Atheism is a natural end point to logical skepticism: If I can't prove it's physically real, I cannot believe in it

That would be the more rational Agnosticism. Something is only false when proven false and true when proven true. The only logical position for you would be to not know.

So Boerd said
That would be the more rational Agnosticism. Something is only false when proven false and true when proven true. The only logical position for you would be to not know.

Agnosticism is also a logical conclusion. Essentially: Either one rejects that which cannot be proven (atheism), or comes to the conclusion that it is neither provable or unprovable (agnosticism).

I go full atheist because I take skepticism to its rational end point: If it does not appear to exist in the physical world, then it simply doesn't. However, if at some point physical proof of a deity comes to be, then I will either choose agnosticism or a belief.

Also: While I do not claim to know the origins of the universe, I neither claim the possibility of god doing it. Too many variables for me. Can see how others would see otherwise however for agnosticism.

***Clarification on an a family history bit I mentioned***

Having scanned it over I feel like I may of ran over a detail too quickly. I am not in bad terms with my parents or anything and my Mom and I have made peace since the days we argued daily. However, I never got much a chance to grow too closer with either, somewhat with my dad because we at least home some of the time, but my Mom was always someone I argued with. But there is not any kind of abusive or cruel relationship between us. My relationship between me and my parents are more neutral, I can get along with them, but I can also get by without them (emotionally, I wouldn't say I could do so financially yet).

Brovo said @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

I've highlighted several times how I've learn many things through such debates, it's just that you do not find me agreeing with you on the topic of Religion. Also almost every famous atheist and/or scientist share's this stance in one form or another, may it be Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens etc. If it was another example that has not been culturally accepted such as belief in a teapot orbiting the earth, or adults going to church to worship the tooth fairy and such belief's has led to people being cruel to one another, starting genocides, the end of relationships, children removed from their homes, children being cut off from any education consisting of science, you would still be disagreeing with me like this?

It's not even the people of the Religion I hate, it's the system of Religion that has been used to destroy minds, gather people to commit terrible acts against one another, and has held back scientific advancement for a long time. I understand how hatred is a terrible thing to be feeling towards something, but it would be pretty impossible not to hold hatred towards a system like that once you really look at it in that sense.

Also your bluntness is fine, I can take bluntness. I prefer bluntness, but simply being blunt alone will not convince me. And what I said was there some things you simply were not being 100% blunt/honest on your opinions until now. Looking at the PM's you've said stuff such as:

"Gwazi is here to reinforce his own sense of belief by attempting to tear down the beliefs of others and start fights"

"Except he doesn't learn"

Which was stuff you never said outright to me, either having held it back completely or said it in a gentle way (which you admit was your approach on steam) so it wasn't obvious (which is why I prefer bluntness. Your honest opinion is shown without question and at risk of confusion or misinterpretation. It wasn't that you lied you to me, it was that there things on your mind in regards to this topic towards me that you didn't say, and had to revealed through the PM's.

But to be fair, even in debate's we tend not go into personal evaluations of people unless if it's asked. But it is kind of unfair in reflection to say you are not being 100% open on your thoughts in me and I myself haven't put my whole thought's in the table either (Not out of gentleness, just lack of relevancy) but to describe my thoughts bluntly on you and your position here, if for nothing more than to be fair and be on a better understanding with one another:

I find you be a very logical and rational person, one who is not afraid to call out bullshit when you see it and argue your points fiercely but calmly to defend your point and I highly respect and admire that. In most issues I tend to find myself in close to 100% agreed with you. However, in the topic of Religion although I see this same thing going on I think having grown up around religious people, people who are good and decent people who happen to be religious, you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of fully criticizing and being at odd's with it.

I really can't go any deeper than that because personally, I don't know you well enough to go any further with such claims. Even the last part is iffy and I'm pretty sure is wrong or misinterpreted.

I would prefer though we find a way to make whatever hostility that seems to be between us over this topic to be found, exposed, and stopped. I'm fine if that doesn't happen and we end up going our separate ways not getting along with one another. I'm more than used to that result with people in things, and I've built of enough tolerance that one more person isn't going to effect me. But I'd rather we not get to this point, it would be a shame and a waste if this allows us to become at odds with one another when we agree and get along in almost every other topic.

I do honestly want to be proven wrong wherever I debate a stance/opinion of mine, doing so means I've learned something new and have a chance to grow. But I just haven't ran into the right argument, or proof yet to convince me otherwise. Something that shows Religion does provide good, a good at can be enjoyed without bringing in all the bad, a good that Religion doesn't preach to be only from them. Now if this is shown, I'd still walk away an atheist like you, unable to believe in something without the proof for it to exist, but if I can be shown that Religion (or at least) some of it, can provide something of value to people without claiming to be the sole provider of it, and without carrying the bad baggage Religion also holds I will step down from my earlier argument.

Magic Magnum said ***Clarification on an a family history bit I mentioned***Having scanned it over I feel like I may of ran over a detail too quickly. I am not in bad terms with my parents or anything and my Mom and I have made peace since the days we argued daily. However, I never got much a chance to grow too closer with either, somewhat with my dad because we at least home some of the time, but my Mom was always someone I argued with. But there is not any kind of abusive or cruel relationship between us. My relationship between me and my parents are more neutral, I can get along with them, but I can also get by without them (emotionally, I wouldn't say I could do so financially yet).

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.

Magic Magnum said I've highlighted several times how I've learn many things through such debates, it's just that you do not find me agreeing with you on the topic of Religion.

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

Magic Magnum said Also almost every famous atheist and/or scientist share's this stance in one form or another, may it be Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens etc.

Thunderf00t and Richard Dawkins target people that are specifically damaging 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 choose to believe whatever they want and that it didn't bother him. 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.

Christopher Hitchens is the only man on that list who argued against all of religion for everyone at all, and he was (and still is) considered extreme even by his peers. Respected, but extreme, and an alcoholic that was openly drunk at multiple debates, to boot.

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.

Magic Magnum said If it was another example that has not been culturally accepted such as belief in a teapot orbiting the earth, or adults going to church to worship the tooth fairy and such belief's has led to people being cruel to one another, starting genocides, the end of relationships, children removed from their homes, children being cut off from any education consisting of science, you would still be disagreeing with me like this?

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--surely 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. This is completely logical.

A Teapot orbiting the Earth is acceptable because it displays the ludicrous nature of blind faith without evidence without 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?

Your statement here is a bit incoherent. Attempting to translate: Adults going to church to worship the tooth fairy = genocides, you want examples?

World War 1, one of the bloodiest wars of all time, that had little to no religious connotations, was ultimately started by the assassination of one man.

The series of wars that cost millions of lives during the Cold War--in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth--were started over the ideological differences between Capitalism & Democracy versus Communism, or America versus the USSR if you want to go that way.

The mass genocide in Rwanda was started ultimately because the colonials who originally took it and ruled it arranged people into positions of power based on their ethnicity, which was generally arranged by the size of their noses. When the colonials left, the bigger group took revenge against the more powerful, smaller group, and over 600,000 died for no more reason than the size of one's nose arbitrarily putting them into power or poverty.

The Native Americans were wiped out en masse by colonials for no more reason than that they wanted more land and the Aboriginals sometimes said no.

The aboriginals also, I might add, mass murdered each other over minor cultural and ethnic differences by being enabled by the colonials who gave them firearms. During the American War of Independence for example, the Iroquois tribes--despite being told by both the Americans and the British to stay out--broke up into warring factions trying to aid either the Americans or the British. In the War for Independence, the Aboriginals took the most casualties and by far murdered themselves more than the colonials murdered them during that conflict.

I could go on, and on, and on, but I don't think I need to, Gwazi. Without religion, people will find perfectly "acceptable" reasons to kill each other... It's kind of what we do.

As for repressing science and poisoning the minds of children with indoctrination, yeah, I have a hell of a big problem with those things too, I just don't pretend that moderates support that. Most don't. I should know, I have friends, who are openly Christian, and don't believe in creationism, or anything wacky like that.

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.

Magic Magnum said It's not even the people of the Religion I hate, it's the system of Religion that has been used to destroy minds, gather people to commit terrible acts against one another, and has held back scientific advancement for a long time.

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 to this day.

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, at all...

Magic Magnum said I understand how hatred is a terrible thing to be feeling towards something, but it would be pretty impossible not to hold hatred towards a system like that once you really look at it in that sense.

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?

Magic Magnum said Also your bluntness is fine, I can take bluntness. I prefer bluntness, but simply being blunt alone will not convince me. And what I said was there some things you simply were not being 100% blunt/honest on your opinions until now.

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.

Magic Magnum said Looking at the PM's you've said stuff such as:"Gwazi is here to reinforce his own sense of belief by attempting to tear down the beliefs of others and start fights""Except he doesn't learn"Which was stuff you never said outright to me, either having held it back completely or said it in a gentle way (which you admit was your approach on steam) so it wasn't obvious (which is why I prefer bluntness. Your honest opinion is shown without question and at risk of confusion or misinterpretation. It wasn't that you lied you to me, it was that there things on your mind in regards to this topic towards me that you didn't say, and had to revealed through the PM's.But to be fair, even in debate's we tend not go into personal evaluations of people unless if it's asked.

Except it's still only about religion that I hold this opinion of you on. If I really thought you were that far gone on everything I wouldn't talk to you at all.

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 rape... Really?

Magic Magnum said But it is kind of unfair in reflection to say you are not being 100% open on your thoughts in me and I myself haven't put my whole thought's in the table either (Not out of gentleness, just lack of relevancy) but to describe my thoughts bluntly on you and your position here, if for nothing more than to be fair and be on a better understanding with one another:I find you be a very logical and rational person, one who is not afraid to call out bullshit when you see it and argue your points fiercely but calmly to defend your point and I highly respect and admire that. In most issues I tend to find myself in close to 100% agreed with you.

Honesty =/= Openness. A person who doesn't tell you everything on their mind is not being dishonest. A person who blatantly lies to your face is being dishonest. Yes, there are such things as lies of omission, but only in cases where someone deliberately asks you such a question and you completely avoid it or lie about not knowing. (ex: If a police officer asked me if I witnessed a murder which I did witness, and I said "I didn't sorry", that's a lie of omission.)

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. It's not like you can eradicate all religious people. There will always be religious people. You have to learn to live with them, that's kind of what freedom and tolerance and so on is all about. You fight them when they overstep their bounds: Like if they try to censor science again, you attack it, because they started the hostile move, so it's defensible. But randomly starting fights gets us nowhere, really... Especially on a !@#$ing forum about !@#$ing role playing. The Fonz would be highly disappointed.

Magic Magnum said However, in the topic of Religion although I see this same thing going on I think having grown up around religious people, people who are good and decent people who happen to be religious, you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of fully criticizing and being at odd's with it.

... Whaaaaaaat. Ask MDK or ActRaiser or SoBoerd or really any religious person here how I ordinarily treat Christianity and most religions in general. I tend to be highly atheistic, I'll even go straight up into philosophical fights with them that can last page after page after page, whether I'm taking it seriously or not at the time is irrelevant. I'm not afraid to fight religion, I simply don't, because I fight only two things. Tyranny and stupidity. The former only when it would infringe on rights and freedoms or do something horrendously immoral, and the latter, well... There's an infinite amount of it but sometimes it's nice to try.

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, is way too far for any kind of reasonable discourse.

Magic Magnum said I really can't go any deeper than that because personally, I don't know you well enough to go any further with such claims. Even the last part is iffy and I'm pretty sure is wrong or misinterpreted.

Uh, no shit. You just displayed a complete lack of awareness.

Magic Magnum said I would prefer though we find a way to make whatever hostility that seems to be between us over this topic to be found, exposed, and stopped. I'm fine if that doesn't happen and we end up going our separate ways not getting along with one another. I'm more than used to that result with people in things, and I've built of enough tolerance that one more person isn't going to effect me. But I'd rather we not get to this point, it would be a shame and a waste if this allows us to become at odds with one another when we agree and get along in almost every other topic.

I'm not at odds with you Gwazi, I'm simply blunt as I've stated before. You really are to the level of basically being the fundamentalist you hate so much. When I have to defend religion against you, shouldn't that say something considering I once made the claim that religiously inspired wars have slain over a billion people? 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.

Magic Magnum said I do honestly want to be proven wrong wherever I debate a stance/opinion of mine, doing so means I've learned something new and have a chance to grow. But I just haven't ran into the right argument, or proof yet to convince me otherwise. Something that shows Religion does provide good, a good at can be enjoyed without bringing in all the bad, a good that Religion doesn't preach to be only from them. Now if this is shown, I'd still walk away an atheist like you, unable to believe in something without the proof for it to exist, but if I can be shown that Religion (or at least) some of it, can provide something of value to people without claiming to be the sole provider of it, and without carrying the bad baggage Religion also holds I will step down from my earlier argument.

Music, Art & Architecture, Tropes, Literature, Mythos.

There is a lot of beauty in religious texts, and a lot of our culture can be traced to religious influences, same goes for eastern culture, and so on. Yes, it can be wielded in horrible ways. Yes, I think it's really just a bunch of hogwash stories, and honestly a lot of those stories have the literary quality of a four year old's shit doodling on the bathroom stall. (A talking donkey?... Really?...) But do I think it's all horrible? No. The Catholic Church still funds its own astronomy labs and other science projects, it also openly accepted evolution decades ago. It publicly funds nunneries to help the sick, the poor, the needy, the starving, and so on. Is it all altruistic? Again, of course not, human beings are involved, and yes, a lot of the Catholic Church is involved in corruption scandals (like child molestation and the subsequent cover-ups for it... That disgusts me.) But is all religion always evil all the time? No. No it's not. It's just another facet of human expression, which can be beautiful and merciful and kind sometimes, and ugly and merciless and monstrous other times.

There are a lot of fights that still need to be done, but before you can ever defeat your enemy, you must know your enemy, and our enemy is not all of religion, Gwazi. It's those fundamentalists who attempt to usurp civil, judicial, and scientific powers to institute their own extremist agendas. They're the ones we should fight, the Catholic Church covering up child molestation is what we should fight, the Islamic states that legalize child marriage and "married women can't say no to their husbands" we should fight.

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.

I feel like a lot of people interested in this topic would be interested in reading Library of Babel. a short story by Jorge Luis Borges. It proposes a sort of answer to the chaos of a seemingly infinite, uncontrollable world in the form of language, which selectively creates meaning out of nothingness. The peak of the end of this chaos is a 'Man of the Book', which is a sort of key to the seemingly meaningless infinity within the library, a sort of God.

Brovo said 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.

Yes this is what I meant.

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

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.

Brovo said 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.

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 he does specifically argue even moderate/casual religious people and the idea of just respect or passing someone's blind faith.

[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.

Brovo said 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.

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.

Brovo said 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?

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.

Brovo said -A list of examples of non-religious related wars and conflicts-

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

Brovo said 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.

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.

Brovo said 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.

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

Brovo said 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

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.

Brovo said 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?

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.

Brovo said 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.

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.

Brovo said 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?

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.

Brovo said 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.

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.

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

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.

Brovo said Especially on a !@#$ing forum about !@#$ing role playing.

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. :/

Brovo said 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.

My last post there was worded poorly. :/

"you have become a bit afraid/reluctant of fully criticizing 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).

Brovo said 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

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".

Brovo said 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.

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?

I go full atheist because I take skepticism to its rational end point:

That would be the irrational end point. Let me prove the point. I am unwilling to provide proof of my humanity.

The atheist would, according to your rational endpoint theory, would believe I am not human? Not only believe, but consider it PROVEN I am not human?

So Boerd said
That would be the irrational end point. Let me prove the point. I am unwilling to provide proof of my humanity. The atheist would, according to your rational endpoint theory, would believe I am not human? Not only believe, but consider it PROVEN I am not human?

No, that would be silly, you are clearly human. You physically exist, you have a voice, and you talk, and have an opinion. Your mere existence proves you exist.

There is no evidence of the physical existence of god. Ergo, skepticism taken to rational end point? No god. No tooth fairy. No Santa Claus. No elves. No kobolds. No orcs...

Brovo said No elves. No kobolds. No orcs...

Awww... Why did you have to go ahead and say that?
Now my days all ruined. :(

Magic Magnum said
Awww... Why did you have to go ahead and say that?Now my days all ruined. :(

Look on the bright side. At least kobolds, orcs, and elves, generally don't drown entire planets full of things they created for behaving exactly how they were created only to then be recreated/duplicated... With even more incest involved... And then being surprised when this doesn't end well.

Brovo said
Look on the bright side. At least kobolds, orcs, and elves, generally don't drown entire planets full of things they created for behaving exactly how they were created only to then be recreated/duplicated... ... And then being when this doesn't end well.

True, at least they aren't that insane. :P

you have a voice, and you talk,

Prove it. I type, but so does Cleverbot.

So Boerd said
Prove it. I type, but so does Cleverbot.

That's beside the point. You exist and you prove it by existing. Regardless of who or what you are, you have an opinion, you engage in conversation, and so on.

There is no evidence of the existence of any kind of deity. Therefore, it does not exist.

That's as brutally simple as I can put it for you.

Um... This isn't a profound rebuttal or anything, and I think it may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence (I mean, that's one of the oldest arguments in the book).

If you're going to make a statement like that, you have to at the very least be more descriptive and less absolute, such as "it is highly unlikely to exist, due to a distinct lack of verified experimental evidence," not "no evidence=does not exist". Also, perhaps best is "due to the lack of verified experimental evidence, I do not believe such an entity exists, and will not until evidence is given".

What So Boerd is trying to say, I believe, is that our perceptions color what we know and what we believe, and especially that those perceptions are limited. There is a high probability that there is a human being behind my words, but there isn't any evidence that I'm not some other type of intelligence, such as an AI or an alien, or indeed, a deity. I could even be a person or intelligence from a different dimension, or one of your past lives, or a cat. You have no way to know, unless you follow my IP address to my house and watch me type the words into the computer. And even then, who's to say I'm not a hallucination? Absolutes are impossible, Brovo. We just have to have a good idea. It's likely that I am none of those things. I don't believe I am. But I'm not sure.

Without someone telling you that the world is round, Brovo, would you be likely to deduce or calculate its roundness in your lifetime? If you never left a windowless, doorless room and no one else ever entered, could you ever be sure there was anything beyond it? If you've never had reason to believe in higher powers, deities or cosmic intelligences... Why would you?

EDIT: Anyway, it's not even true. You can find evidence of cosmic intelligence in anything, if you look hard enough... I mean, what about math? Did it just... happen? Is math different in other dimensions? Are there any other dimensions? Is there truly any past or future? What is time, and why does it exist? Where in the name of Science did Fibbonaci numbers come from?!

Imperfectionist said Um... This isn't a profound rebuttal or anything, and I think it may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

You're right, except that by no means justifies the opposite. That is: Believe in god all you want. I'm not arguing against that, just realize you do it on absolutely no evidence, and that I can reject a deity on the same premise that I reject elves, kobolds, orcs, and Santa Claus. Also, that the natural end point of basing your life around skepticism, will generally result in the reject of a deity in the same sense of rejecting elves, kobolds, orcs, and Santa Claus.

I'm also not stating that it is impossible for a god to exist. Merely that there is insufficient evidence for me to find the claim credible at this time.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Imperfectionist said If you're going to make a statement like that, you have to at the very least be more descriptive and less absolute, such as "it is highly unlikely to exist, due to a distinct lack of verified experimental evidence," not "no evidence=does not exist". Also, perhaps, "due to the lack of verified experimental evidence, I do not such an entity exists, and will not until evidence is given". This is logical as well.

Except that both statements are the same and should be implicit. No evidence = does not exist. Therefore: If evidence found = exists. That is the automatic, implied extension to that statement, it's simply brought to a short statement for the sake of simplicity.

Imperfectionist said What So Boerd is trying to say, I believe, is that our perceptions color what we know and what we believe, and especially that those perceptions are limited.

I have absolutely no idea how you drew this conclusion, all he really did was argue that he could be a robot, which in no way counters the argument of his existence proving that he exists, but... Okay.

Imperfectionist said There is a high probability that there is a human being behind my words, but there isn't any evidence that I'm not some other type of intelligence, such as an AI or an alien, or indeed, a deity. I could even be a person or intelligence from a different dimension, or one of your past lives, or a cat. You have no way to know, unless you follow my IP address to my house and watch me type the words into the computer. And even then, who's to say I'm not a hallucination? Absolutes are impossible, Brovo.

Ah, cute argument, but flawed. Occam's Razor applies.

If you're an AI: Who programmed you, how did such a well programmed and articulate AI end up here, and why here? And so on. Also, to make a claim like this, you kind of have to... Prove it.
If you're an Alien: Why are you fucking about on an RP site with primates? Amongst many, many other questions. This claim is even more fantastical, so it requires more fantastic evidence to back it up.
If you're a deity: Fantastic claim! Got any evidence? Also, where did you come from? Who are you? Why are you here? What is your purpose? So on and so forth.

Orrr...

You are one of many human beings using an electronic device and an internet connection.

This last one requires the least number of assumptions. Thus it is most likely the true answer. Thus I can say, pretty confidently, you are a human being, and if you want to prove otherwise, you have to do that against my skepticism.

Imperfectionist said We just have to have a good idea. It's likely that I am none of those things. I don't believe I am. But I'm not sure.

Technically speaking if we're talking philosophy the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind and nothing else, but for the sake of remaining sane and what not, it's generally assumed there is a physical world, with physical properties, and we don't live in The Matrix. (Also because again: Occam's Razor.)

Imperfectionist said Without someone telling you that the world is round, Brovo, would you be likely to deduce or calculate its roundness in your lifetime?

Would it be relevant to my life? If yes: Then probably. If not: Then probably not.

Also not sure what this has to do with the simple argument of "if no evidence then I do not believe it." If you mean to imply not knowing better... Then, yeah, sure, okay, we didn't know the Earth was round once. Then later on we learned the Earth is round. Could that happen for a deity? Sure. Has it? No. Therefore: I do not believe.

This really isn't complicated.

Imperfectionist said If you never left a windowless, doorless room and no one else ever entered, could you ever be sure there was anything beyond it?

No, but I would be curious enough to find out, and I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim that there is a giant cosmic sky daddy beyond the doorway if I've never been beyond it.

Imperfectionist said If you've never had reason to believe in higher powers, deities or cosmic intelligences... Why would you?

... I have plenty of times? People tried to stuff it in my head when I was young that Jesus is real and the ark story was real and so on. I didn't believe in any of it, it made no sense to me, and I can't really afford to go on faith on things anyway, for personal reasons.

Imperfectionist said EDIT: Anyway, it's not even true. You can find evidence of cosmic intelligence in anything, if you look hard enough... I mean, what about math? Did it just... happen?

... Math is a purely human invention. One is an arbitrary number it has no meaning whatsoever unless you attach it meaning. ex: One kilogram is not in any way, shape, or form, one mile. "One" is simply the word we use to denote a single object. Two is what we use to denote a pair of objects, and so on. In fact, I can quite emphatically state that math is one of the pinnacle pillars of logic simply because it is almost entirely, purely, of human creation, and in no way has to tie itself to our understanding of the world. For instance, if we discover tomorrow that everything we knew about physics is wrong (again), that still isn't going to change the fact that one is still one, two is still two, and if you multiply two by itself, you get four.

Imperfectionist said Is math different in other dimensions?

No, but fun fact, it is different between various civilizations on the Earth throughout history. For example: Early Greek Math did not contain zeroes. The maximum amount one can count to in Roman Numerals is 3,888, a limitation based on the fact that their rules on math prevent them from going higher than this. (Ergo to "count" armies above this size they counted by each legio, not by the individual.) So on and so forth. Again, evidence pointing to the fact that we invented math as a purely human way to better understand the universe.

Imperfectionist said there any other dimensions?

There is no way to prove or disprove this, so I have to go with "no", unless you believe that new timelines are created anytime you commit to any action ever or do not commit to any action ever, then... Yes? Although it's incredible confusing.

Imperfectionist said Is there truly any past or future?

Yes. This is a dumb question, sorry but it is.

Imperfectionist said What time, and why does it exist?

Mountain time, and because humans made it. We divided every day into twenty four periods, and every one of those hourly periods into sixty periods (minutes), and every one of those into sixty periods (seconds), and why the fuck we decided on 24/60/60? I have no idea, probably a carryover from ancient times, just like the imperial measurement system just randomly decides when to go up and down various measurements. (ex: Metric goes up in increments of 10. Imperial just sorta goes "ah fuckit, 3 feet in a yard, works broski.")

Also, the passage of time is affected by gravity, and momentum, so... Time does physically exist, even discounting human measurements of it, which have also been different across various civilizations, such as the all too infamous Mayan Calender.

Imperfectionist said Where in the name of Science did Fibbonaci numbers come from?!

This guy.

Eurgh. <-- This is the sound I make when I read a wall of quotes and snark. It's too artificial, too focused on making fun of every sentence and making sure you push me so far into the ground that making an effective rebuttal is nigh-impossible... I mean, in all seriousness, Brovo, how in the name of JEHOVAH am I supposed to answer that?

Yes, you are cleverer than me. Congrats.

I've spent the last two gorram hours attempting to respond, and it boils down to this: You clarified. You weren't talking about certainty, you were talking about reasonable skepticism. I can respect that. The way that you originally said it was flawed, and I simply hope you do not use that type of argument in the future. That's it in a nutshell.

The rest... Whatever. You got me.

I'm neurotic, you're rational, and you don't give a damn how the golden mean came to be, or what time really is, or whether you can trust your perceptions. And your mind is probably a lot healthier because of that. Goodnight.

Imperfectionist said Eurgh. <-- This is the sound I make when I read a wall of quotes and snark. It's too artificial, in my opinion, too focused on making fun of every sentence and making sure you push me so far into the ground that making an effective rebuttal is nigh-impossible... I mean, in all seriousness, Brovo, how in the name of am I supposed to answer that?

Patiently and one at a time, if you wanted. Or only specific pieces that interest you, if you wish. The argument is cut up like that specifically to make it easier to digest and reply to in an orderly manner.

Or like, just resort to heaping amounts of ad hominem, I'm sure that helps facilitate good discussion.

Imperfectionist said Yes, you are cleverer than me, Brovo. Congrats.

>Complains about snark
>Snarks

Imperfectionist said I've spent the last two gorram hours attempting to respond, and it boils down to this: You clarified. You weren't talking about certainty, you were talking about reasonable skepticism. I can respect that. The way that you originally said it was flawed, and I simply hope you do not use that type of in the future.

Brovo said Atheism is a natural end point to logical skepticism: If I can't prove it's physically real, I cannot believe in it

This is as ground down to simple fine powder as I can possible make it and this is the position I started with and still stand by. If fantastic evidence for a deity appears, and it's scientifically verifiable and all that jazz, I'll follow it. If not, if I can't physically prove it's real... Then I cannot believe in it.

Again. I'm not sure how this is flawed at all considering the two statements are identical save that one has inferred meaning and the other is an excessively chunky way of saying the same thing, but I digress.

Imperfectionist said That's it in a nutshell.

That's all folks!

Imperfectionist said The rest... Whatever. You got me. I'm neurotic, you're rational, and you don't give a damn how the golden mean came to be, or what time really is, or whether you can trust your perceptions. And your mind is probably a lot healthier because of that. Goodnight.

Except I told you what time is, both that there is real, physical, measurable time that is affected by gravity and momentum, and human perceptions of it. I also fully stated that if you go down the rabbit hole enough the only thing you can believe with absolute certainty is that your mind/consciousness is real. Nothing else beyond that can be "proven" beyond an absolute shadow of a doubt. Also have no idea where the golden mean came into this.

And I never claimed to be in any way superior, healthier, or otherwise, to you.

Honestly I apologize if I came across as unnecessarily cruel or otherwise towards you, I just aimed for humour, nothing more. I've also tried to stress to you before that I have a hard time reading inferred tones in voices, leave alone text written out in the Internet, so however you interpreted it to cause offense, well, it was not intended.

Indeed, I apologize in turn for forgetting your literal streak. I failed to limit my ire to the method of posting, and it fell on you as well, and I am truly sorry. I understand the difficulty of understanding how your own words will be interpreted by others. My contention is that reductionism in those kinds of posts only leads to less understanding, not more. If you try harder to look at the entirety of a thought or a post instead of separating it into bite-sized, snarkable pieces, Brovo, you might have an easier time.

With that, I'm, um, I'm just gonna get out of here. OT is not the place for me.

-and snip-

And once again Brovo argued everything I could argue and more before I even had a chance to reply! :P

Imperfectionist said OT is not the place for me.

If Brovo's length and/or method of delivery knocks you out than I imagine.
I've made and replied to far longer posts here (some from Brovo), and many individuals here can be far more ruthless than Brovo.

In other words: Don't get into an OT debate unless if you're ready to argue against walls of text and have thick enough skin to not be hurt by any Joke or criticism to you or your logic.