if said info would cause harm if exposed.
Like telling an abusive partner where their spouse is when in a rage.

Maybe I've just been exposed to poor arguments for white lies though, the main example I was given by people to defend it was telling something they're parent loves them when in fact the parent is completely abusive and clearly doesn't care. All that does it give the abused child false hope and set's them up to a bigger let down and pain later on. Obviously it feels nicer as the moment to be all fuzzy and warm with the white lies, but that's only making it worse for the person you're lying to so you don't have to deal with the pressure of being honest with them.

As for you specifically? You've said similar things true, and a fair amount in those PMs was those you have said before. But the overall combination of what was exposed in the PM's as a new perspective I was not aware of until now.

[quote=Brovo]And yes, yes you do start fights. Look at your own opening question and seriously ask yourself... Why would you ask something so blatantly flame-bait-tastic?... Did you really not see how that might be flame bait considering it's literally a double logical fallacy as I explained earlier whose only purpose is to "win" a debate before you even started it?... A debate I might add that is quite literally about ... Really?[/quote]

Start fights? I admit to, I will start debates/topics that I know fully well at some point will turn into a fight. But the goal is never to start the fight, but for the debate that can happen before then.

As for the baiting? Being perfectly honestly that one did completely miss me as being a logical fallacy for some reason. It's obvious when explained to me, but on my own I simply didn't catch it. I honestly thought I was simply making the argument of "You don't need Religion to know you don't need to rape and murder people". This was a big hiccup though, I know. :/

Though this was to be fair a one-two sentence one argument in the OP. It's not like the cover of my post was "Do you need Religion to not rape?" or anything like that.

[quote=Brovo]Also, it should say a lot that when we're almost 100% agreed on every topic, but on religion I literally just straight up tell people that you won't learn, attack other people's beliefs, and intentionally attempt to rile up the religious... Really, I mean, it should.[/quote]

That argument can go two ways however, I could also say we're almost 100% agreed on every topic but on religion I'm constantly disagreeing with you.
Granted, I don't say you're attacking people, won't learn or intentionally attempt to rile up people (you don't). I simply view(ed) it as I simply wasn't making the right points, arguments, proof, evidence etc. to sway you otherwise. And I honestly respect that, it shows you have a high standard to change your stance it wasn't something that would happen willy-nilly.

[quote=Brovo]You have to learn to live with them, that's kind of what freedom and tolerance and so on is all about.[/quote]

Good point, though note that also allows freedom of opinion. And I was never pushing for any laws or anything that would ban religion, make religious people less important etc. From a legal sense, all I want is to see Religion stop being valued as the influence it is over things such as Education, Government and Science. I do personally strongly disagree with religion, but I would never take legal action to suppress them, that's counter-productive to the whole point of not only freedom but science as well.

[quote=Brovo]Especially on a !@#$ing forum about !@#$ing role playing.[/quote]

I don't go around to every RP or casual site and have debate's like this. I have them here because there is an establish community and section of the Guild made for topic's like this. Where they do also come up often. I assume anyone on Off Topic is here because they want to be involved in such discussions. You'd never see me do it somewhere such as in an Roleplay chat, or go to another RP site and start it right off the bat without having an idea of the community or if they have a section for such things or not. That would just be ridiculous. :/

[quote=Brovo]If you seriously read my posts, at all, you'd realize that, no, I'm not afraid at all to fight religion or the religious, in any way, on any front. Hell, I enjoy it to a certain extent. I just know when to draw the line and say that it's going too far into the realm of nitpicking, extremism, or stupidity. Randomly starting threads that attempt to attack every single potential contribution religion and the religious have made, then ending it off with a self-answered rape question.[/quote]

My last post there was worded poorly. :/

"you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of [u]fully criticizing[/u] and being at odd's with it."

I was conscious and aware that you constantly tackle Religion with no qualms. But even in Religion there are certain area's you put your foot down on. 
Basically what we were debating, I had issues with the system of Religion itself and you weren't going to go that far. It wasn't mean to imply you did not tackle religion, but that there were limits (very high limits mind you, but still limits).

"I think having grown up around religious people, people who are good and decent people who happen to be religious"

Though my reasoning behind the source was flat out wrong, I'll admit that. I originally assumed part of your reason for having this limit was two things.

1. Not getting enough proof/evidence/good arguments to convince you that Religion as a system was bad
2. Not wanting to completely trample over people's toe's on this because it is something that is held dear to several people who either feel close to or at least highly respect

Up to this point, I wasn't exposed to enough good argument's and points to make me back of on Religion. Though this post did bring up enough good points to at least make me halt & reconsider (In all honesty, you might of been helped by simply going full out blunt and bringing out the PMs. [+Imperfectionist's evaluation into my history] I've noticed I tend to absorb info people when people aren't holding anything back). Not to say you've fully convinced me yet mind you, but you did at least halt me and make me have to start re-reflecting (which granted, was the same way I was for a bit after debating Jorick. I didn't change then and there, I had to leave and reflect for a while before actually making the change). 

[quote=Brovo]I told Imperfectionist there they had permission to post up those PM's so it could be pointed out to you, to your face, instead of behind your back for once. Because believe me, I hear a lot of people talk about how irritated, frustrated, and sometimes even pissed off they are with your antics, from Skype to Steam to PM's on Roleplayer Guild and so on. I figured you deserved to get a look at it because I'm blunt enough to say it and have the integrity to stand by what I've said[/quote]

Thanks for that :) I much rather just being told the facts/situation like that rather than being kept in the dark.

Though I'm honestly not surprised at all that people have been complaining about me behind my back, I don't make much (if any) efforts to make my argument's and points likable/gentle outside of simply not mindlessly insulting people when it's not relevant. Mainly just going by if the argument I make it logical enough people will note it, and if not it can be exposed for how it is. I'm too concerned with how many friends or enemies I make in the process, I'm more than used to being the sole person surrounded by people who hate me, so some people getting annoyed about me behind my back is basically "Seen it, Had it, Expected it".

[quote=Brovo]An adult who believes that God created the universe? Not worth seriously fighting. Sometimes fun to engage in philosophical banter, even to practice, but to fight?... It's pointless, they're not the enemy. The fundamentalists are... And so is our own hatred, because it blinds us to real targets, to real problems, and creates convenience scapegoats. Like that if all religion was gone, magically, the world would be a better place. No, not really, we'd find some other dumbshit stuff to fight over, like ideology, political or economic. It's just in our nature.
[/quote]

Good point, which has made me realize one other thing on myself.
As much I try to practice Logic over Emotion there is one emotion I've been unconsciously allowing to slip by, hatred.
Which is arguably the worse one to let out. :/

And also good point on the finding another reason, I do realize that humans use more than just religion to excuse violence and hatred. But it would make sense where if Religion was gone those desire's would transition to others motivations. Though that does lead me to one question, if it became over something such as say Politic's would it be as easy for parents to teach it to their children like they do Religion?