Imperfectionist

Character sheet questions

:) Just for fun, you can include the form of the character's Patronus, the form a boggart takes when your character is faced with one, the smell that the character gets from Amortentia...

And there are more generic ones, strengths and weaknesses, greatest fear(s), major goals, an explanation of the character's family.

I don't know if this is intentional, but you also don't have a "History" or "Background" section. Perhaps it's unneeded?

Avatar RP: Raising A New Avatar (After The Legend of Korra) +Limited Space+

We don't have any character sheets yet... It's entirely possible (even likely) that one or more of the people who have reserved a spot will have to drop out.

:) I'm just saying, keep an eye on it, Gisk.

Avatar RP: Raising A New Avatar (After The Legend of Korra) +Limited Space+

Sorry for the double-post, but I have a rather important question. Didn't the ending of "Spirits" permanently kill the original line of Avatars (because the original Raava spirit was destroyed), including Aang, Roku, Kyoshi, and the rest?

So, at this point there would only be the spirit of Korra for Taru to draw power and wisdom from... Right?

Avatar RP: Raising A New Avatar (After The Legend of Korra) +Limited Space+

-ahem- Well then, I'll be the Avatar.

Sheet forthcoming.

EDIT: Big A:TLA fan, but I haven't watched all of Korra yet (season 2, basically). Will that hamper my understanding too much?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

: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.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

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.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

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

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

:( 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

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

Well, I still might, but I need to see who you two want first.

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

:) Thought so, nothing to worry about.