Intergalactic Summit

Because surely, ironic underlining will win hearts and minds.

If you're seeking to shame me with this imagined irony, then you're on to a losing tactic.

Allow me give away a free psychological tip on Verin Hakatain - I HATE being in the wrong. I obsess over avoiding that scenario as much as I possibly can. I pursue this goal of always being right by ruthlessly and totally erasing any incorrect beliefs I may have the instant I become aware of them.

If you have any proof that my beliefs are incorrect, present it. Convince me, and I will be grateful. If you can help me improve myself, I'll be in your debt.

But if you sneer at me, I'll just think you're an irritating frakwit barely worth the mental energy I expended in writing this reply. And don't pretend you don't care about my opinion, if you didn't then you wouldn't have taken a highlighter pen to my previous comment.

She's insinuating that I am exactly the sort of person I was complaining about

Why would I look to shame you on this ? If you can not see what is ironic then I am not going to continue speaking to a wall. I perfectly already figured that you hate being in the wrong. I also have a tendancy to chase after incorrect beliefs and I believe that yours are amateurish and emotionally flawed. I do not have a lot more to add than what Ms Mithra already explained at lenght on various other venues or what I already stated here and there and that you chose to ignore.

The day I find a way to convince you, I will gladly share it with you.

Entertain for a minute the possibility that the reason you have thus far failed is not because I am obstinate, but because you're yet to actually try.

I'm perfectly serious: to date your contribution has revolved exclusively around sniping from the sidelines and describing your opinion of my opinions - namely that they are "ironic", "amateurish" and "emotionally flawed".

If you have an argument, let's hear it. Right now you're being the equivalent of a random Guristas belt frigate shooting at a dreadnought that's just been caught by hostiles - annoying, but not actually making any kind of a significant contribution.





This, I would suggest, is ironic. In any case, we've argued pilot Mithra's point, and it seems to basically boil down to "Here is a logical paradox. Therefore the whole process and language of logic is invalid. Therefore, God exists." , an attitude I reject on the grounds that A: it's a non sequitur and B: there's plenty of evidence defending the validity of rationalism, logic and the scientific method which Pilot Mithra has arbitrarily excluded from consideration.

The reason I'm not bothering to deal with her any longer is because using logic to persuade somebody who is utterly convinced that the whole process of logical reasoning is flawed to the point of uselessness that they are wrong, is impossible. It's made even more impossible by the fact that I can't conceive of any other means of persuasion. We're at an insurmountable impasse, I've learned all I can from discourse with her, it's time to move on.

If you're claiming that your own capacity to argue your opinion - whatever it may be - is even more limited than hers, then you're either the most modest soul in New Eden, or have a crippling inferiority complex. In either event, if you believe as she does then we're at the same impasse.

If all you're going to do is insult people and sneer at them rather than actually converse then there's nothing to be gained from even acknowledging your presence in the channel.

I keep seeing this word 'scientism' cropping up in these discussions. Could someone define it please? All the descriptions I've encountered so far are a bit... pejorative.

Proving a negative is not possible. I cannot prove the non-existence of anything. God, sentient melon people, dragons, unappetizing bacon, good pre-teen pop music... Doesn't matter. It's not possible to prove that something does not exist.

The existence of something, however, is provable. If somebody says "God exists" or "sentient melon people control CONCORD from their Fruity Fortress of Doom" or "Jitsun Ribeeb songs are good and you will enjoy them" then they are making what is known as a positive claim.

When somebody makes a positive claim, the burden of proving their claim falls upon them. If I were to make the claim; "I own thirty Tempests" then you might reasonably demand proof, which I would then be expected to provide if I wished to be taken seriously. If my response was to say "you can't prove that I don't" and then resort to a routine of increasingly convoluted philosophical acrobatics regarding the nature of ownership, you would be entirely justified in expressing skepticism.

"God exists" goes the claim. "Prove it", I say. "You can't prove that he doesn't" comes the reply, followed by a routine of increasingly convoluted epistemological gymnastics. Again, I feel justified in expressing skepticism.

This has been going on for so long across the entirety of known human civilisation, that by now the skepticism has mounted up to the point where I consider the existence of the Amarr deity to be about as likely as the existence of the melon conspiracy. The Empire has historically upped the ante by having skeptical "apostates" executed, but whether or not somebody is dead is about as relevant to the factual accuracy of any statements or claims they may have made as is the order in which they put on their socks.

I assume you don't believe in some conspiracy of abnormally intelligent Machiavellian fruit? Or is that you believe that there IS no melon conspiracy? The two statements are not equivalent. "I do not believe in..." is not the same thing as "I believe there is no..."

If you said "I believe there is no melon conspiracy", then I would be justified in demanding that you produce your scientific evidence to prove the non existence of the Melon Overlords and their Fruity Fortress. Why? Because you have now made a positive claim. If you said "I don't believe in the Melon Controllers", then all you're doing is expressing your opinion that whoever introduced you to their unique Cucumis Sapiens-based conspiracy theory has failed to meet their burden of proof. If indeed there are no meddling melons, then said burden will simply never be met.

As I've already said - I want to be right all the time. I want to believe only in things that are true. My approach to this desire is to only start accepting somebody's version of events if, when challenged with the words "prove it", their response is to gladly produce the asked-for proof, rather than get all offended and evasive. And even that is just a good starting point - you have to be alert for scams, after all, and alert to your own shortcomings and ignorance. Somebody could produce wonderful proof to puncture your doubts, only for you to later learn that you only accepted its validity due to your own ignorance of the subject.

If I use strong, certain language when describing the Amarr religion as a myth, then that's a function of how little I anticipate there being any change in their ability to prove their claims. Feel free to translate such statements into a more passive form.

If I use strong, certain language when describing the Amarr Empire as a long-term existential threat to the State, as backwards and barbaric, as slaves to their superstitions and arrogant to boot, then that's because those are positive claims that I relish the chance to present my supporting evidence for.

Verin,

I have always greatly admired your ability to make your positions clearly known. You have a unique talent in staking a claim on a stable piece of ground, defending it resolutely, and attacking with vigor. You are also graceful in defeat and yield when force sufficient to sunder your position is given.

Thank you for posting the words I am unable to.

The difference is that Heiian is not a religion. The word simply describes a creed of duty to the greater cause of the State and through it your fellow Caldari. It's all about the human obligation to other humans, to the greater good, and to recognize that our own individual needs are secondary to the collective needs of the group.

Amarr, on the other hand, claims that the people who can trace their ethnic origin to one tribe among dozens on a single continent on one unremarkable temperate planet among the thousands of unremarkable temperate planets in the sky were specifically chosen by the creator of the universe to go out and spread the word about how much he loves them, and that some people are inherently superior to and more important than other people.

Because apparently an omnipotent, omniscient, universe-forging entity needs to spread its (unconvincing) message of love and guardianship via a catastrophically flawed mortal proxy rather than just, say, spreading the message itself using an immeasurably tiny fraction of its infinite power.

I don't have a problem with spirituality so long as it's not threatening me and mine. A very dear friend of mine is quite intensely religious and I've not once had the faintest thought of "hating" her religion because it is, frankly, a beautiful and harmonious one that brings her much joy and comfort. Anything that makes my friend happy without harming her or anybody else is fine by me.

Amarr on the other hand is all about the Reclaiming. It's the central tenet of the Imperial orthodoxy that the Empire's divine mandate is to convert us "heathens". That means that, whether through conquest and slavery, or through proselytising and diplomacy, they intend to supplant the way of life I hold dear and to bend my people to their will. Allying with them hasn't struck us off their list, merely moved us closer to the bottom.

The Minmatar, on the other hand, basically just want to do things their way, leave alone and be left alone. There's no obstacle to peaceful coexistence there. That's totally fine. If individual Minmatar want to argue the factual accuracy of their beliefs with me, I'll gladly engage them on the subject, but I'm not about to intrude on their lives unless they invite me to. What any given person believes is none of my business until they make it my business. See?

I don't know very much about the Amarr religion, but at its base appears to be a directive to "be always faithful and true to God".

The tenet of heiian has at its foundation a directive of "be always faithful and true to your kin".

We practice harsh education not only in reminiscence of our homeland but also because of our love of and duty for our kin. The universe is harsh, and we wish our descendants to be well-prepared. We find it irresponsible to do otherwise.



If this is honest, I don't think the Minmatar appreciate their belief being treated as a commodity.

If this is sarcasm, I don't think the Minmatar appreciate their belief being treated as a punchline.