Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

By the simple fact that god has never been physically detected in any way by anyone.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I do not believe I said that, or anything remotely resembling that. Please do not agree to overgeneralizations of my statements, as they will make people believe I said one thing when I did not.

But is the limitation moral in nature? There's also the question of the ability to command. Miracles, whatever people believe, cannot be called upon at will by humans, being as they are a special manifestation of God's will. One can ask for a miracle, and one may receive it in response to that asking, but the power is not human's.

Magic normally involves a formulaic ability to impose one's will on the surroundings. The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.

And as for those people who believe they can command the power of God, or those that believe their ability for magic comes from elsewhere, I think they are confusing the idea of miracle and magic.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

So lets say I make a magical potion that prevents arthritis. Then lets say god makes a miracle that cures everyone of arthritis. Why is my potion so much worse?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

That is the reason why YOU believe that God does not exist.

I can point to several thousand years of human history to show that people believed in the existence of God.

Also, people have claimed, numerous times and in numerous places (especially in the Judaic, Chritian, and Islamic faiths) that yes, God has been physically detectable.

These claims have been believed, in the main, for over 2000 years.

You claim that atheism, though, is the default position when discussing God. What you are doing, though, is simply rejecting the evidence that people have found.

Would you please restate your assertion in a way that does not simply dismiss the evidence as nonexistant?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Where did you get the power to cure it? It may have been from God; I never have claimed that it can't come from God. OTOH, if God makes a miracle, the source of the power is obvious. In fact, God could even make His miracle by prompting you to make the 'magical potion'.

The issue at stake is that you don't know if the power you receive comes from God or not. If it does not, you cannot be guaranteed of the goodness of the fact.

I did not say that your potion 'is so much worse'. At best, I have argued it can be no better than God's cure.

As for myself, I still think this is a rather specious argument, as the idea of a miracle is something that is rare (i.e., it is God's supernatural intervention into the physical world). I think it would be much more likely for God to give us doctors who would be able to cure it with modern medicine than for a miracle to occur.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Because you might have sacrificed some Blood Slaves to summon the Infernal Forces that showed you how to make it. If you were to make that potion AND would be able to prove that you received no help or guidance from any infernal or evil (and the relativity of those was already discussed in this thread) source and the ingredients were acceptable, then IMHO it wouldn't be any worse than the miracle. Well, except for the fact that your potion cannot cure everyone.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I was not trying to over generalize you statements, I was merely pointing out that you were barking up the wrong tree about lacking evidence for the non-existence of a god.

I don't see how the distinction between whose will it is matters, only the potentially dangerous actions they may take based on their beliefs. And I have seen no evidence that those who believe in miracles are any more or less dangerous than those that believe in magic.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

lol, I can just see some pretender's priests and mages bickering. "Hah, what does your 'sacred' status get you but a pay cut?". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

*shrugs* Again, I would point to Chesterton's Orthodoxy for people who want to read about a rather unorthodox way to the Faith (from Atheism). Lewis is also good for this.

As for why the will matters, I am simply trying to explain the Catholic position.

There are certainly many more basic questions to attend to than the difference between magic and miracles.

Working off of Endo's point, though, if you sell the potion... can you imagine the deaths that could be caused by it?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

There's this thing I've been wondering. If you really claim that theism is about believing in the possibility of a god and atheism outright denial (which, by the way, is a quite strong argumentative weapon, claiming your position extends over a wide variety of options and opposition only has a niche, no matter what the original positions were) then how does accept the possibility suddenly transform into a conviction of a particular religion's god?

I mean, sure, I can accept there's a possibility that a God portrayed by catholics exists... as well as I can accept that there's a possibility I could suddenly be teleported one meter to my left due quantum uncertainity, the probabilities of both being about equal. Even so, I believe no-one would seriously advice me to live in a constant fear of random Teleportitis...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I am not claiming that MY beliefs are that broad. I am only pointing out that atheism denies the possibility (even the possibility) of their being a God. Theism, as its opposite, admits the possibility of their being a God. I am prepared to go quite a bit further about that being humans call God.

My position, in a theistic vs. atheistic side, is theistic. As such, and considering that many here are approaching things from the atheistic side, I thought I should get out the most basic difference between the sides.

As put forth, an agnostic is a theist.

And while your latter argument is droll, it is simply another way of putting that you do not believe in God. Believe me, I don't speak here about God for my own edification.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

And I am simply trying to get to the bottom of the belief that those who believe in magic need treatment. Since BD was arguing from the secular position that they are a danger to themselves and society, I assumed there was a secular argument to support this.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I wouldn't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I was simply explaining the religious argument, in case it was not clear.

About the best secular argument I could come up with is that people who believe in magic are most likely delusional. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I would then be forced to agree with you that those who believe in miracles (or, at least, that they are working miracles) are similarly delusional. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

It's just that what you claim about theism to be goes a bit contrary to what I've always thought as a common consensus (theism - god, atheism - no god, agnostism - oh dunno give it a break). Of course, anyone who can claim the gray area has a far better argumentative position...

Defining theism as an opposite of atheism is, however, a bit weird. Like defining Unholy first (something bad, wicked, evil) and then defining Holy as its opposite. I at least would like to define Holy first and then Unholy as its anathema.

Same goes for theism ("there is god") and atheism ("oh yeah, prove it"), but that of course serves just to make my personal position (agnostic with a firm belief in smallness of probablity of some god's existence) better in these argumentations. But discussing that is arguing about semantics, and in a forum this wide the consensus might be hard to be found. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Amazingly enough then, we seem to be in agreement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

I define it precisely. If atheism denies God, the opposite is something that allows God. The opposite is NOT something that requires God. That is logically flawed.

Which is how it arose. Except that, at the time it arose, holy meant 'good'. With people denying that, it was necessary to show that 'unholy' still meant 'evil', and then work from there.

I define atheism first because it is the more extreme position (no possibility of God). From there, the opposing viewpoint is defined, logically, by the way I did above.

Heh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
belief->0 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

You might be surprised... heretic! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif </joking>

Thank you. A Happy Easter to you, too.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

What is so amazing? I am human; I have to live in the real world, same as you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Back to the game... I thought the sacred status also gave them the benefit of the blessing type (magic path > 4)... if they don't receive that then why have I been loading up on sacred troops??? bummer.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Technically, only 'blessed' status gives combat bonuses.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Which I understand is from a casting of blessing. But are the bonuses are only conferred to those that have sacred status??? That was my understanding during my read of the manual/help.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

BigDaddy,

The arguments you use are dogma whether you realize it or not. You are not demonstrating proof, just parroting what you've been told or have read (in sources that are themselves not proof). Quantum Mechanic's post summed it up nicely: what you take as "proof" is a story with eyewitnesses. What they thought they saw is what's been taken as "fact" for 2000+ years, nevermind any political agendas the authors of said book had in determining what to write. Jesus is a documented historical figure. We know this not because the Bible tells us so, but because Roman records confirm that someone by that name existed when and where the bible said he did. But those same records make no mention of the fantastical claims attributed to that individual. In a modern court of law what the Bible claims is called "hearsay" evidence, which isn't admissible in and of itself. The moment you go from saying Jesus existed to saying he had divine powers you step out of the realm of fact and into the realm of ... belief. Newsflash: otherwise sane people also believe in voodoo, astrology, palm-reading, etc. but that doesn't make them any more right in their beliefs than those who've accepted a certain 2000-year old story as unvarnished truth.

Question: if God is omnipotent and omniscient and infallible, why is it that the God of the New Testament is about love while the God of the Old testament is about fear and wrath? Why would an almighty all-knowing infallible being need to change tactics? Shouldn't said being have known in advance that His tactics weren't going to work on His imperfect creation and employed the supposedly better tactics from the beginning?

"Atheism is a fool's bet"? Hardly. Religious belief is. Same logic that people use when asked why they play the lottery: "If you don't play you can't win". If you don't play you won't lose is the real truth, which lottery promoters want you to ignore so that they can continue to profit from people's wishful thinking and gullibility. In the case of government-run lotteries, it's a tax on the stupid. As someone said earlier in this thread, religion is about maintaining power over people. It's also a psychological crutch for those that need one. Crutches come in all types. Some are more pernicious than others. Whether faith is less dangerous to one's health than alcohol depends on where you live in this Gods-forsaken world.

You're using similar logic to defend your position as what caused countless women to be killed a few hundred years ago: tie the alleged witch up Houdini-style and throw her in the lake. If she drowns she's innocent. If she doesn't she's wicked. Alas for the poor lass, she's f***ed either way. Might as well toss a coin and say "heads I win, tails you lose". You're saying "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, damned, or worse". That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.

Oh, and accusing Quantum of "fearing or misunderstanding ..." is a cheap shot. Pointing out the flaws in your "thesis" isn't an act of fear or ignorance, but your reaction sure is. Seeking the truth, to use your words, requires that one search for proof. The printed word, or someone's sermon, isn't proof. I assure you that our lack of belief isn't due to a lack of will in our efforts. The prosecution (believers) have failed to make their case due to lack of evidence.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

But here you have a problem. If you define the opposing opinion (atheism) as Black, and claim your position (theism) as non-Black, exactly which shade of gray is it? By claiming to represent a wide variety of opinions it becomes easy for you to win a debate (total fanaticism in any direction is misguided, imho), but at what cost? After all, defining the position only by what it isn't (not atheism) dilutes it so much you end up representing nothing.

...of course, assuming you don't do some sort of quantum leap in reasoning along the lines of "fanatic atheism disproved -> own belief in god proved". Which was kinda the point of my first post's question...

That isn't even circular, you're making a total U-turn there, you know... :p Anyway, from point "With people denying" on, the whole debate becomes one of semantics, how you define words. Besides, it's faulty logic. See:

1) Holy!=Unholy
2) Unholy=Evil
3) 1)&2) Holy!=Evil
4) 3)=> Holy=Good

Except that 4) does not follow from 3), since you haven't dealt with shades of gray. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Ergo, my point stands, you can't define holy from unholy. And I'd like to extend that to the (a)theism debate also. :p

Cool. Can you give me the limits (if total convinction in god is 1 and total convinction in opposite is 0) where theist becomes agnostic too? Just to prove my own point from above. :p

Well, I've been already told on these forums that hippies like me were better off dead (too bad that particular thread was totally removed, no memento) so what can I say? Bring it on!-p

Anyway, on the original subject of blood Arco, I might say they'd be the first actually 'evil' blood nation... since other nation sacrifices those not of their own kind (Abysia, Jots, Vans), enemy slaves (Mictlan) or heretics (DF Marignon). So far has nation of philosophers fallen, then.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Only sacred units can be blessed. Does that answer your question or did I misunderstand?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

The Egyptians worshipped their gods for more than 2000 years. Longevity of a faith is not proof that you're right. People also make many many interesting claims. Some claim to be able to read minds. Some claim to be able to speak with the dead. Many believe those claims too. Sheer numbers of claims, or numbers of those who believe in them does not constitute valid evidence, either. Valid evidence is that which is measurable or quantifiable in some way. There is more evidence, and by far more solid evidence, for the existence of UFOs than for God. Yet, oddly enough, more people believe in God. It's not so odd when one understands that more people *need* or want to believe in God than they need or want to believe in UFOs.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

What happens to the rightous non-believer is an interesting question. Does living a good and holy life suddenly count for nothing if you don't believe in God at the end? Its a question that i've wondered about, and even made into a short parable a long time ago:

>>Two old men give money to an Orphanage (a good thing); both get their names on plaques and receive credit from the community. One does it out of the goodness of his heart, the other for a tax break. One modestly rejects recognition for his deeds out of true humility, the other feigns modesty hoping to cast a favorable light on his character.<<

Both old men's actions had the same result, but different intentions. So, do those intentions matter? To society, individuals or even God? Does the wicked old man receive an equal share in the heavenly reward - since his actions are the same as those of one who was rightous, but his intentions were not. And so, does he "buy" his way into heaven with rightous acts but selfish desires?

Certain Protestant denominations insist that the only thing that matters is whether you believe Jesus was the Savior and Son of God - everything is secondary. I find this intellectually repelling. It says that all our actions and struggles in life are meaningless, and that the wicked and saints all have a "get out of jail free card".

Its the Hitler As Saint problem. If you belive all you need to get into heaven is belief, there is the *chance*, however unlikely, Hitler saw the error of his ways and became a Christian, say, 10 seconds before he died. The idea that Hitler is sitting at the Right Hand of God, a blessed saint, is not a pretty one! And one that a God-given intellect would naturally find repelling and wrong - and thus the interpretation that lead to that conclusion.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Actually, no. In rare cases (mainly using shroud of the battle saint) you can end up with a unit that is blessed, but not sacred.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

And prophets fit that exception too, if I recall correctly. But my wording is still valid, since no priest can /bless/ those non-sacreds, they become automatically blessed without the need of casting "bless". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

True, some interesting points on the subject:
*Prophets cost 0 upkeep
*Since wearing the shroud does not make a unit sacred, it does not reduce upkeep

The second I only discovered after several games of putting one on all my mages...

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

That's news, I hadn't heard of it before. But it works. Any way to abuse it, usually upkeep isn't that big a deal for one unit... (CW Pan's most expensive mage excepted, maybe)

%D

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Johan,

It's very interesting that you brought that up. It is the belief of Catholics that those who live a clean life (living the way they know is right) can be "saved by grace." Good people aren't necessarily sent to hell. Particular religions that have beliefs in clean living are Buddhism, most christian religions, and Islam. The real point here is just to be true to yourself, and do what you honestly believe is right. It helps, of course, if you have moral guidance of some type.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

It's not Black. From the standpoint of someone who is claiming Black, does it matter what color it is? Also, this only works if you use White and Black as opposites.

I think I've defined rather precisely what I represent. I represent the people who believe that God may exist (for the purposes of this argument). This is opposed by the people who say that God cannot exist.

I don't believe I made a statement like that.

Actually, the logic is as follows:

Holy and Unholy are opposites.
Unholy is Evil.
Therefore, Holy and Evil are opposites.
Good and Evil are opposites.
Therefore, Holy is good.

This does not apply to the argument about theism vs. atheism. Theism and Atheism are logical inverses of each other (Theism = !Atheism). This is not the same as the above. Unholy and Holy are not logical inverses of each other, for one does not encompass what the other is not. (There are things that are neither Holy nor Unholy.) Therefore, the situations are not the same.

Theist encompasses agnostic, as I've said before.

Ah, hippies.

Interesting thought. Of course, with comparative morality, no one has any right to call another being evil.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

As interesting as all of this is, how does it answer my question as to why atheism should be the default condition of mankind?

I agree that longevity of belief should not be the primary determinant of a belief's veracity. However, to ignore the fact that human beings have for the vast majority of their history been religious beings who have believed in God, is to court disaster.

Even ignoring history, does anyone know the % of people currently living on this planet who profess belief in some kind of God? I rather believe it will outnumber those who don't. If this is the case, then judging SOLELY by present population, belief in God should be considered the default, with atheism being the one on whom some burden of argument should fall.

Basically, I object to the stated belief that atheism should be able to get by with nothing more than the judging of claims of theism.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Look, I realize there is a "step" after the known arguement, and I am more familiar than you know with the way this works. TYPICALLY, similar historic accounts with more than 1 source are considered to be likely true. Because of the miraculous nature of this story it is only WIDELY accepted.

Knowing this, I was leading you in a direction to see if you even cared why he was executed. If you did and actually looked into the issue you may have been surprised at the unlikelyhood of these things transpiring. Especially if you just start with the primary reason for the execution as given in the bible which parallels the undenied facts. He was executed for "civil disobedience" basically. This gives no reason not to believe the historic account, and leads to a "slippery slope" if you even accept that there is some truth in the Gospels.

Jesus is a different aspect of God. He is about the love of God for imperfect man.
God is about Power, Purity, etc (which decidedly human have difficulty understanding - true power -true purity).
Jesus was used to help us do what was impossible without him, that is pleasing God.

Actually, its been proven that religious people benefit from their faith by being less likely to die. Besides, I'll use religion as a "crutch," because it does not weaken me, it makes me stronger. I am stronger in my conviction. More likely to take calculated risks. Etc.

I'm not sure I know which comment you're talking about.

He said, "It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety."

Which intends that an omnipotent being can't do whatever it likes. Therefore, if that was the "heart" of his arguement, a misunderstanding was made about what is possible. Or possibly a "fear" of admitting that something that powerful AND kind might exist. I honestly meant no cheap shot.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Yes. It certainly is.

Lewis gave his own answer to this in The Last Battle, but it sounded a little like a cop-out to me.

I think my own answer would be that, when you finally see God, you will recognize Him as the one who inspired your 'good and holy life', and will choose to stay with Him.

I assume that there is no overlap? Absolutely none? That is a rather contrived circumstance, were it so. Even if I give money for altruistic reasons, I can also benefit in the long term, and do it for other reasons. For the record, though, I believe that the second has more to fear than the first.

The results are the same, but the ends are different. Intention does matter; in Catholic theology, it CERTAINLY matters.

God, of course, knows your intentions. Whatever the society or other individuals see, God sees and judges by your heart.

Again, there is this idea of 'receiving' Heaven or Hell. How anyone can be selfish and want to be in Heaven, I'm not sure...

You've just found my biggest concern with Protestants. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'll do you one better (and this was told to me by a Dominican priest). Try Judas Isacariot. He betrayed Jesus, and then committed suicide. Can you be SURE he's not in Heaven? There really is no way to know if he is or not. And if he was forgiven, do you think that God will not forgive us if we ask?

And what will you do, if you find Hitler in Heaven? Will you argue with God over another person's salvation? You know God is good. Literally, goodness incarnate. If He finds Hitler's repentance genuine, can you accept any less? If you cannot, then you are guilty of the sin of Pride, and that Pride will lead you into denouncing God and living apart from Him.

Lucifer's sin.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Arryn, BigDaddy, don't let this get out of hand. So far, we've had an amazingly amicable discussion. Let's not spoil it, okay?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Uh, here you go. Worldwide, these are people who claim the positions of:

Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

There is a huge difference between if an omniscient being could do something, and having evidence that they did take a particular action.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Well, that still leaves the problem that the only way to choose between the set of possible behaviours is to presuppose that one of the betting outcomes is going to obtain. In essence you have a betting situation where you have an infinite set of possible bets and possible states, and you have no information availible by which to discern what state is likely to obtain, besides from information you gain by presupposing that one particular state will obtain, which is question begging. Not only that, you also have no information what the reward will be for each bet dependent on the state that obtains is, besides, once again, any info you come by by presupposing the state you are betting on.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

All right. Let's try this. Can you give me PROOF that Julius Caesar ever existed? All you have are stories about him, and maybe a tomb where somebody (who you claim was Julius Caesar) was buried. If you rely on the stories, then you're just 'parroting' things.

And what is wrong with dogma? All because I believe what the Catholic Church believes, and has believed for milennia, does not mean that I accept it blindly, or without investigation. To assume I do is an insult to my intelligence.

Why do you smack a child's hand instead of explaining to him the rather involved idea of personal property? Just like in matters of the intellect, you have to learn to walk before you can learn to run, in moral matters.

Besides, the idea that God was a 'hard-***' in the Old Testament and suddenly became 'meek and mild' in the New Testament is a fallacy.

When God gave the commandment 'an eye for an eye', it was a command of mercy, not necessarily justice. Yes, it was (and is) fair. Yes, it was (and is) just. However, the common practice at the time was not. If you took out my eye, I would kill you. If you killed me, my family would kill you and your entire family in retaliation. When you start to think about the commandments from such a perspective, you will realize that the Biblical accounts show a gradual teaching of moral law, which Christ fulfills.

Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?

May I ask what you do consider proof, if printed words and personal testimony isn't enough? If you're holding out for a personal vision of God, I'm afraid you're not likely to receive one. People have in the past (and still do, in the present), but they are only a handful.

If you want us to give evidence, please let us know what you would consider evidence.

Also, please be advised that I will ask you to prove various things by the same standards that you give to me regarding God, to ensure that the standards you set are fair.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

With these numbers (and only using the Christian, Muslim, and Jews), 52% of the world believes in a God. (I ignore Hindus, Buddhists, and others because the argument can be made that they do not believe in God, as such.)

Therefore, I reiterate. Would those who believe atheism is the default state of belief for mankind please give your own evidence and/or arguments as to why that should be so. I have data here showing that 52% of human being believe, not just that God could exist, but that believe in a single God as the creator of the Universe.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

And I will also put the question to you. What would you consider evidence?

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

The default condition of mankind is to fear what it doesn't understand, and to invent superstitions to explain away what is as yet unknown. What *should* be the default condition, as opposed to what is, should be enlightened reason. However, I'm afraid that the faithful's understanding of the words "enlightened" and "reason" likely differ markedly from my own.

How so? And can the disaster be any worse than what's been happening on this world in the name of God for the past 2000+ years? I hardly think so. Also, for the *vast* majority of our history we have worshipped sun and weather-related gods, not God. As humanity matures, and grows in its understanding of the universe and our place in it, we have less and less need for superstition.

The burden, as I've repeatedly stated, is upon those making fantastical claims. The skeptics aren't the ones who should prove things. Skeptics aren't making fantastical claims. Atheists don't have a belief, they have a *lack* of belief. You're asking them to prove their lack of belief in your claims, which of course is impossible. It's also a convenient way for the faithful to dodge any sort of responsibility for answering probing questions of their beliefs that they find awkward or distasteful. If faith was subject to examination in a court of law, under standard evidenciary rules, the burden would be upon the plaintiff (the faithful) to convince the court (non-believers) that they're correct. You're working under the mistaken notion that faith is the defense, not the plaintiff. The defense is logic. The plaintiff (faith) must overcome logic with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't. Because all the "evidence" that's presented is hearsay and anecdotal at best. There is no solid evidence.

If theism makes a claim, why is it bad for others to question those claims? If you're right, you should be able to prove it. You'd demand such scrutiny of any psychic or self-proclaimed prophet.

A major problem is that what the faithful take as "proof" is no such thing at all.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Just a quick interjection.

Don't ask hard questions if you don't want hard answers. It would also be advisable if you are particularly passionate about this particular subject, you put on your thick skin and don't get offended for wading into this discussion. This is not targeted at anyone just a friendly reminder.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Yes, I did mean omnipotent. The difference between my acceptance of Julius Caesar, and my skepticism of a guy named jesus performing miracles is that one requires no change to the detected laws of physics. So, I am much more willing to believe accounts of Julius's existence. If the bible were filled only with an account of what jesus ate for breakfast everyday, I would have little cause to doubt it.

Since so many things do fit in with physic's model of the universes, and the only thing going against it is few thousand year old accounts, I'm inclined to side with the former. Note that this has nothing to do with the existence of a god, merely one particular group of peoples opinions as to what a god's attributes should be.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Im not basing my entire life off Caesars existence. I could care less if he actually existed. You, however, seem to think its the most important thing in the world that god exists.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Well, then I guess I am insulting you. I mean, why would you accept what a really old document and a ton of people say without any real evidence unless you were blindly following the masses? I cant see anyone having any reason to believe in any particular god of their own accord. Are you saying that if nobody ever told you anything about the catholic god you would still come to believe his existance on your own? I doubt that. You would have been just as likely to believe in Greek gods, if not more so due to their more tangible nature (i.e. god of the sun, god of the moon).

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Neither I nor anyone else is claiming the Julius was/is a deity. Jews believe that Jesus existed (as I also accept), but they do not accept (AFAIK) his alleged divinity. Yet they, as do the Christians, believe in the *same* God. I do not doubt that most (if not all) of the *events* in the Bible took place. Where I differ is in the interpretation of their causes and/or meaning. An ignorant peasant (or even a "learned" scholar) from 2000 years ago, not knowing what a comet or nova is, would see such an event as a portent or devise some other supernatural explanation for what they didn't understand. Hypothetically speaking (because time travel may or may not be possible), if we were to take a person back 2000 years, equipped with many of the technological tools we have today and with today's understanding of science, they would be able to wow the locals of the time with their "godlike" knowledge and "godlike" powers. Something simple like CPR would have been seen as a divine miracle 200 years ago, nevermind 2000. To assume that the stories in the Bible do not have what's termed "observer bias" is dangerous. People see (and pass along) what they *thought* they saw or what they wished to see. It's not necessarily what really happened.

People think they see Elvis, or Bigfoot. Doesn't mean they're right. No matter how many of them there are, or how loudly they tell their stories.

Dogma is an established opinion (see M-W definition #1). There is a huge difference between dogma and fact. Dogma may or may not be based upon facts, but dogma must not be used *in place of* facts. That's what makes dogma dangerous (in my opinion): that people often use it to explain things, rather than objective facts. Dogma, by definition, is subjective, since it's an *opinion*.

I haven't assumed you don't question your faith. If I've given you such an impression, I apologize for that wasn't the intent.

BTW, in case you're the slightest bit curious, I was raised Roman Catholic by devout parents. The more I dug beneath the surface of what I was being taught, the less sense it made. Eventually, when I dug deep enough that priests told me I had to "take it on faith", since they could not (or would not) provide the answers I sought, I knew I'd exhausted reason and had entered the realm of mythology and superstition. It's no more tolerable as an adult to get such an answer as it is for a child when she asks her parents "why?" and they respond "because we say so". It's not a real answer. It's just a means used to control you.

Why? Because it's quick and convenient. It's also terrible parenting if you fail to explain *why* you smacked him/her. All you're doing is instilling fear. The purpose of the smack is to reinforce the lesson, not be the lesson in and of itself. If you're saying that religion gives us just the smack and that we're too immature to be able to learn morals by reason, then no thanks, I'll pass on religion as a means of education.

You missed my point. The supposed authoritative work on morality, and which alleges an infallible and all-knowing deity, contradicts itself all over the place.

Yes, I am.

Good questions. BTW, the Egyptians had their own written works and "testimony", as did the Greeks and Norse. How many Ra, Zeus, or Odin worshippers are there today? Printed words and testimony aren't proof, as I said. What is proof is not a "personal" vision of God (a la Joan of Arcadia). That would just be more hearsay (except, perhaps, to the recipient, assuming they don't consider themselves to have gone mad). It's a recordable vision of God, or some divine act (indirect, yet solid evidence) that cannot be explained by anything short of His existence.

Of course. Just be advised that my ability, or inability, to prove something does not justify any other claims. At best it can justify, or fail to justify, the claim I'm asked to prove. In other words, just because I may be unable to meet the standards I've set doesn't make a position on God any less (or more) valid. Another way of looking at it is that if I can or cannot prove an apple is red has no bearing on whether an orange is sweet. That must be proved separately. So asking me to prove something, using my own standards, accomplishes nothing. It's merely an attempt to cloud or dodge the issue of proving claims.

Analogy: you say you saw me attempt to rob a store. You have friends who also say they saw me. There is no video of me being there. There are no fingerprints. Nothing was taken. Was I there? Testimony says 'yes'. Hard evidence says 'no'. My fate will rest upon whether the witnesses are credible. If you and your friends were all stoned at the time (and thus cannot be sure of what they saw or thought they saw), or are known to hate me (thus have an agenda in telling their story), the jury will likely dismiss the testimony. The analogy comes in that witnesses in the Bible had political motivations for telling their stories, as did the clerics who decided which stories to include in the compilation known as the Bible. History is written by the victors (and the Roman Catholic church was ultimately and for a very long time victorious), and inconvenient facts tend to be downplayed at best or outright expunged.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Johan,
Really you are making things too difficult. Most religions have a set of rules that shows a proper moral path, which Catholics believes can allow you to be saved by grace.

But it is even simpler than that. Do you KILL people? Do you CHEAT on your spouse? Do you STEAL? Do you LIE? Do you WORSHIP the things you have or that other people have such that you are consumed by greed or rage?

Admittedly, we are ALL GUILTY of some of these things. Now ask yourself: Do I try not to do these things? Do I feel guilty when I do these things?

That is the law of God.

If you are a student of philosophy, which I suspect you might be, you will easily find another arguement! Likely one concerning pleasure on earth, or the existence of heaven. A mass murderer had an excellent grasp of philosophy and could successfully defend his theory that murder was good (can't remeber off hand which murderer).

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Of course, the other side is amusing. That a faithful devotee of religion could also successfully "defend" his theory that religion is good.

Awfully high on that pedestal.

Re: ArcoBlood Mod Finished
 

Do you not think it is possible that an aversion to such things might be ingrained by society and/or (and I hesitate to take the discussion in this direction) evolution?