ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[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.

[Scott Hebert]

atul said:

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 it is?

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.

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.

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.

...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...

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

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.

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.

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.

Theist encompasses agnostic, as I've said before.

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

Ah, hippies.

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.

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