:( I really, completely and utterly [u][i]hate[/i][/u] those emotes (:hehe this one and :gray this one ). Just seeing them both in your post, Brovo (especially :hehe this one at the end), makes me think "Yeah, Brovo's point is sound, that does seem like a logically flawed question... But does he(?) have to be such an asshole about it?" I don't think that post is going to help anything, is what I'm saying, but that's a whole different diatribe about the arguments I've seen on the Guild...

EDIT: The answer is "no", he doesn't. He chooses to, and he could choose to be a helpful part of the discussion instead. Hostility breeds hostility.

---

Ahem. On to Gwazi. :sun Thank you for that post, Gwazi, it is well thought-out and does exactly what I hoped it would, by giving me a bit of insight into your past and your perceptions. Based on that, what I think we have is the oldest form of logical dissonace: separate assumptions, based on alternate and entirely legitimate experience.

Your post there, especially your thesis, is the post of someone who has been burned by his faith... And nothing I can say can argue against that. You are ashamed of how you once were, and you're trying your damnest to make up for it now...

"[Religion] is a [i][u]tool[/u][/i] (emphasis mine) that can be used for good or evil."

"Religion is often seen as a personal/sensitive topic, one that people are strongly encouraged to avoid talking or debating about."

"So it is pretty difficult if not impossible to expect me to be able to explain my conclusion without seeming insulting to people's beliefs, if what I am arguing does not agree with said beliefs."

"It is simply stating and giving enough credit to the human species that we are able to develop our own basic morals without a Religion making them for us."

"any Christian I have ever talked to who wasn't So Boerd [i][u]admits[/u][/i] (emphasis mine) that everyone must ask questions constantly and that it's part of growing."

"Religion has been the only topic I've found where the vast majority of argument's I've seen/faced have not gone beyond "Do not question God", "Read the Bible", "Just have faith" or "You're Immoral". The first simply being not questioning something, which is not the way to learn. The second failing to prove why the Bible itself is something to be treated as a valid source, the third meaning faith as in without proof or evidence. And I'm not going to accept an argument or claim without proof or evidence to support it, and the latter simply being an insult at the individual and contributing nothing to the debate at hand."

"It is something that primarily thrives on obedience to parent's and teaching people to not question the existence of God. It is also something that countless people can testify to being the kind of thing that destroy's families and relationships when religion and belief's begin to differ."

And then, the two paragraphs that begin with "But to keep it as short as possible from here on, although Religion is something that can inspire good and help people in their lives with a sense of purpose, meaning and spirituality, it also comes with a number of flaws." and end with "But he made the mistake of acting like getting these things was borrowing from Religion, and not say simply from another source as if only Religion truly could provide it, but Atheism 2 cheated a bit in taking some of it."

These choice quotes, in complete honesty, paint a picture of someone who is bitter about his past, and is applying his bitterness to this argument as a form of pathos. I can replace every instance of the word "religion" in that post with the phrase "the Christianity I grew up with"... And, like I said, there's no way to argue with that. You're talking from experience, and it's not as if I can say "you can't use your past experience as part of an argument!" That's ridiculous. All I can say is that you are closing yourself off from some of the most beautiful and insightful experiences a person could ever have by painting your negative childhood experience with Christianity as representative of all religions everywhere and throughout history ("the monolith"), and summarily rejecting faith as a legitimate aspect of humanity (ala Dawkins, who I think is simply a very sad person).

Growing up a not-quite-usual person in the Southeastern United States, I have had my own bad experiences with Christianity (and I do not call myself a Christian), but I do not argue [i]against[/i] religion, as you have seen in this thread. I argue [i]for[/i] universal morality, something I believe that, given time, all people can embrace. "Please see how your thoughts and actions are harming others" vs. "Faith in supernatural beings is a long-standing delusion of the human race, and divorcing ourselves from it would be a positive step in the right direction."

I might not have understood you or your arguments correctly (in fact, I'm quite sure I didn't), but that is the impression they leave on me