ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[The_Tauren13]

BigDaddy said:Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . .

Ok, lets say god does exist, yet I dont believe it.

Case 1:
Believing there to be no possiblility of gods existence, I live my life just like I actually do, i.e. putting down religion and people who believe in god. So, god strikes me down and I go to hell.
Case 2:
Even though inside myself I believe there is no possiblility of gods existence, I go around like you do preaching to everyone everywhere about how great god is. So I die. Then what does god do? Does he send me to hell even though I spoke his will? Or do I get into heaven, even though I didnt believe in him? If its the former, then Im screwed no matter what I do, and theres no point in not being atheist. If its the latter, thats one messed up god you got there. Why are you preaching the will of a god who lets people lie to buy redemption?

Either way, theres no reason for me not to be atheist. So stop trying to convert me.

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:

Ok, lets say god does exist, yet I dont believe it.

Case 1:
Believing there to be no possiblility of gods existence, I live my life just like I actually do, i.e. putting down religion and people who believe in god. So, god strikes me down and I go to hell.

You have made an admittedly common mistake in dealing with God. God does not send anyone to Hell; people go to Hell themselves. Hell, by definition, is being apart from God. If you live your life believing there is no God, when you die and discover there is a God, you will deny Him then (if you have the strength of your convictions). By doing so, you consign yourself to Hell.

Of course, the question then becomes, "Who would willingly consign themselves to Hell?" The reply is, "Who would willingly deny the possibility of God?"

Case 2:
Even though inside myself I believe there is no possiblility of gods existence, I go around like you do preaching to everyone everywhere about how great god is.

If you don't believe in God, and yet try to do God's will, you sound to be quite confused. If you don't believe in God, do not try to tell people about God. You don't go around to adults preaching about the Tooth Fairy, do you?

So I die. Then what does god do? Does he send me to hell even though I spoke his will? Or do I get into heaven, even though I didnt believe in him? If its the former, then Im screwed no matter what I do, and theres no point in not being atheist.

Well, you presuppose that you do not, cannot, and will not believe in God. With that presupposition, what can you expect to happen if and when you find out that God does exist?

The problem with your stance is not that you're an atheist, but that you won't even consider the alternative, except from the standpoint of an atheist.

Either way, theres no reason for me not to be atheist. So stop trying to convert me.

I do agree with you. As long as you're committed to being an atheist, there's no reason for you not to be an atheist.

I do like this quote by a priest, though.

"If the atheist is right, he will never know."
"If the Christian is wrong, he will never know."

[atul]

Scott Hebert said:
"Who would willingly deny the possibility of God?"

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...

[Scott Hebert]

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.

[atul]

Scott Hebert said:
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.

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.

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

[Scott Hebert]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Heh.

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist
belief->0

But discussing that is arguing about semantics, and in a forum this wide the consensus might be hard to be found.

You might be surprised... heretic! </joking>

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

Thank you. A Happy Easter to you, too.

[atul]

Scott Hebert said:
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.

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...

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.

That isn't even circular, you're making a total U-turn there, you know... 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. Ergo, my point stands, you can't define holy from unholy. And I'd like to extend that to the (a)theism debate also.

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist
belief->0

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.

You might be surprised... heretic! </joking>

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.

[TheSelfishGene]

Scott Hebert said:

Well, you presuppose that you do not, cannot, and will not believe in God. With that presupposition, what can you expect to happen if and when you find out that God does exist?

The problem with your stance is not that you're an atheist, but that you won't even consider the alternative, except from the standpoint of an atheist.

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.

[Scott Hebert]

What happens to the rightous non-believer is an interesting question.

Yes. It certainly is.

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:

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.

>>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.<<

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.

Both old men's actions had the same result, but different intentions. So, do those intentions matter? To society, individuals or even God?

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.

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?

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...

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".

You've just found my biggest concern with Protestants.

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.

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.

[Scott Hebert]

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?