[Mars]

However, the point of which side is correct cannot be decided because the basis of both beliefs are untestable assumptions, making debate useless, anyway.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is best if we left it at: they are ultimately incompatible beliefs; a truism, but it works for the this discussion.

This is about reclaiming the debate tone on these forums. The moderators obviously help; but they can only do so much, and eventually you run out of people to ban.

[WeatherOp]

The forum exists for discussions, not for you to get up on your soapbox and rant about the same thing over and over.

Emphasis mine. I don't mind the discussion. I don't even mind the occasional poop-flinging that occurs. I am extremely tired of the same drivel and pointless bickering three times a week. Grow up, agree to disagree, and shut up about it.

Then again, this is The Internet. What more do you expect?

Basically what I learned a long time ago. Amazing how much free time you find you have when you are not debating on a gaming forum.

[Bobboau]

In case anyone is confused, (many) Atheists claim that God is the reason for evil and (most of) Christianity believes that humanity is the reason for evil.  Now that we know that difference, I don't think that there's anything else useful that can be said on the debate between them since these ideas come from different assumptions and deciding which is correct is out of the scope of our perception since God cannot be proved or disproved and the nature of humanity cannot be proved or disproved. 

So, unless someone feels that there is a grievance that has not been addressed, we probably should not post in this thread anymore.

Edit:*clarification*

um... you are not an atheist are you?

atheists have one thing in common and that is that they do not believe there is a god, generally this also extends to supernatural in general as well, but strictly speaking it is just not accepting the existence of deities. one cannot blame a non-entity for anything. now if you wish to modify your statement to say 'theistic belief' then at least that is somewhat plausible. however I think it would be a wiser move to simply not try and put words into the mouths of people who you have no understanding of, you know, unless you are trolling or trying to insult them..

[Cyborg17]

I think one thing this board needs to understand about itself is that we are horrible communicators.  We are excellent at programming, modding, mission design, modeling, texturing, etc.  But because we are good at those things more than communicating, and because some (or maybe most) of us have English as a second language, we do horribly at communicating what we're really trying to say.

What we've tried to say to each other thinking that we are being helpful has been interpreted as demeaning or insulting

It was an error in communication.  I'm sorry.  This is usually why I don't argue because I'm not good with words, even when I try my hardest.

[NGTM-1R]

You are right that they are generalizations. I do know and recognize them, which is why I added those qualifiers.  Many, not most atheists, and most Christians (since it is a central tenant of the Christian faith, after all).  I'm sorry if that did not represent you accurately, but that's how many feel and that is what is causing remarks in this case.

You posit a nebulous many that by no means exists here or anywhere else. Your qualifiers are insufficient in the face of the fact they qualify what can only be construed as falsehoods. All you manage to accomplish is making yourself look like a paranoid with a persecution complex.

I daresay I'm the only person on the forums who will go down the outright "god is evil" road if the subject comes up and actually mean it, and even then I only subscribe to that view if by some quirk a divine being or beings actually exist.

[Cyborg17]

I just apologized.  But I'm sorry again.  I meant what Bobboau said.

now if you wish to modify your statement to say 'theistic belief' then at least that is somewhat plausible.

[watsisname]

Honestly I don't know a single atheist who claims that God is responsible for evil (in fact it sounds somewhat contradictory to me).  As an atheist myself, I believe that the existence of 'evil' requires neither human nor supernatural origins.

I'm not going to assume that all/most/many atheists share my opinion on the matter, but I do think it's a more accurate representation.

[mjn.mixael]

This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.

Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...

[achtung]

This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.

Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...

Let's lock it before it devolves, and maybe it can hold onto some of its dignity.

[JCDNWarrior]

All the discussion about religion and atheism and such, it reminds me of something I saw some time ago... Albert Pike's (apparent) quotes from 1871.

"...We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."

Perhaps just the drivel of a madman and not based on any realities, but... my only point here, and the reason for quoting this guy is: Let's not get all divided as people over this issue by becoming opposite groups, as this could potentially be used against everyone. Instead of endlessly debating or trying to prove one's right, I hope we can focus on the more positive effects of both being religious and being an atheist, for instance, so that people on both sides can start to understand eachother on the issue.

That's all I wished to add.

[karajorma]

This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.

Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...

Let's lock it before it devolves, and maybe it can hold onto some of its dignity.

No. Leave it open. I'm figuring out who is on the short list for banning. This thread has already turned up candidates.

[jr2]

This turned out as expected.. it was a nice try though. Good points made in the first post.

Then Bob and Cyborg dropped in...

Sheesh.  I kind of like Cyborg's tone though.  Bob, what's up yer arse?  relax.    Oh, right, I forgot.  We are the cause of all the evil in the world.  This won't do!  You have figured out our secret Da Vinci Code!!

* jr2 sneaks up behind Bob -

[castor]

So, as has been noted, every discussion on HLP seems to turn into a religious discussion; scratch that - they all turn into a school-yard level hyperbole match in which everyone can feel righteously confident that indeed, THEY THEMSELVES are in the right.

I'm not sure if religious discussions are really possible when people with opposite views are present? It's like an attempt to keep a room lit by moderately burning gunpowder in a vial; always a raging debate, never a discussion. What else can it be, when the only incentive for both sides to keep on writing is the (more or less imaginary) possibility to prove the other side "wrong" (except the odd humorous remark).

[NGTM-1R]

Sheesh.  I kind of like Cyborg's tone though.

What exactly would you call his tone, though that you'd like it? It comes off as accusatory: my opponents believe this thing and because they do we cannot have a discussion.

Then we draw in on the idea that you cannot discuss the merits of diametrically opposed ideas, which is a terrible statement. Of course we can discuss them. It might even be possible to do so objectively. In fact let's kill that thread of narrative right now. It is entirely possible for people to hold opposite views and behave in civil fashion discussing them. The problem is the bunch of yahoos here who aren't willing or able to try.

[jr2]

I believe the term is 'polite' vs perhaps.. 'hostile'.

Of course, I'm sure that's just my take on it.  It could just as easily be seen as 'sinister' vs 'honest' by someone on the other side of the fence, I suppose...

[Aardwolf]

I'm not sure if religious discussions are really possible when people with opposite views are present?

You can only discuss when there is someone with an opposing (or opposite) view. Otherwise what you have is not a discussion, it's an echo chamber.

sry if troll, was suppressing instinct to flame

[Mars]

Opposite views debate; the only reason that religious debates get out of hand is because so many people take them so personally, and both atheists and theists tend to like pretending that the other side ALL BELIEVES THE SAME THING; which is not the case, you can have a nihilistic angry atheist and a dogmatic, self righteous theists and they end up being just as nasty in a debate.

I guess the tl;dr version of the first post is: don't make things personal, and don't take things personally.

EDIT:

Discussions on HLP actually played a surprisingly big role in my self-discovery over my adolescence. I am atheist and rational based (note, I'm not saying that the two are the same thing) because of points brought up on here; but I'd have to say, the tone of the points made it terrifying.

[NGTM-1R]

a nihilistic angry atheist

NUUUUUUUUKE!

[Mongoose]

Nuke's usually the best thing to happen to the sorts of threads we're talking about.

[Bobboau]

it seems HLP is an atheist factory.


if ever I needed encouragement to keep doing things they way I have been.