ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

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.

[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.

[atul]

Grey said:
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.

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

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:

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?

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.

[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.

[quantum_mechani]

atul said:

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

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.

[atul]

quantum_mechani said:
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.

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".

[quantum_mechani]

atul said:

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".

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...

[atul]

quantum_mechani said:

*Prophets cost 0 upkeep

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)

*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...

%D

[BigDaddy]

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.