Intergalactic Summit

I would agree that there are likely more Minmatar who are embarassed about the practice of exile than there are Amarr who are embarassed about the practice of genocide.

And there are days I'm Embarrassed to know all of you!

How did we go from welcoming the Overseer back to arguing about God... Well more accurately understanding His will, to a genocide no one ever wanted to happen much less happen again to 'no you are more embarrassing!'

I have proven God to you the problem here is your so hung up on the definition of words made by man that you can't see beyond them to bigger things.

However my former slave is right, there is a lack of maturity at work here but lets not make it worse by saying who and where.

And for the record shes not Amarrian, she shares your blood and has more common sense then you.

you were not here for the many conversation that have been had so we'll keep that in mind going forward hmm?

As for words constructed by man knowing God is no where near as important as obeying. My point wasn't that there was total clarity in having words that express the existence of God but more that its a matter of Faith and less about the words themselves.

I'm sure the people who read the The Book of Emptiness before that passed onto madness who I will give the writer credit must seen insight in words crafted with such skill.

Damaging though it maybe.

I know you think your trying to do good by standing on some concept of 'burden of proof lies with the claimer.' Normally I would agree with you but sadly people like Andreus Ixiris when present with proof retreats for 3-4 months pretends it never happens then appears either here or IGS counting any statement made about God with his famous patented line 'Nope, there is no God. " Or words to that effect. This allows him the annoying advantage of hopefully wearing out the one who proved him wrong in the past to not try or even better for him if said person is not there then he argues with someone who does not have their facts ready.

All because the words that describe God don't match to his train of Logic. Not because there has been proven to be no God, Not because some can't match his wit but because he has this disillusioned vision of what the word 'perfect' means from a second year drop out philosophy stand point.

So before you jump in and make the assursion that someone has not tried to prove God to him or anyone else keep in mind this is his strategy.

A war of verbal attrition where he bulls forward counting on busy Amarrians to give up trying just so he can assume hes won because no one has the time to play his game. He has not wit to do it in a one on one manor hence why he keeps these arguments public. If someone does make a solid point he can always fall back on ignoring said person and act to respond to someone else more easy to defeat point.

Let me repeat this for you, slowly. I'll try to use monosyllabic words where possible.

You have never shown proof of God's existence.

You've never done it, not even once. Your claims to have done so in the past are lies.

Lying is a sin, no?



Except that hasn't happened. You haven't proved me wrong about God because... well, you can't. Quite apart from the fact that I have provided several rigorous and solid logical proofs of your God's nonexistence, the entire point - one that many of your own countrymen concede - is that it isn't possible to prove God's existence, and that is the foundation of faith (i.e. conviction and belief in a concept that one cannot verify with certainty). If God's existence was provable, there would be no need for faith. In claiming to have proved God's existence, you are not only verifiably wrong but also guilty in your own theology of the grave sin of theological hubris.

So, you're an idiot twice.

Not surprising.



Well you see, the great thing about logic is that no matter what words you use to describe it, it still stands because it's logic. Logic doesn't change depending on what language you happen to speak it in - if an assertion is illogical, it's illogical in Gallentean, it's illogical in Caldanese, it's illogical in Matari and it's illogical in Amarrian. Perfect has a very simple definition:

perfect
[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt]
adjective
excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement; entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings;

(Emphasis mine)

I could go on, but I feel no need nor any particular desire to.



Ah yes, the old standard of ad hominem - "this assertion is invalid because we don't like the man who made it". Sorry, Kithrus, but the world doesn't work that way, and the burden of proof still lies upon the claimant and not the detractor, no matter how much you may dislike me. The simple fact is that the Amarrian people - yourself in particular - have not and in fact cannot provide proof of God's existence, and the onus is upon you to do so, not the Minmatar or the Gallente or the Caldari or the few Amarrians with a little sense in their heads to provide disproof.

The vast amount of disproof I provide is pleasure, not business, you see.

It's funny what you say about my debating tactics. I would call them outright lies, because at first glance that's precisely what you are - I don't back away from theological and scriptural debate with Amarrians, and I never have - but when I examine them further, I find that there's a lot of truth to what you said, it's just that you're saying it about the wrong person. I notice that this is the tactic that you and quite a lot of Amarrians have been taking lately - not just with me, but with almost everyone who raises an obvious objection to the twisted illogic of your religion. You in particular have been ignoring a lot of the points I've been making because you don't have an answer for them.

But this changes nothing.

The burden of proof still lies with the Amarrians to prove their God exists, not with their detractors to prove it doesn't.

Aha! But if God knows that it exists, why does it need you to speak for it?

Precisely my point! If it needs nothing, then why did it create us?

Ah, a desperate attempt at humour by an Amarrian run out of any valid points to make. Why am I not surprised?

If the people who do believe in God didn't represent, bar none, the largest single threat to science, self-determination, freedom of conscience and cultural diversity that this cluster has ever and, it is my fervent hope, will ever face, I would be more or less content with the Amarr holding on to their primitive, barbaric, millenia-obselete sky-wizard superstitions. Well, no, I wouldn't be content, exactly, but it would be no concern of mine.

However, that isn't the case. Not only do you insist on holding onto beliefs that are self-evidently incorrect, you insist upon spreading them to other, unwilling cultures by violence, murder and sexual abuse.



No, I'm challenging the Amarrians to justify the beliefs that have led them to perpetrate the largest spree of humanitarian atrocities in recorded history, yet contribute absolutely nothing to the cultural, social and scientific advancement of humanity.

So far you've come up desperately lacking.



Joke's on you, I'm actually quite well-versed in quantum physics - ask the Roden R&D agents I collaborate on research projects with. Yes, it's true, I can't see a quark (it's spelt that way, you see, not "quarck". There never was a more apt moment for me to use the phrase "do your research") directly, not with my own two eyes. However, I have access to - and if I wished, could personally possess - the equipment, personnel and software to allow me to verify the existence of a quark, and there exists a vast network of scientific peers to whom I could submit my findings to have them checked for error or discrepancy.

The same cannot be said of your nonexistent deity.



How convenient - this supposedly omnipresent being reveals itself only to those who already believe in its existence!

No, Merdaneth.

The existence and appearence of quarks is not contingent upon a person's belief in them, because their existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Would you accept such proof when/if presented?

I ask with sincerity, this time, because many of your fellows would find a technicality to exploit and claim that the evidence presented is not 'proof', or argue over the definition of 'exist', or other things like that.

However, you seem to be someone who won't stoop to such levels.

So, can we have your word that you will accept that the information presented is valid?