Assume Nothing

Banned for not committing mass genocide.

Banned for lacking coherency.

Banned for proclaiming that you know what is meant to be.

The analogy fails because love denotes an emotive state, whereas a belief in God denotes the acceptance in supernatural claims. The differences are very significant. Your assertion that we (the human race) cannot rationally explain how love can occur is wholly untrue - it's a biological instinct set off by psychological processes. I discussed 'god-fearing' earlier, which is presumed to occur in moderate Christianity as well. I'm pretty certain that those who believe in a Christian deity would automatically accept heaven/hell. The aforementioned 'eternal torture' refers specifically to the latter - hell. I don't want to dismiss fundamentalists, as despite their lack of prevalence in European countries, their actions still have significant effects on those around them. In my religious discussions, I do not exclude any party on the basis of their lack of presence, unless they're so minute that they're negligible. I understand that beliefs can be irrational, and this is because we are human (thus we have all the human flaws, such as our ability to ascribe unexplained phenomenas to a deity as we like to fulfill what we don't understand with something we believe we understand). I'm not concerned with what beliefs are - I'm concerned with what beliefs ought to be. I believe that accepting a non-truth to be true is harmful, and thus holding irrational beliefs are harmful, because our actions are informed by our beliefs. This is especially relevant if the lie believed by the masses mandates particular moral guidelines, which I'm certain moderate Christians accept as well (I do contend with certain ideals in regards to the commandments, in particular - the notion of absolute or objective morality). On a more digressive note, I noted some mild levels of persecution as in other threads, I have been personally attacked (verbally/written) for my moral/religious stances. It's less relevant to this thread, but it's still interlinked. I'm a bit uncertain about what this debate is about. It seems to be responses to other responses, which makes the positions we are defending rather blurred. I'm still in disagreement with you in regards to irrational beliefs being harmless, though. I think I've covered why I brought up fundamentalists earlier in this post. I consider them too much of an influence, especially politically, in the USA. Given my understanding that the USA is the economic and political superpower, I consider it dangerous to ignore fundamentalists. I consider fundamentalism insidious, and they play a considerable role in religious groups.

Banned for assuming that love cannot be platonic. It is merely a word that denotes an emotive state. I'll place an additional ban for implying there's something wrong with homosexuality. EDIT - Banned for getting in the way.

Banned because I love you so.

That's the role of debate - to persuade the other side. I'm not persuaded by the sophistry of the defence. I've always found serious flaws in the opposing argument, hence the contention between both parties. I have considered the opposing party's arguments and position, but I simply find it unpersuasive and frankly, an illogical position to hold. I presume the primary question we're discussing here is the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator-deity called Yahweh - indeed, I don't believe in it. Here's a question - have Christian theologians ever considered the prospect that their purported god to 'not exist'? EDIT - I like the emotive language there. '[...] while concurrently bludgeoning anyone else possessing a contradictory view.' Define your metaphorical term - if by 'bludgeoning', you mean to make a rebuttal, then indeed I have. If by 'bludgeoning', you mean blindly attack the opposing side with heated rhetoric and fallacious argument, I don't believe I have.

Belief is belief? What sort of tautological nonsense is that? It's quite frankly meaningless in all contexts. Of course beliefs can be rationally based, by definition - in order to reach the position of 'the acceptance of something to be true/valid/existent', it requires logical/emotional thinking. I'm not sure what purpose/relevance 'quantifying' or 'measuring' belief would have in this argument - care to elucidate? It seems that you don't really understand my position. I've never suggested quantifying belief, did I? I don't think you have any right to judge whether I'm thinking with an open mind. It's funny that those critique others of myopia tend to be the ones myopic themselves, thus merely projectors of their own image, but I digress. I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest in your statements regarding the amount of times people have been at contention with me - are you suggesting that on this premise, my arguments are somehow discredited or becomes less valid? I understand religion only partially, and I would appreciate anyone correcting me if I'm wrong. It doesn't tend to be the case, rather - I get personally attacked by the self-proclaimed critics of the board for upholding and defending my beliefs. In lieu of telling me that I don't know what religion is about 'at its [purported] core', how about telling me? It would be more constructive for sure. EDIT @Gingy - I strongly oppose fundamentalism. I mildly oppose moderate theism. I still believe that having a belief in a lie is still harmful to some extent.

Getting along just fine with their lives by no means make religious ideals harmless. Whilst I can't pull up any statistical data on the issue (I don't think a consensus/survey has been done on this matter yet), I can illustrate the harm from an excerpt: [hide=How harm can occur] The "what's the harm?" arguments tend to be used with regard to single cases with a certain context - as illustrated in the introduction; however, harm from irrational beliefs can occur in many different ways depending on who holds them and the position they hold in society. Some ways in which harm can arise from irrational beliefs include: Financial harm This can occur to individuals, businesses, government agencies, institutions, etc. Spending hours on the phone to 'gifted psychics' can prove extremely costly to the individual; lending huge sums of money to people who can't afford to pay it back in the chase for more profit can prove extremely costly to banks, the government, and ultimately the taxpayer (as we have recently found to our cost!); spending money to 'invest' in an MLM business in the hope of making it rich.... one day. Direct harm Direct harm occurs as a direct consequence of an action or inaction: suffering a stroke after a chiropractic neck manipulation; being poisoned or killed by the unknown compounds in a herbal remedy; a woman needlessly dying in childbirth because her religion has interpreted scripture so that blood transfusions are not allowed; a person dying of cancer through choosing alternative medicine in place of proven treatments; physical/emotional harm caused by avoiding proper medical care because of the belief in alternative medicine. Indirect harm Indirect harm occurs as a consequence of inaction, previous action or due to the beliefs and actions of others: children dying through needless treatments for autism because the parents believe that it was caused by heavy metals in a vaccine despite the evidence against this; severely malnourished children due to being fed a strict vegan diet by their parents; children being harmed or killed by preventable diseases because their parents believe anti-vaccination propaganda; animals enduring curable conditions because their owners choose homeopathic vets or animal acupuncture. Psychological harm Caused by psychological investment in irrational concepts: false hope being given by 'psychic detectives' who involve themselves with murder and missing persons cases; distrusting things like medicine/science/institutions/etc. through conspiracy theories; irrational fears of things like Mercury in fillings, Aspartame in food, or fluoride in water; stress and anxiety caused through the belief in curses and spells, possession by demons, etc. Social harm This can manifest itself by things such as: poor public policy (using lie detectors to monitor paedophiles); wasting resources (using taxpayers' money to fund homeopathic hospitals); preventing scientific research and advances because of religious arguments; making major decisions without basing them on evidence or in spite of the evidence - e.g. going to war based on the belief that the enemy possesses weapons of mass destruction.[/hide] Since you seem obsessed with gathering evidence as opposed to arguing on the basis of reason (as if it's an implausible concept), here's one: http://whatstheharm.net/scientificstudies.html I'm not sure of the relevance of the 'love' analogy - care to explain? They're not even remotely similar. I don't see how it rationalizes your belief that religious ideals/beliefs are harmless. Oh, and in response to the 'full capacity to question their beliefs' - this isn't quite so if they're taught to fear the deity they revere. Is it not mandated that questioning the 'word of (the purported) god' is the equivalent to blasphemy, which is punishable by eternal torture ('hell' as Christian theologians call it)? I realise I'm stepping into the lines of Christian fundamentalism, but that's exactly where the problems lie - why should it be ignored simply because they don't represent Christianity as a whole? EDIT - The most problematic, outspoken theists who cause a majority of the problems are fundamentalists. Of course they won't escape scrutiny.

Banned for existing.

You're failing to realize one thing: You're not losing intelligence - everyone around you is simply comparatively more advantaged than before. The role of higher education is to stretch your mind. Do remember that.

It doesn't require statistical evidence to suggest that holding irrational beliefs is a cause of harm - we can go through an exhaustive list of examples to illustrate that this is the case. It's on this premise that I made the proposition. My understanding of the matter is that they believe religious doctrines because of two primary factors; It's likely that they have grown up all around it, with their family and their social groups all in favour of religious ideals and beliefs. They have been taught that it has been the word of 'god' from such a young age that their minds were not mature enough to criticize the concepts they were introduced to. It has been ingrained in the minds of the young like the way loaded terms could instill concepts into the minds of the public. Given that they've grown up all around religion, to disassociated themselves with it would be extremely painful, thus any doubts shall be rationalized to minimize the psychological pain of questioning their own beliefs. If rationalization isn't possible, then the use of threats or force shall do. I label these as willfully ignorant theists. Confirmation bias - they attribute normal, fortunate occurrences to the purported deity they revere. They call these 'miracles'. If they find a 5 dollar bill on the ground, they would attribute it to the deity, despite being unable to distinguish the difference between random chance and 'god' attributed events. It, allegedly, acts as confirmation for them that their deity exists (which is in fact a non-sequitur).

The question is not just 'what they believe' - rather, it's more 'why they believe it is'. If they know it's an irrational belief to uphold, why would they still uphold it? It should, in theory, be against their self-interest because irrational beliefs are almost always harmful/deleterious to themselves and to others. Christianity is rather baffling to me.

I gauge intelligence not by current intellectual capacity, but by intellectual potential. It's undoubtedly important to be able to grasp simple concepts in order to build more complex ones, but lacking this shouldn't disqualify you. Then again, intelligence isn't all that necessary either - you can be a normal person who's simply highly skilled in a specialized field. Common sense, however, is arguably of greater importance. You're a little too pessimistic - focus on your strengths, and contrast them with your weaknesses. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a cynic/pessimist myself, but I do try to look at the greater picture. It sucks to be judged, but consider this: Why should it matter to you?

In almost any relationship, one (or both) parties would almost inevitably face extraordinary problems that can be highly taxing on the relationship. The ones who succeed are usually the ones who are tenacious enough to overcome these obstacles cooperatively.

I'd like to see an accuracy curve. The current role of defence merely raises the probability that the hit would 'miss' and hit a zero, as opposed to the attack being 'hit' to deal arbitrary damage between 1 and the max hit (with equal likelihood of any particular number). I'd like to see defence to play the additional role of making lower hits e.g. (0-300) more likely than say.. higher hits between (301-600). It logically follows because striking a non-vital target area is less damaging to the player/monster than hitting a vital target area, and so it would more closely emulate real life combat. Defences, when applied in the real world, doesn't merely negate certain blows. It mitigates damage received as well, by redirecting the force to another spot. If this was applied to RuneScape, defence would become a much more meaningful/useful tool to have. In order to rectify the advantage that the proposal would give to defence tanks - the opposite could be true for those who have a high attack level, which would balance out if placed together.

I don't see how that supports your claim that defence doesn't need fixing. It neglects the issues highlighted within the article.

I argue about fundamentalists because they're the ones who - even in the minority, have a disproportionate influence on public affairs. It impedes our progress and causes a lot of the social harm we see derived from religion. This affects others in an adverse way - therefore it's immoral. I don't understand the moderate Christian worldview, if such a thing exists - I need clarification before I can argue on that point. In response to your response: I don't get it, why are there such a variety of denominations? It seems to be essentially cherry-picked to match the individual tastes of the church-goers.

Banned for failing to comply with the guidelines.

Banned for banning a newb.

It can still invoke discussion. I'm not saying it's morally righteous/wrong to hold onto those opinions, but if they're going to be presented as a position to uphold, the author should damn well know that it would require argument/evidence in order to be persuasive. If they're merely his opinion to be uphold by himself without the objective of trying to persuade those who hold a dissenting opinion, then you would be right in the notion that his opinion doesn't need to be substantiated. I fail to see the purpose of such if that's the case, though.

I feel this thread could be revived given the change in discussion on the 'Ethics and Morality' thread. Is this an appropriate analogy for Christian fundamentalism? Oh, and as an additional question - what exactly do moderate Christians believe? I've never understood the distinction, and why they would label themselves Christians if they don't accept the purported holy scripture as a literal truth. Here's the analogy: This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first: John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary." Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?" John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you." Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?" John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass." Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..." Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?" Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..." John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?" Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..." Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?" John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town." Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?" Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you." Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?" John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money." Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?" John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it." Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?" Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street." Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?" John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'" Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game." John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you." Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..." Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank." Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?" John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on." Me: "Who's Karl?" Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times." Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?" John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself." From the Desk of Karl Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town. Use alcohol in moderation. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you. Eat right. Hank dictated this list Himself. The moon is made of green cheese. Everything Hank says is right. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom. Don't use alcohol. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you. Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead." Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper." Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting." John: "Of course, Hank dictated it." Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?" Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people." Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?" Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right." Me: "How do you figure that?" Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!" Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up." John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too." Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong." John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure." Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..." Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese." Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese." John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!" Me: "We do?" Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so." Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'" John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking." Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?" Mary: She blushes. John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong." Me: "What if I don't have a bun?" John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong." Me: "No relish? No Mustard?" Mary: She looks positively stricken. John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!" Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?" Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la." John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..." Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary: She faints. John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

It's too bad it wasn't.

I'm not sure why you write in such a cryptic way. Confused.jpg

It's been 5 days already. I'm annoyed at the slow dispatch.