Intergalactic Summit

Excuse my interruption. I myself do not know the truth value of the object of this conversation - I don't understand a great deal of it. However, I would like to interject somewhat. Please pardon my unfamiliarity, and take my statements with with a healthy dose of skepticism.



We all live according to our own perspectives - indeed, how could we not? And, no one feels that their own conclusions are flawed unless they are on the cusp of an epiphany. Indeed, we are all very, very intimate with what it feels like to be wrong about an answer - It often feels just like being right.

I feel you miss Father Amith's point. It is his claim that the universe as we observe it is consistent with the concept of God, and that suggestions of incompatibility are flawed.

Though it is only a guess, I imagine that the hard problems of consciousness are the reason for his perception that the existence of God and the soul are the simplest answers, to use good Mr. Hakatain's categories. And to be entirely honest, it is incredibly hard to see how conscousness emerges from a bayesian ayclic graph such as our brains. I don't presume to know the answer, but I can understand how one could conclude that a soul is the simplest answer.



Is it sadism to wish well for ones' offspring when releasing them to the world? You condemn every parent, and many of the best tendencies of humanity. May I gently suggest that this idea is flawed?

With all due respect to Amarrian comrades, I would say a Caldari citizen requires neither God or religion when they have duty and the State. I do believe however there are better methods to express differences of opinion than atheist diatribes directed towards an integral part of Imperial culture and tradition. I would say myself toleration of differences is commendable and is to be encouraged but there exist limits to everything - even tolerance - and boundaries exist in the Caldari State regarding our cultural and political sovereignty that it would be unwise even for a valued partner to cross.

Just as in the spirit of mutual respect would I not seek to denigrate a fundamental aspect of the Amarrian faith and culture by questioning the validity of God in public discourse so too would I not wish to see the Amarr, with nothing but good intentions in their cause certainly, to impugn on the dignity of Caldari culture and traditions by preaching their faith in the State without prior invitation. Misunderstanding is always borne from ignorance and intolerance, and I believe the mutually beneficial arrangements between the State and Empire have only been maintained for neither ignorance nor intolerance exist between us and the best path forward is to maintain that healthy respect and admiration shared by both our nations.

I believe an Achuran comrade of mine said it best on the application of rationalism to questions of faith, however:

"There exists no such thing as absolute truths; only varying degrees of lies and imperfections."

A typically Achuran comment, and I say that with nothing but amused respect. I must, however, respectfully dissent: there are such things as absolute truths. I think therefore I am. 2+2=4. the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference is an irrational number. A Hydrogen atom has only one proton and one electron.

The existence or non-existence of a thing is one such thing: Whether God is real or not IS an absolute truth. Alas, we ourselves can only make an educated guess on the subject. The logic, for my money, is inescapable: I cannot conclude that God is likely to be real.

The moral judgment is more subjective, but I am clear on this: if god IS real, and truly does desire that all mankind should bend the knee for the simple fact of our existence, then he and I are going to fall out. Simple gratitude for the gift of being is one thing. Allegiance and duty are fine virtue. But I am not now, nor will I ever be, a slave.

Not to man, not to machine, not to alien, not to deity.

This sets me in natural opposition to the Amarrian philosophy. See, the revelation I've had recently is that the Amarrians don't just enslave - they ARE slaves. To a tyrant of a god who apparently created us all specifically so we could fall on our faces and sing his praise.

This being of supposedly infinite power also appears to have the ultimate inferiority complex and needs us mere mortals to kiss its arse with our every breath, sing its praises with every word, glorify it with every deed. It is unenlightened, cripplingly insecure, takes no pleasure from spectating on its creation and instead craves to steal every one of humanity's accomplishments for itself.

If all that Amarr demanded was that we should show simple gratitude, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If the only requirement of your faith, Pilot Amith, was that we acknowledge our creator and what he did for us, I would view it as a harmless bit of irrational thinking and would ignore it.

Instead we have an empire whose stated goal is to "Reclaim" everybody. Whether or not this means literal slavery, shackles and shock collars and sharpshooters and all, or the more sedate slavery of the mind is not relevant - either is slavery, denial of freedom, control. In the name of what I maintain is most definitely a fantasy, your faith would see the whole world on its knees, and I need not go into the details of what few and degrading activities are possible from that position.

Please don't take my cordial intellectualism for tolerance. I mentioned earlier that we are defined by our enemies - well, I find myself increasingly ignoring the eagle-flagged enemy of my youth in favour of the CANCER that is Amarr.

Speaking as a surgeon, the appropriate response to cancer is to cut it out, poison it, and irradiate it out of existence. Make no mistake: if your god is real and behaves as your faith describes, then I would consider it the moral duty of every human alive to find a way to kill it.

I gave much the same answer to my Achuran comrade at the time and was told that any formal axiomatic system that can be proven to be consistent from within itself, is then inconsistent. I was then told that perhaps human irrationality and inconsistency is how we all escape the problems of self-reference in our patterns of thought.

Mathematicians.

Of course, I think Achuran parables have a tendency to be so constructed so as to invite introspection on the meanings behind their statements and in questioning them do we all find our own answers.

As for the institution of indentured labour in the Empire, frankly unless they are a citizen of the State then I have neither obligation or duty to intercede on their behalf for they are not Caldari. I do believe the majority of negative views on the practice stem primarily from Federal propaganda and media outlets seeking to sway public opinion against the Empire. I prefer to form my opinions.

As for military reclaiming on the part of the Amarr Empire, I would say it is an impossibility under CONCORD, and thus not an issue of concern so long as they honour their pact and alliance with the State with the dignity and respect they have shown thus far.

I had a feeling you'd point to this passage sooner or later, it's a very controversial passage for a number of reasons, one of which is precisely what you've stated.

For the sake of relevance, let us ignore the first and last statements of the Code as I believe they're not what you're referring to. Let us instead focus on the three I've repeated.

To understand the tone of the passage, we pay attention to the words used in the warnings: "careful," "watchful," "respectful." These are not words of ill omen and subjugation but words of caution and wisdom.

We are instructed to be careful because "pure thought" is the instigator of sin. This could mean two primary things:

• Pure Thought being thought for the sake of thought. Pondering something simply for the sake of doing so, with no purpose to it other than intellectual pursuit. The reason this is warned against is because the mind holds within itself the capacity to consider and rationalize great acts of benevolence as well as great acts of malevolence and atrocity. We are told to not to invite the temptation and consideration of sin by practicing simple thought for thought's sake but rather to have clear purpose to our intellectual pursuits.
• Pure Thought being the considering of oneself as "pure" or righteous. When one considers themselves above reproach and beyond corruption, it is an invitation for that corruption to come knocking at the door. You needn't look past much in our own history to see examples of this truth.

It could mean either one of those or neither, but those are the understandings I've gained from that statement.

The next statement we are instructed to be watchful because "free thought" begets disorder. This statement could again mean a couple of things but the primary one that I've found to be most consistent with the Scriptures falls in line with the previous warning. Free thought is thought without constraint, particularly in pursuit of anything without barrier or limitation to it. Whereas the previous warning deals with maintain a purpose to the pursuit, this deals with setting a boundary and limitation to what you'll consider and pursue intellectually. This warning is also self relevant in history. Regardless of what system the individual is in, the mind can fathom "greater," existences and "better" systems if it is allowed to do so, regardless of whether or not there is truth to these fathoms. Specifically, this can breed discontent and chaos in the mind and heart, which will eventually come out through word and action. More specifically, it is in reference to how we place God before all we do and ensure that our intellectual pursuits are not free of submission to his sovereignty.

Both of these combined are a simple warning to guard yourself against temptations of the mind, against hubris and against discontent because they lead to self destruction and rebellion. They are not a constraint against intellectual pursuit, creativity, theological debate and other such endeavors. If they were, then we'd hardly have need of the Theology Council and other institutions that exist solely for these purposes.

They extol them not to think logically, certainly. And maintaining those beliefs absolutely does require a pronounced suspension of disbelief and a willingness to make arbitrary exceptions to some of the most basic principles of logical thought.

Fortunately for the Empire, the righteous have never been shy about embracing cognitive dissonance, and ignoring those parts of their own dogma that are inconvenient. Otherwise the Godflesh doctrine would mean that Amarrian capsuleers would be about as common as fish farts.

Then again, given that outspoken atheism is all but suicidal in Amarrian society, and means effectively writing yourself a one-way ticket to the slave pens, I'm not at all surprised by the news that 100% of the Empire's scientific community proudly proclaim their faith. I suspect that a significant proportion of them do so because they are not stupid.

This is a completely false statement, as well as an entirely disrespectful one.



Further display of ignorance. The Godflesh Doctrine applies specifically to those of royal flesh not all Amarr and it relates to the process of full cloning, not to cellular regeneration through cloning. The reason for this is that those of royal flesh are chosen by God and imparted with an aspect of his divinity, making their bodies sacrosanct. I've also quite clearly explained the dilemma related to the human soul and cloning here, if you care to read it.



Or perhaps it is because they can look at the same set of data and evidence and see God written all over it while you see only his absence.

It must be very nice to live in a pretend world where you and all your like-minded 'atheist' buddies are the only Real True Sane ones, but that's not this world. In this world, most people believe in something. And that something is not even in conflict with their view of the natural world, it tends to be complimentary. As in it enhances their study, motivates them, makes them more curious and more willing to question their preconceived notions and their findings. I invite you to join me in a world where science is not an enemy of religion, regardless of what religion it is.

And then we can get back to shooting each other. You know, like civilized people.

Merely declaring my statement false does not prove that it is false. I have supported my interpretation with your own Scriptures. Will you not do the same, if you can?



I have heard from various people that it applies to nobody, to Amarr royalty, to all Amarr, to all the faithful, and to all of mankind. Whose dogma should I accept?



If you're wearing yellow-tinted goggles, the sky looks green. If you're indoctrinated to see god in everything, you will. The ability to see something, especially to make such an assertive and positive claim as "I see God in this" does not mean that thing is in fact present. I note the many thousands of cases per day where the likenesses of various saints appear in such varied innocuous items as toasted bread, wood grain and topiary. Noting the absence of something is much more reliable.



Please note the distinction between the term "a significant proportion" and the word "all". It is an established fact that there is a strong causal relationship between a scientific education and atheism. An absolute one-to-one correlation? no. But most scientists of my acquaintance outside of the Empire are rationalist atheists, and I consider it likely that a significant number within the Empire are rationalist atheists too, but sensible enough to keep it to themselves.

And Rhiannon, atheism is not nihilism. It is not a lack of all belief, but rather is the targeted rejection of one specific belief. I have all sorts of beliefs, many of which I have expressed in this very discussion. One of them is that all of my beliefs must be subject to revision if the evidence or a good argument proves them to be flawed.

I am not rejecting a self-evident truth here, far from it. Instead, I'm saying that I am not prepared to believe something just because somebody told me it was true. Otherwise, I'd fall for every "great deal" in Jita and go bankrupt. If I'm going to accept a proposition, I require that proposition to be supported and supportable. the claim "X is real" is a positive claim, requiring positive proof. If the proof will not or can not be produced, I have no reason to conclude that the claim is true.

If you told me that you had a dragon in your cargo hold, I'd ask to see it. If you told me it was invisible, I'd say "okay, but I can still touch it right?". If you told me that it was also insubstantial and in fact impossible to detect or contact by any means, I'd feel compelled to point out that an invisible, incorporeal, undetectable dragon is indistinguishable from no dragon at all.

God is invisible, incorporeal, and apparently undetectable. And apparently he likes slavery. I think I'd prefer the dragon.

And here we find the crux of the problem - you think that opinions are immune to falsification. I do not.

Are you sure you want to withdraw? I welcome the debate, I honestly do.