These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[CLRGY] A Return & That which Binds Us - Amarr

Author
Silas Vitalia
Doomheim
#101 - 2011-11-22 23:22:32 UTC
One cannot look upon subatomic particle. We can only see how other objects react to it, to try and determine its true nature.

We know it to exist because of how it effects and moves everything around it.


This understanding extends to religion.

Sabik now, Sabik forever

Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#102 - 2011-11-22 23:58:32 UTC
Again: Why does it matter whether this god exists or not?
Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
Khimi Harar
#103 - 2011-11-23 01:35:20 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:

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?


Ms. Stjerna, you do not grasp the problem.

Proof is contingent upon the criteria you establish to determine it. "I don't believe it until I've seen it" is such a criteria for example. Mr. Ixiris might simply demand to see God. Even then when I stretch out my hand and point out the heavens and say "this is all God" he might say: "no, I must see a man, a force or something else, I will not accept a vision of the skies as proof. If you do not show me a image of a man with ultimate power I won't believe in God."

Let me try another example: can you prove love exists, or how about faith?

There are many intangibles in life and we have words for them. Words for things that tie the universe together and provide an answer to many of humanity's basic questions: why are we here, what is our purpose? Mr. Ixiris might claim an invisible force akin to Quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation all in one, and that all causality and life and everything can be traced back to this intangible theoretical force. My answer to such questions is: God.

Similarly, if I claim that I've must have seen a Quark with my own bare eyes to believe in it, I believe mr. Ixiris will be hard-pressed to provide sufficient proof.

Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
Khimi Harar
#104 - 2011-11-23 01:41:37 UTC
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Again: Why does it matter whether this god exists or not?


It matters if you believe in Him or not. For many people believing in God is contingent on believing that he exists.

However, I doubt that if mr. Ixiris was presented proof that God did exist, he would start becoming a faithful follower. Of course, this means that there is no point in trying to proof God's existence to mr. Ixiris.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2011-11-23 02:05:58 UTC
Merdaneth wrote:
Then mr. Ixiris, my challenge to you is simple: prove to me that quarks exist.


Certainly. In the realm of quantum physics this is basically the equivalent of making a sandwich. I will, of course, require a lump-sum payment of roughly five hundred million ISK to cover the costs of obtaining and setting up the equipment and personnel required for the deep inelastic scattering process already used on a regular basis by nearly every single subatomic particle physics research project in the known universe. This money will allow for the top-range equipment and expertise required to produce results of neccessary rigor and accuracy.

I wouldn't dare mis-spend it. After all, it's God's own coin, isn't it?

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#106 - 2011-11-23 02:30:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Stjerna
Merdaneth wrote:

Ms. Stjerna, you do not grasp the problem.


Oh, I grasp the problem perfectly well.

I'm just not about to let you get away with using verbal tricks to weasel out on your own challenge.

Keeping you on your toes, is all.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2011-11-23 03:04:34 UTC
Merdaneth wrote:
Ms. Stjerna, you do not grasp the problem.

Proof is contingent upon the criteria you establish to determine it. "I don't believe it until I've seen it" is such a criteria for example. Mr. Ixiris might simply demand to see God.


Actually, I most certainly wouldn't. I don't make demands to see nonexistent things - it's why, for instance, I've never asked to see an Amarrian's sense of decency.

Merdaneth wrote:
Even then when I stretch out my hand and point out the heavens and say "this is all God" he might say: "no, I must see a man, a force or something else, I will not accept a vision of the skies as proof. If you do not show me a image of a man with ultimate power I won't believe in God."


The simple issue here is that you're presenting purely natural phenomena as evidence of your God's existence. Yes, nebulae are beautiful, but we understand the various mechanisms behind their formation fairly well. Quite a lot of natural phenomena happen to arrange themselves in aesthetically pleasing ways - nebulae, birdsong, sunsets, the smell of a rose. However, there are also phenomena that are equally displeasing - dust storms, the call of a howler monkey and the odor of a corpse flower. In fact, some natural phenomena have as many ugly examples as beautiful ones; I mean, here's an example, while we're on the subject of nebulae - have you seen that urine-coloured monstrosity the Jovians live in nowadays?

Life and nature are random, and the gfact is that there is no greater plan behind it all. And that very randomness, that freedom - that lack of a celestial imperative - is more inspiring than a thousand divine plans could ever be.

Merdaneth wrote:
Let me try another example: can you prove love exists, or how about faith?


Well, there's no incontravertible proof of either, I'll give you that, but there are a laundry list of neurochemical and psychological impulses behind love and faith (the two are remarkably similar, in fact) that give both sentiments a foundation, if not a rock-solid explanation, in scientific theory. Besides, faith as a concept is very clearly extant, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See, here's the thing - I accept the existence of God as a concept. To do otherwise would simply be ridiculous, as Amarrians very clearly have a firm concept of what God is. Where we differ, at a fundamental level, is that you insist that your God exists as more than that concept, whereas I firmly maintain that such a thing is illogical and impossible.

Oh, well, I guess I also maintain that this belief has turned you into a nation of subhuman, genocidal sociopaths, but now we're just talking semantics.

Merdaneth wrote:
Mr. Ixiris might claim an invisible force akin to Quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation all in one, and that all causality and life and everything can be traced back to this intangible theoretical force. My answer to such questions is: God.

Similarly, if I claim that I've must have seen a Quark with my own bare eyes to believe in it, I believe mr. Ixiris will be hard-pressed to provide sufficient proof.


The fact is that I don't claim an invisible force akin to quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation to all things and that all causality and life can be tied back to it.

... I mean, partially it's because a quark is a lepton, not a force. You're probably thinking of the Higgs Boson and the related Higgs Field, but I digress - oh, and incidentally, if you demand to see a quark with your own eyes, you're... well. Quarks are... how do I put this... well, they're very small. I mean, really small. I mean you might think that grain of rice that slipped over the side of the bowl last time you ate at Diurelli's was small but hoo boy, quarks are tiny.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Uraniae Fehrnah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2011-11-23 06:17:05 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:


...

Actually, I most certainly wouldn't. I don't make demands to see nonexistent things - it's why, for instance, I've never asked to see an Amarrian's sense of decency.

...

Oh, well, I guess I also maintain that this belief has turned you into a nation of subhuman, genocidal sociopaths, but now we're just talking semantics.

...



I've snipped out the bulk of your words purely in the interest of saving space, so please don't go assuming I'm attempting to take your words out of context. Now then, I do appreciate the points you're making and the fact that, for the most part, the discussion is polite... However I just had to nitpick on these two little statements. While I do understand that provocative statements can be powerful tools and rouse people to support this notion or that idea, but might I suggest at least trying to steer clear of the sweeping racial generalizations?

Yes, I'm fully aware the next logical response as per IGS etiquette is a snide remark about some sort of double standard or more plainly "not calling out" the other people who do the same. With that in mind one may ask why I'm not pointing any fingers at Amarrians I see using their lips before using their brains. The answer to that is two-fold actually. Firstly, and this just illustrates further why I dislike the sweeping racial generalizations, not all Amarrians are as horrible as some of them are. Secondly, any Amarrian with any sort of social grace should know better than to fire off such crude insults. Really now, if you must resort to insults, take some pride in crafting more poignant verbal barbs to hurl at someone.

All that aside, Mr. Ixiris, you did make a good point about how many things in the natural world are beautiful and how just as many are displeasing. It's fair to take that a step further and say a good many things are beneficial or harmful, and even how things can be both under some circumstances. You're also asserting that science has proven the various "how" and "why" for the innumerable natural wonders of creation, and that is certainly valid. However I have to ask, why is it so utterly impossible that all the natural laws of the world, all the science, math, probability, causal or conditional instances of creation can't also be the design and intent of some sort of Divinity?
Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#109 - 2011-11-23 06:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Astrid Stjerna
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

The fact is that I don't claim an invisible force akin to quarks ties the universe together and is the origin, cause and explanation to all things and that all causality and life can be tied back to it.

... I mean, partially it's because a quark is a lepton, not a force. You're probably thinking of the Higgs Boson and the related Higgs Field, but I digress - oh, and incidentally, if you demand to see a quark with your own eyes, you're... well. Quarks are... how do I put this... well, they're very small. I mean, really small. I mean you might think that grain of rice that slipped over the side of the bowl last time you ate at Diurelli's was small but hoo boy, quarks are tiny.


To carry on from Andreus' example:

We can, with some effort and expenditure, show you a 'quark'. It is a real, stable subatomic particle with a definite mass. It interacts with the matter around it in a recognizable manner; if we saw a handful of random particles, we could reliably tell you which are quarks, and which are bosons, and which are protons and neutrons through the way they interact with each other.

Now, here's where it gets tricky -- bear with me as I try and make this sound sensible.

God, on the other hand, lies outside the empirical method; we can't pick up 'a bit of God' and study it, there's no evidence that it interacts with the universe in any way (beyond the usual extremely subjective religious opinions), and we can't reliably and consistently watch any kind of physical effect on any form of matter that we can currently detect.

You're asking us to accept the physical existence of something that is invisible, intangible, and has no apparent subatomic, atomic or physical effect on anything that we can currently put to an objective examination. By all known laws of physics, something of that nature can't physically exist, Merdaneth.

You're asking us to believe in something that we know, through direct and verifiable physical law, is an impossibility.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#110 - 2011-11-23 06:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kithrus
Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:


...

Actually, I most certainly wouldn't. I don't make demands to see nonexistent things - it's why, for instance, I've never asked to see an Amarrian's sense of decency.

...

Oh, well, I guess I also maintain that this belief has turned you into a nation of subhuman, genocidal sociopaths, but now we're just talking semantics.

...



I've snipped out the bulk of your words purely in the interest of saving space, so please don't go assuming I'm attempting to take your words out of context. Now then, I do appreciate the points you're making and the fact that, for the most part, the discussion is polite... However I just had to nitpick on these two little statements. While I do understand that provocative statements can be powerful tools and rouse people to support this notion or that idea, but might I suggest at least trying to steer clear of the sweeping racial generalizations?

Yes, I'm fully aware the next logical response as per IGS etiquette is a snide remark about some sort of double standard or more plainly "not calling out" the other people who do the same. With that in mind one may ask why I'm not pointing any fingers at Amarrians I see using their lips before using their brains. The answer to that is two-fold actually. Firstly, and this just illustrates further why I dislike the sweeping racial generalizations, not all Amarrians are as horrible as some of them are. Secondly, any Amarrian with any sort of social grace should know better than to fire off such crude insults. Really now, if you must resort to insults, take some pride in crafting more poignant verbal barbs to hurl at someone.

All that aside, Mr. Ixiris, you did make a good point about how many things in the natural world are beautiful and how just as many are displeasing. It's fair to take that a step further and say a good many things are beneficial or harmful, and even how things can be both under some circumstances. You're also asserting that science has proven the various "how" and "why" for the innumerable natural wonders of creation, and that is certainly valid. However I have to ask, why is it so utterly impossible that all the natural laws of the world, all the science, math, probability, causal or conditional instances of creation can't also be the design and intent of some sort of Divinity?


In the spirit of following suite and not throwing barbed comments at people all I can say is because some people who shall remain nameless feel they need a 350 word single spaced document that shatters their reality and gives them an argument they can't dispute in anyway way shape or form.

what said people fail to see is there are many crafty ways to talk your way out of say chores for instance. 'I don't have to do said paperwork I have a secretary.' 'I am not responsible for damages occurred on my property because you signed a document.' So by reflex people designing to avoid the responsibility of being held accountable will make any and all excuses of why they don't have to do something.

In this case take the leap of faith.

Andreus Ixiris I don't think is incapable of believing in God with that presented question he just doesn't want to. He wants something he can't explain away which sadly Andreus feels he needs the perfect argument so he can't have an excuse to not believe in God.

But as I heard my grandfather used to say 'man is the only creature that will defend themselves from something that will do them good.'

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.

Nick Bete
Highsec Haulers Inc.
#111 - 2011-11-23 07:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Bete
Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:


... However I have to ask, why is it so utterly impossible that all the natural laws of the world, all the science, math, probability, causal or conditional instances of creation can't also be the design and intent of some sort of Divinity?



Because it reduces the greatness of the cosmos and all of free will to a cheap literary trick, a deus ex machina, a way to write oneself out of an impossible plot predicament. Sorry but, neither the universe nor myself are ruled or controlled by some unknowable, infallible, omnipotent, omniscient puppetmaster. I'll take measurable, observable, independently verifiable facts to handwavium but, that's me.

I really don't give a damn about your religion, or your empire, so long as you don't try forcing either down my throat at the barrel of a laser turret. Believe in your god, in omnipotent dust bunnies, or twinkly pink fairies for all I care, just do it in your own space and leave the rest of us alone.

Oh and Kithrus since you and others have stressed that you believe strongly in free will; last time I checked I'm an adult. I'm legally permitted to vote, to fight and die for my nation, to drink liquor, to marry, to pilot starships. I'm free as an adult to live in accordance to my own dictates and to make choices that may be good for me or bad for me. As an adult I also accept the consequences of said choices. Who are you to interfere, especially unbidden and in the name of something that may or may not exist?

Not believing in your god may be "bad" for me in your opinion but, it's not up to you to "save" me from myself.
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#112 - 2011-11-23 07:49:05 UTC
Merdaneth wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Again: Why does it matter whether this god exists or not?
It matters if you believe in Him or not. For many people believing in God is contingent on believing that he exists.

However, I doubt that if mr. Ixiris was presented proof that God did exist, he would start becoming a faithful follower. Of course, this means that there is no point in trying to proof God's existence to mr. Ixiris.
And should anyone ever provide proof that God did not exist, I doubt that anyone of the faithful would suddenly stop.

The problem with both of those sentences is that neither proof nor disproof is actually possible. It's in the nature of God that he is not falsifiable, meaning there is no (scientific) way of proving or disproving his existence. The scientific method relies on measurable, repeatable experiments. God is not measurable, nor are his acts repeatable (his ways are said to be unknowable, even). Science does not make any statements about the existence of things that can not be measured. He could exist, or he could not. No one knows, nor can prove it.

Science does make a statement about such entities, though: They are inconsequential to the remaining scientific world. If there was a measurable consequence of God's existence, it could be analyzed with the scientific method. There isn't. All consequences God himself can enact on me happen in another extra-scientific world (the afterlife).

Say, I could urinate on His most sacred shrine and wipe my ass with original Scripture parchment (preferably the Book of Reclaiming), and the worst that would happen to me would be a bunch of upset Amarrians and the threat that while nothing is happening NOW, I just wait, once I die there surely will be stuff.

Or when I fight Amarrians and they win, they say they did so with God's help. And when they lose, it's a test of their faith by God. It's completely impossible to know beforehand which way God will decide this time, and apparently he decides quite a bit according to who made the mistakes and would have lost without his interference anyhow. So, for fights it's irrelevant whether he exists, too.

Hence, for the war we find ourselves in, for the disagreements between our cultures, for anything that is actually happening in this world, it is completely inconsequential whether God exists or not.

The only thing that does have consequences is that the belief in God exists. Those consequences are man-made, and because God is unknowable, it is completely impossible for the Amarrians to know whether their belief of what is God's will actually is God's will. All you can do is hope you got it right.

Good luck with that.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2011-11-23 11:23:15 UTC
Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:
I've snipped out the bulk of your words purely in the interest of saving space, so please don't go assuming I'm attempting to take your words out of context. Now then, I do appreciate the points you're making and the fact that, for the most part, the discussion is polite... However I just had to nitpick on these two little statements. While I do understand that provocative statements can be powerful tools and rouse people to support this notion or that idea, but might I suggest at least trying to steer clear of the sweeping racial generalizations?


Well this one happens to be true. The vast majority of your race feels not a shred of remorse for the atrocities visited upon the Starkmanir and the rest of the Minmatar tribes. That makes them just as morally and ethically misguided as the bastards who actually committed them.

Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:
Yes, I'm fully aware the next logical response as per IGS etiquette is a snide remark about some sort of double standard or more plainly "not calling out" the other people who do the same. With that in mind one may ask why I'm not pointing any fingers at Amarrians I see using their lips before using their brains. The answer to that is two-fold actually. Firstly, and this just illustrates further why I dislike the sweeping racial generalizations, not all Amarrians are as horrible as some of them are. Secondly, any Amarrian with any sort of social grace should know better than to fire off such crude insults.


Do you even read the IGS? I guess by your estimation very few Amarrians "have any sort of social grace". I shudder to think what your delicate, fatally naive sensibilities would make of Gaius Kador, woman.

Uraniae Fehrnah wrote:
However I have to ask, why is it so utterly impossible that all the natural laws of the world, all the science, math, probability, causal or conditional instances of creation can't also be the design and intent of some sort of Divinity?


Because logically and scientifically one must resort to the Razor - entities should not be multiplied beyond reasonable neccessity. We have scientific explanations behind the formative processes of the universe. We have not a shred of concrete evidence for the existence of a deity or any kind of divine force. In a truly postmodern sense I imagine there could be a deity unconnected and unconcerned with the universe, but due to that disconnection that supposition is impossible to verify and the idea is thus of no practical use to me in my daily life.

The simple fact is, when you have to make as many excuses as Amarrians do for why their God doesn't fit into standard scientific and logical principles, you're simply making excuses for being wrong.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2011-11-23 11:42:47 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
Andreus Ixiris I don't think is incapable of believing in God with that presented question he just doesn't want to. He wants something he can't explain away which sadly Andreus feels he needs the perfect argument so he can't have an excuse to not believe in God.


This is a very common and entirely invalid logical fallacy used extensively by religious people who lose arguments (yes, it's that specific - you never see a religious person who's winning an argument (not that that really happens very often) using it). It's the idea that a person who acts as the detractor to an assertion secretly supports the assertion but is embarassed by it, or secretly accepts the validity of the assertion but dislikes the conclusion, and so argues against it. Not only does it rely on a psychological insight into the person in question that you don't have, it's simply another form of ad hominem - attacking the debater, not the validity of the debate.

See, the thing is, even if I did secretly believe in God, my points against its existence would still be valid.

Intelligent theologians (well, "intelligent" relatively speaking - we're talking about people who believe in God here) tend to avoid this argument because it has a rather unpleasant - and, if you fully accept the original use of this tactic, perfectly logical - counter-assertion that people who claim to believe in God and argue for its existence do not, in fact, believe in it, and are simply trying to convince others that they do.

See, if you accept your original assertion about my supposed presence of belief as logically congruent (which, for your information, it isn't, but I'm better at entertaining hypotheses than you are, so I can pretend it is for a little bit), you have no logical argument against my assertion about your supposed absence of belief.

Now Kithrus, I know that even among Amarrians you really aren't very bright, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's just take it as a given that when you say you believe in God, you're telling the truth, and that when I say I don't believe in God, I'm telling the truth too. I know that as an Amarrian you're very un-used to admitting anyone else is right, even if they were to argue that the sky is blue, but can we agree on that, at least?

Kithrus wrote:
But as I heard my grandfather used to say 'man is the only creature that will defend themselves from something that will do them good.'


Perhaps, but there's nothing good about the Amarrian religion.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#115 - 2011-11-23 12:21:53 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Kithrus wrote:
Andreus Ixiris I don't think is incapable of believing in God with that presented question he just doesn't want to. He wants something he can't explain away which sadly Andreus feels he needs the perfect argument so he can't have an excuse to not believe in God.


This is a very common and entirely invalid logical fallacy used extensively by religious people who lose arguments (yes, it's that specific -


Except I have recoded conversations with you before we ever truely start arguing saying 'To those who do believe no explanation is necessary. To those who do not none will suffice.'

Let me ask you something though. lets say I gave you proof you accepted what would you do?

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2011-11-23 12:26:49 UTC
Kithrus wrote:
Except I have recoded conversations with you before we ever truely start arguing saying 'To those who do believe no explanation is necessary. To those who do not none will suffice.'

Let me ask you something though. lets say I gave you proof you accepted what would you do?


I'd admit I was wrong.

Which puts me head-and-shoulders above the many Amarrians I've provided logical proof of your God's non-existence too - yourself included.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#117 - 2011-11-23 12:40:29 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Kithrus wrote:
Except I have recoded conversations with you before we ever truely start arguing saying 'To those who do believe no explanation is necessary. To those who do not none will suffice.'

Let me ask you something though. lets say I gave you proof you accepted what would you do?


I'd admit I was wrong.

Which puts me head-and-shoulders above the many Amarrians I've provided logical proof of your God's non-existence too - yourself included.


That's not exactly what I needed to know.

I wanted to know what would change in your life.

I will however give you credit that what you said was witty but I can admit when I'm wrong.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2011-11-23 12:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Andreus Ixiris
Kithrus wrote:
That's not exactly what I needed to know.

I wanted to know what would change in your life.


Well it depends very greatly on what precisely your proof proved. Don't expect that, for instance, if your proof merely affirmed the existence of a nonspecific divine force with little investment or interest in human affairs, I'd start gushing about the glory of Amarr and the Divine Mandate of Jamyl Sarum.

If you proved the existence of your God... well, then I admit that I'd have absolutely no choice at all. I would have no other option.

I'd start working on a way to kill it.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Silas Vitalia
Doomheim
#119 - 2011-11-23 13:50:37 UTC
I'd like to again welcome Brother Kahar Dex back to us, as per the title of the thread.

Perhaps one of you should peel off a new thread topic for sanity's sake if you wish to continue the religious 'discussion'?

Sabik now, Sabik forever

Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2011-11-23 14:05:48 UTC
Perhaps you should keep your suggestions to yourself. At least then you'll be sure they're well-received.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.