Brovo

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists. If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.

wut. That's not how things work. He's being quite civilized, what are you on about--

So Boerd said The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

... This line of reasoning is legitimately incoherent and insane.

I am now a God because I say so. You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism. The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat. Also gimmie all your monies plox or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

The burden of proof is on you to disprove it, after all!

EDIT

Also, "on a legal case" it's innocent until proven guilty. Please learn the basics of your own justice system. Thanks.

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

Post up for Hunt for Diana. As with the other three missions if you need to quickly collab a couple lines up, PM's.

Legend of Renalta 2 (Dark Fantasy)

“Rally men! Apprehend this traitor to the holy cause and protect your leader with your lives. This is a test of faith. Do not forget that you are the warriors of the Holy Order.” -Lothar, Page 6.

The Hunt for Diana

---

The man in orange didn't really have anything to add to the discussion at hand, though Stotgar certainly did as he looked at Nadira and Matthew. "Oh, well... I suppose... That would be the smart thing t' do. 'Fer a couple o' not Dwarves." He almost looked disappointed at the fact that they weren't going to set off the obvious trap as Matilda, his crossbow, shuddered. Nadira would feel it in slight turmoil, reacting to Stotgar's disappointment. Matthew on the other hand searched through the caverns. Down the path choked with dragonkin he felt what was exactly described: Monstrous beasts, violence, and a deep hungering. Down the middle path he felt the presence of a powerful wicca, a woman with magic akin to that of a warlock, though he sensed no ill intent. Down the cold path, he felt nothing for a moment, utterly and absolutely nothing... Then he felt... Himself. The only thing he could discern was that the right path reflected his own telepathic powers back at him, but they weren't all in the same time frame: Some were older, some were younger.

A few moments pass as Stotgar awkwardly shuffles his boot on the floor. Before he can say anything more about violence, the man in orange would flinch, and Matthew would hear a voice in his mind. "Ah... You were the one... To reach out." The voice was feminine, likely the witch. "Come, be not afraid, I am no threat to you. My name is Kiune, I am a friend of the one which you seek, and I have your test to see if you may see her." Her voice was soft and welcoming, and yet, while Nadira could not hear it, she could sense magic afoot within the pleasant, rosy scent now. It was meant to soothe and dull the senses, likely to capture people, or at least make them less aware of their environment.

Meanwhile, Stotgar continued to stand there, completely unaware of what was going on. "... Erm... You tall folks seein' something I'm not? Matilda's wonderin' if ye' all be havin' an episode o' mania now?... We gonna go somewhere? Point at a tunnel and I will go, you know, I am not scared!" The man in orange whispers to both Matthew and Nadira with his telepathy. "I can confirm that Diana has a friend who is a witch who helps protect her. I cannot confirm if this Kiune is indeed this person, though... Your call. Pick a tunnel and go, I will follow."

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said No, I would not, however, I don't pretend to be rational.

We didn't start the fiiire~

So Boerd said Now you claim there is some objective way to demonstrate fantasy and not only that, a quantifiable way. What are those parameters?

Already gave you them. The more things I have to believe to believe the claim and the more it defies common logic, the greater the evidence has to be in order for me to believe it. Lots of Susies versus Susie being able to light people on fire with her mind. I'm not sure what you find confusing about that.

So Boerd said What prevents me from deciding that a giant hole in space is more ridiculous than an enormous invisible bear who moves things in the patterns scientists have seen?

The fact that there is evidence for giant holes in space that suck things in. Very observable evidence. That you can observe. At any time you want to. While the giant invisible bear has no observable evidence, and therefore, well... You know I could say the same thing twenty times but I don't think you care to listen.

So Boerd said I have never seen space holes, but I have seen bears and I know they can move things.

But no bears have ever been invisible, and we've never found a bear with the capacity to turn invisible.

And you probably have seen a space hole. It's called a black hole. One is at the centre of our galaxy. It eats things that get too close to it. It has a giant fuck off gravity well that even eats light. It's actually extremely visible because of this.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said >States subjective has no bearing>Proceeds to use a subjective criteria.

There is nothing subjective about measuring the fantastical quality of something. Here, let me show you.

There are lots of people named Susie in the world. The only barrier to my belief of your friend being named Susie is believing that someone would be named Susie and that someone is your friend. To believe that any god exists, I have to suspend my disbelief and believe that there is a being with omnipotence and potentially omniscience who created the entirety of everything, then left no evidence behind whatsoever, for no apparent reason except to ask me to worship them. This just opens up so many unanswered "why" questions. Why worship? Why do they need my worship? Why do they need me to believe them to be real without any evidence? Why this, why that, why why why~

Claiming a god exists is a fantastical claim and requires fantastical evidence, of which there is none. That is about as rational as it gets: It's down to a pure mathematical level of logic. If X value is Y, it requires Z quantity/quality of evidence. It does not get more rational than that.

So Boerd said I said a non-descript God, not the Christian God in the hypothetical. As far as the hypothetical, l asked you if you would believe in a God if every scientist on this planet said he did. You said no. I am now applying that level of evidence to your claim that bank robbers are punished. Per your standard of evidence, no volume of authoritative sources is sufficient.

Brovo said Apply the same logic to pretty much every other God claim on the planet for whatever fantastical things they did.

I said no if they didn't have any evidence. But then you're using a broken example anyway: The only reason every scientist on the planet would proclaim the existence of a deity is if they had significant, unbeatable, unparalleled evidence for it.

Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence. That goes completely contradictory to everything science stands for. Here, a perfect example of what I mean: If every single priest on the planet simultaneously declared there was no god, would you stop believing in god?

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said How decidedly irrational. Using a purely subjective and opinionated judgement to determine how much proof is needed? Irrational indeed.

#1: You appear to be angry. Calm down.

#2: Subjective? Opinionated? Strong words that ultimately make no sense in this context. I'm stating that the more "out there" a claim is, the more evidence is required for me to believe it. The more fantastical something is, the more evidence I need. Lots of people named Susie? Easy to believe. Susie being the one person on the planet capable of instantly combusting people with her mind? Much harder to believe, requires more evidence.

So Boerd said Ridiculousness varies wildly from person to person. A rational iindividual would stack consequence against evidence.

God created the world in seven days. That has pretty significant consequences. So I need more evidence. No evidence. Funny that.

Apply the same logic to pretty much every other God claim on the planet for whatever fantastical things they did.

So Boerd said I offered you stronger evidence for God im the hypothetical, so no, that will not do.

What?... Hypothetical is not evidence. The Bank Robber physically exists. He was captured. You can go see him. Right now. Your hypothetical does not exist, it's purely hyperbole, in the same vein as saying that elves exist because forests do and elves live in forests. Can you disprove that?

So Boerd said
Not observing something does not mean it does not exist, it means you have not observed it.

Not observing =/= no evidence.

I have not personally observed an emu, but I know they exist, because there's plenty of evidence for them if I go look them up.

On the flip side, until I know something exists, until there's evidence for it, according to the rational world view, it doesn't exist... Yet. If someone has eye witness testimony of something, then it's logical to go see if it's true. If it is, then it exists. Adjust world view to include it. Move forward.

There are plenty of claims about a god existing, and yet, no evidence. So I feel no need to adjust my world view to include it. Move forward.

Again, as I've said before, I'm not afraid to be wrong. If it turns out there's evidence for a god we haven't found yet, and we discover it, then I will do the rational thing: Adjust world view, include a god, move on. However, I don't live in the future, I live in the present. There is no evidence for a god. Ergo, do not include god. Move on.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said I said A God, not the Christian god. Belief in A God, as non descript as the one whose existence was hypothetically proven by the hypothetical evidence.

And as I've already said, there is none.

So Boerd said Show me. Just know I won't take anyone's word for it. I need to see it with my own eyes. That is the standard you have established.

Bank robber captured, and you can easily find and verify it by finding the person's name, where they are located, video records of the event, judicial records on what evidence was brought to prove the bank robber was captured, and so on.

Also, as I've said before which you conveniently ignore: The more ridiculous a claim, the more evidence is required to prove it. I don't need you to prove your friend Susie exists, I'll take your word for it, there are a lot of people named Susie on the planet. I do need evidence if you claim Susie can bend a spoon with her mind, or make people instantly com-bust with her mind, or fly through the air without any mechanical assistance, and so on.

So Boerd said How do you know there is evidence?

... Because there is none. There is literally none. Zero. Zip. Nothing. It doesn't exist. The whole point of religion is the faith part of it. That's what makes it religion and not truth: Faith. If you need evidence to back up your faith you're doing it wrong.

Seriously I can't prove nothingness except to point at it and say "look, nothing."

EDIT

Come to think of it, Russell's Teapot. Look it up.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?

Considering there is plenty of evidence for it, yes. Do I think it will end the world? No. Will it end us? Probably not. We're dimwitted but rarely apocalyptic-levels, and this particular apocalypse is easy to see coming and evade.

As it stands the world needs a lot of oil and what not anyway. Dropping it would only hurt our ability to sustain our massively increasing population which would in turn hurt the planet anyway. So I vote for the way that speeds up technological progress and gets us closer to a future where we can deal with the problems we bring upon ourselves.

So Boerd said How about "If I rob a bank, I will be punished"?

It's a logical conclusion. Ninety nine times out of a hundred if I rob a bank and do nothing to escape I will be punished. There is plenty of evidence for this.

So Boerd said "If I go to this new job, they will pay me."

It would be illegal for them not to, so... Yes.

So Boerd said All these things, which have MATERIAL consequences for believing them (For example, you must lose a proven source of income for the new job, and you only have the word of a handful of non-scientists to attest that they will pay you), you accept as fact on much sparser evidence.

Actually there is plenty of evidence and the comparison is invalid. Employers have a motivation to pay me, because if they don't, I will leave, and their reputation will be ruined. Also, you know, breaking the law because legally binding contracts and labour laws. Societies have incentives to catch bank robbers because it would cause instability in the economy and cause many hundreds of people to lose their hard earned money which allows them to live.

So Boerd said Why can't you accept a vague conclusion with no ramifications on your life on infinitely stronger evidence?

It has immense ramifications on my life to believe in a deity that tells me to kill people for working on Sunday.

So Boerd said Because you're not rational. Your train of thought is not "There is no evidence, therefore I don't believe in God", it is, "I do not believe in God, therefore there is no evidence."

No. There is no evidence, so I do not believe in God. I'm sorry that you feel you must resort to a personal attack though. I'm sure your God's attitude about not judging people lest ye be judged will be quite happy with you doing this.

State-Church Separation

Vortex said
Who's laughing now?!!

A lot of people who for some reason still read this thread and expect anything different.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said
Of course. Let me make up some possible evidence... In this hypothetical, suppose there was a hand which materialized out of air and wrote "I am God" on the nearest available surface to them at the same time all over the world. Some instances were videotaped, however they can't make the hand appear again. Is this sufficient?

Nope. It's not repeatable. Ergo, not scientific.

Plus, the source isn't necessarily a god. To quote one of Clarke's three laws: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'm sure if you brought me back in time with a laptop to the medieval age, I could amaze them with my ability to instantly resolve any kind of mathematical equation with the calculator application in Windows.