ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

I finished my ArcoBlood mod, complete with banner and descriptions. What do I need to do to get to Illwinter?

[Edit: Attachment added.]

[Endoperez]

Send the mod (and few pure-blooded virgins) to info@illwinter.com, and post the mod to the forum as an attachment.

[Scott Hebert]

I have a goat; will that do? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

You modded the Priestess from NHHH to NBHH. Shouldn't she be unholy to fit with a blood theme?

[Scott Hebert]

Name me a single Blood nation that has Unholy, rather than Holy, priests.

I can't think of one.

[Arryn]

Good point. All Blood nations should be Unholy. That they currently aren't seems (to me) more than a bit unthematic.

[Scott Hebert]

Would you like me to make that mod, Arryn?

That would be quite easy, though I don't think you can make 'unholy sacred' units or commanders.

Mictlan would get a serious upgrade if this was done, I'd think.

[Graeme Dice]

Blood magic requires living sacrifices, while unholy priests are more concerned with digging up corpses. Also, I'd wonder what kind of balance issues would arise by making Abysia, Diabolical Faith Marignon (Who should never be unholy priests), Vanheim, Mictlan, Jotunheim and the other nations have unholy priests.

[Scott Hebert]

To be honest, Graeme? The 'balance' of Dominions II is so far out of whack, does anyone really care what kind of changes are made to it?

[Arryn]

Ahem. Methinks that Saber Cherry and Zen might take exception to that last statement about "not caring". They've put an awful lot of work into their respective mods, as have those players who've been giving them feedback. I think you're selling the Dom 2 community a bit short.

My comments were from a purely thematic (aka role-play) perspective. As with any changes to Dom 2, one should look at what effect it'll have on balance. However, where I might disagree with GD is in that I'll take thematic color over balance, whilst I doubt many others would (or should). Hence I'll withdraw any suggestion to change things to Unholy, so as to keep the peace, and to remain in line with all the other Holy-yet-bloodthirsty nations.

[Scott Hebert]

My point, Arryn, was that the idea of anyone making an argument that a given mod that does not touch the current spells in the game, or the balance between recruitable and summonable units, is in danger of 'unbalancing' the game is ludicrous.

I was not saying that Cherry or Zen or anyone else who is trying to balance the game does not care.

For the record, I use Cherry's and Zen's mods at all times now. And I only play SP (because I don't know anyone who'll play MP).

[Zen]

I am not offended.

<3

[Scott Hebert]

BTW, Zen, could you mod some pretenders to have some path combinations that are seen nowhere in the game with any use? Such as, Fire/Water or Air/Earth? Earth/Astral on anything but the Shedu would be nice, too.

Oh, I still find the Humanoid Pretenders to be not so useful.

Finally, is that the 'kami' kanzi?

[BigDaddy]

I like blood and holy priests. I don't think that blood magic has anything to do with unholy. Quite the opposite, I think that Blood magic is about life, and unholy magic is decidedly about dead things. Blood is life afterall.

[Arryn]

Holy and unholy *should* be about "good" and "evil" (except in Dom 2, where unholy magics mainly boost death-related powers and holy magics mainly counter unholy). Necromancy is about death, which does not inherently have a good/evil inclination, though the practicioners of necromancy tend to be opportunistic and amoral, hence often "evil". *Unwilling* sacrifices, which is what most blood nations perform, is an "evil" behavior. But since Dom 2 doesn't tag behaviors as "good" nor "evil", holy and unholy have been redefined by the game's designers to revolve around death magics. Since this is so, then holy should also enhance nature (life) and unholy should degrade them, which they at present do not.

Personally, I'd like to see holy/unholy decoupled from life/death and be given more of their own unique powers. I'd mod something along these lines (as well as adjust all blood nations to unholy) except that to my understanding, it's not currently possible to do what I envision with the mod system.

[Scott Hebert]

Y'know, anyone who can say Blood magic deals with life sickens me.

I agree with Arryn that Unholy priests are much more thematic for Blood nations than Holy priests.

I mean, come on. If you kill people for their blood, a logical next step is to use the bodies for SOMETHING, right?

[Ighalli]

Arryn seems to think of it like I do. Blood magic is evil and all, but has nothing to do with necromancy (and thus the current unholy magic). The manual describes blood magic on page 25.


It is the vital force inherent in all life.



Y'know, anyone who can say Blood magic deals with life sickens me.



So I suppose you're not a big fan of the devs? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I can see why the devs decided not to focus on good and evil. After all, We're Good and They're Evil. It seems to me like angels in the same armies as demons, and the commanders leading the demons banishing undead and bolstering morale is kind of silly. I would rather see some form of morality implemented.

Edit : I can't spell.

[Arryn]

Ighalli said:
It seems to me like angels in the same armies as demons, and the commanders leading the demons banishing undead and bolstering morale is kind of silly.

Yes. Since when do demons and zombies need their morale bolstered? I also think that having angel-summoning spells in "astral" rather than in "holy" is silly. It only makes sense from the perspective that since summoning devils is via Blood (and not Unholy), then the counterpart of summoning angels must be something other than holy, ergo Astral. It also relates to the mechanic of using up some "object" (pearls or slaves) in the summoning process, which cannot be done in holy/unholy as those two magics have no related consumable objects.

Holy (or unholy) power should derive from a nation's dominion strength (not its max candle height, but the sum total of all its candles). The bigger and/or more devout the nation, the more holy/unholy power it should be able to wield. Alas, I don't think I'll see such a change even in Dom 3.

[The_Tauren13]

Well, I certainly dont see anything 'evil' about digging up my old Kings and ancestors and their pet snakes, and giving them false life. However, taking my loyal peasants 13 year old daughter and sacrificing her blood to summon devils out of hell does seem a bit, er, less than good.
I must say that what I really do like about Dominions is the more realistic 'Im good everyone else is Evil' stance. After all, history is written by the winners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And theres nothing more fun than backing up your devils with some priests casting smite daemon on the 'evil' enemy...

[quantum_mechani]

The_Tauren13 said:
I must say that what I really do like about Dominions is the more realistic 'Im good everyone else is Evil' stance. After all, history is written by the winners http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I very much agree, I would hate to see some kind of rigid good and evil system as in other fantasy games. Death magic is not really any more evil than any of the other paths that summon things that kill people. According to Illwinter's description of blood magic, it is not the magic itself that is evil, simply that for most spells so much blood is required that it is impossible without killing people.

And I don't have a problem with angels taking astral magic, they are simply one more type of magical being that can be bribed/bound with magic gems

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
Holy (or unholy) power should derive from a nation's dominion strength (not its max candle height, but the sum total of all its candles).


Thats an interesting idea. I heard (read, actually) somewhere that there will be (un)holy gems in Dom III. Maybe your (un)holy gem income could be directly proportional to your total dominion...

[BigDaddy]

Scott Hebert said:
Y'know, anyone who can say Blood magic deals with life sickens me.
(snip)




That sickens you? Blood of the LIVING/DYING is used to fuel the power of the spell, which implyies that the loss of LIFE is used as fuel. Therefore LIFE powers blood magic. I never inteded that is wasn't inherently EVIL. Nor did I intend that it was good.

The term UNHOLY implies something unclean or evil. Perhaps because unlife is unnatural. Whether or not it is EVIL is moot (moot means arguable by the way, look it up!).

HOLY implies a direct opposite of UNHOLY and should therefore counter it. It does also counter blood to some minor extent. Therefore, blood magic is also unnatural or unclean. Whether or not it is EVIL is moot. You see? It's philosophy, to defend unholy is to defend blood.

Edited to include:
Moot - subject for debate

[BigDaddy]

BigDaddy said:

... Blood of the LIVING/DYING is used to fuel the power of the spell, which implyies that the loss of LIFE is used as fuel. Therefore LIFE powers blood magic. I never inteded that is wasn't inherently EVIL. Nor did I intend that it was good.





Oh come on now BigDaddy! Isn't killing people about DEATH?

I propose that all blood and death priests have UNHOLY.

[BigDaddy]

Hey Hey theres, no reason to get mad BigDaddy, we're all friends here. It was my intent that Blood of the LIVING was used to cast the spell. With death as an unfotunate consequence. Otherwise we wouldn't use up bloodslaves.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif (argument continues)

I support any combination that is thematically defensible (or even defended for that matter)!

[Huzurdaddi]

About the mod:

I like the mod since I love blood nations. And this makes for a 1st rate blood nation. Really 1st rate.

[BigDaddy]

I agree. Now if only reinvigorate worked properly.

And I support a mod to make all death and blood priests unholy. I just wish you could do it with random books. . . Pythium really needs 25% of its arch theurgs churning out Longdead horsemen!

[Kristoffer O]

Initially we didn't intend for good and evil, holy and unholy to be in the game. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Unholy was added as an ad hoc solution to the fact that holy priests were more or less useless to undead priests of Ermor (dom1). At that time bless effects etc was handled a bit differently and most of ermors troops didn't have morale. Preaching was also something we imagined the undead didn't do. Therefore unholy priests were added.

Currently you can consider unholy those priestly powers that are influenced by the underworld and the unliving. Unholy has always felt a bit ad hoc. Especially when broken empire Ermor got unholy priests. They were made to be able to preach and reanimate.

Unholy is getting a rework in DOM3. Undead priests have 'unholy' powers of reanimation, but the unholy tag is removed. All priests are priests.

[Arryn]

Kristoffer O said:
Unholy is getting a rework in DOM3. Undead priests have 'unholy' powers of reanimation, but the unholy tag is removed. All priests are priests.


This is very good news. Thanks.

[Oversway]

I didn't find the answer to this with a quick search. Do unholy spells only affect undead, or do they affect demons as well? I thought it was only undead but I havn't actually tried it...

[BigDaddy]

They do work, but suck against demons.

Of course they suck against powerful undead too.

[Endoperez]

BidDaddy, it seems you misread that. The question was about UNHOLY, not holy, magic.


My quess is that unholy spells don't affect demons.

I haven't tried that either, but in Dom:PPP there was no diffentiation between undead and demons. You can still see that in the "undead leadership" that is needed to lead demons. As Illwinter made the two different in most other aspects (exceptions only in Flambeau, Holy Pyre and similar that affect both undead and demons), I believe that they also changed the unholy spells.

[Scott Hebert]

Kristoffer O said:
Initially we didn't intend for good and evil, holy and unholy to be in the game. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.



I really wish I could agree with this statement. Unfortunately, I can't. Moral relativism has got to be the worst idea of the last 500 years.


Unholy is getting a rework in DOM3. Undead priests have 'unholy' powers of reanimation, but the unholy tag is removed. All priests are priests.



Could you remove the 'holy' tag as well, and simply call them 'priests'? 'Holy' implies good, as does 'Sacred'.

And for those who want to know why Blood magic per se sickens me, it is the fact that you are sacrificing another person's life for your own ends. As such, it is a supreme act of selfishness, which is evil.

No, I don't expect you to agree with me.

Anyway, for those that like the mod, I'm glad.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
And for those who want to know why Blood magic per se sickens me, it is the fact that you are sacrificing another person's life for your own ends. As such, it is a supreme act of selfishness, which is evil.


Ah, human lives are overrated; over 100 people die each minute. Who knows, death may even be better than life...
Also, whats wrong with being selfish? I mean, if youre trying to become a God, you should be expected to be quite self-centered.
Im kind of surprised we dont regularly get a bunch of religious thralls in here telling us how we are all going to hell for playing this game...

People are the biggest renewable resource in the world. Too bad we cant use blood to like, fuel our cars.
Going farther off topic, I dont see why people hold dead bodies in such high regard. If someones dead, who cares what you do with their body? Burying it in an expensive casket is a waste. I mean, why not make Soylent Green?

Well, I guess Im pretty amoral.

[TheSelfishGene]

The_Tauren13 said:

Scott Hebert said:
And for those who want to know why Blood magic per se sickens me, it is the fact that you are sacrificing another person's life for your own ends. As such, it is a supreme act of selfishness, which is evil.


Ah, human lives are overrated; over 100 people die each minute. Who knows, death may even be better than life...
.



Dude, like, your right! So, you hop on the alter first. K?

Yes i am troll bait http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[quantum_mechani]

Sacred and holy do not imply 'good' to me, merely that they are extremely devoted to thier religion.

hmm... now the only thing this thread is missing is norfleet...

[Grey]

As I sit underneath my bridge I wonder... "Why use their blood which is such a waste of the energy potential? Now those machines in that special effects movie which used people as living batteries - that is an idea! And I bet with the right drugs or even brain surgery you don't even have worry about them dreaming or even waking up."...

All summoned regenerative/non-supply-eating creatures aside I would like to share an observation or two. First, Moral Relativism as a coined term maybe new but the concept goes way back (i.e. Rome's conquering of neighbor nations was good in their viewpoint, but mostly likely not seen as good by anyone else outside the Roman environment).

Second, is anyone else worried that the Nation of Gems might be getting upset about all the sacrifice of their subjects just to cast the spells? I mean the High Diamond must be mustering his gem armies in anticipation to rid the Dominions of this evil happening to his subjects. (Mod pending). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's just a game right?

[Scott Hebert]

While my personal views are, I gather, quite unpopular here in this forum, I do try to keep them separate from games I play. I thought this would be obvious on my view of blood magic vis-a-vis the fact that I just published (for lack of a better term) a mod that converts a nation in Dominions into using Blood Magic.

BTW, Gene, I like your response. If you're referring to something you sacrifice things on, it's 'altar'.

For those that find that the words 'sacred' and 'holy' do not necessarily connote goodness, I pose the question as to why you can only desecrate and profane what is holy, if holy is not good.

Checking dictionary.com:

Unholy - Wicked; immoral

Wicked is evil, right? Unholy is also the defining antonym of Holy, right? Therefore, if Unholy is evil, Holy is good, right?

*shrugs* But then I guess the counter-argument is that every religion declares itself holy and its opponents unholy/wicked/evil. My issue is that this is not true, with Satanists being the most obvious example.

Ah well. As I said, my personal views I'm sure are quite unpopular here.

[Grey]

Actually Scott no matter how unpopular it may seem to you, your personal 'real' world view is valid. In fact it is most likely closer to my 'real' world view since I find real sacrifice and real attempts at magic to be evil.

Luckily (+3 scale) for me, I enjoy the game for what it is - a game which is not real nor serious. Unluckily (-3 scale) for me it looks like my very first post came at the very wrong time, since I did not see Quantum's post until after I posted. I have lurked for a couple of month's now after having discovered this wonderful game so I know some of the reference to Norfleet - enough to know that I am not Norfleet but everyone else may be. Boy with a +3 and a -3 I must have my turmoil setting too high.

With regards to the holy/unholy definition Merriam-Webster Online defines "Unholy" as "1. showing disregard for what is holy. Wicked" and defines "Holy" as several things but for the game the third defn. is most appropriate "devoted entirely to the diety or the work of the diety". I personally do not prefer to play blood nations since I find it distasteful (no pun intended), but I do not mind it in the game since it is just a game. Plus I get the opportunity to beat down those pretenders who use it, which is why I thank you for your mod.

Finally to not be a hypocrite... please hook me up to the generator my capacitance is reaching max.

[Scott Hebert]

*chuckles* Nah. It's cool. If anyone here is a hypocrite, it's me.

As for the validity of my worldview, I thank you for that, but it's not important whether it is or not. And, if by that, you would say that any personal worldview is valid, I would disagree with that strongly.

[atul]

I think it's a real pity there isn't any other species capable of communicating abstract thoughts we humans would know of. As it is, we're incapable of understanding relationships between intelligent species. Take this discussion about evilness of blood races, for example.

Abysians sacrifice human females. Since they are a species of lava-people with only a superficial resemblance to humans (they're even made of something other than meat), it's a bit like we using bunnies for cosmetic study.

Jotuns sacrifice human females. Well, we use chimps and other closely related species for our own good, and how many actively think it's evil?

Vanheim gave up blood long ago, but the memory remains. Sure, situational ethics, but nothing like classical Evil...

(and so on)

And as to Holy, I think the personal belief and devotion angle is the most believeable one, especially since no pretender can achieve holy status (IIRC that was fixed around patch 2.06 or so;)). And defining something by saying what they are not (UNholy) is a bit vague, especially since hardly anyone outside bad fantasy thinks of him/herself as evil/unholy or anything...

[quantum_mechani]

Grey said:
real attempts at magic to be evil.



Erm, evil? 'silly', I might say, but who are those people really harming?

[BigDaddy]

Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

Actually, no. I'm not even nominally the member of any religion (or even an atheist). But calling people who try to practice magic 'evil' and getting upset over it seems even sillier than the people themselves.

[Grey]

By silly do you mean a real attempt at something seen as fantasty like (magic)? If so, in that case ignoring any Christian/Muslim/(Others religions which hold similiar doctrine vs magic) beliefs then they are not only hurting themselves but also society. Themselves since they are being delusional and therefore a candidate for treatment (maybe even shock therapy), and society since who will foot the bill but us. Now from the aforementioned religion's stand point they would only be hurting themselves, though certain followers might take offense and become judgemental and/or offensive. If you meant silly for another reason then I confess complete confusion and go back to chanting "EVIL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif - I tell you just pure EVIL they is why they even have two nostrels..."

[quantum_mechani]

Grey said:
By silly do you mean a real attempt at something seen as fantasty like (magic)? If so, in that case ignoring any Christian/Muslim/(Others religions which hold similiar doctrine vs magic) beliefs then they are not only hurting themselves but also society. Themselves since they are being delusional and therefore a candidate for treatment (maybe even shock therapy), and society since who will foot the bill but us. Now from the aforementioned religion's stand point they would only be hurting themselves, though certain followers might take offense and become judgemental and/or offensive. If you meant silly for another reason then I confess complete confusion and go back to chanting "EVIL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif - I tell you just pure EVIL they is why they even have two nostrels..."

Yes, I mean by taking real actions for fantasy results. However, I see no reason to put them in a separate category than those who pray for miracles, other than the later is a more common form of the same syndrome. Now if you are suggesting that all these people should be treated, that is an admirable, but probably impossible, goal...

[Oversway]

I find it fitting that an arco blood mod thread has become a forum for discussion of ethics, morals, and religion.

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.



Actually, to be just a little more specific, Catholic theology frowns on the practice of magic, as you cannot be sure that the source of the supernatural power is NOT demonic in nature.

Catholic theology has remarkably little to say about what might be out there, in a supernatural sense.


I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .



I don't think this was directed at me, per se, but for the record, my religion IS Roman Catholicism.

[BigDaddy]

Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

[BigDaddy]

Scott,

Demons:

"In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as devil and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: "Diabolus enim et alii daemones" (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described,. . ."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm

Most religions have similar teachings. It is not ambiguous at all.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are many flavors of agnosticism, from believing that nothing can ever be known, to the belief that there is simply not enough evidence at this time to draw conclusions about the existence of a god, to people who just don't care, and those that follow a particular religion but doubt it.

As for the second kind, which is more or less what I believe, it is rather hard to refute without some extremely strong evidence one way or the other.

EDIT: And on your definition of magic, I believe many people who try to practice magic believe that they are doing it by their own power, not necessarily aided by any other force.

[Scott Hebert]

Oh, I'm not saying anything about the definition of demons. They ARE out there, and they DO NOT LIKE us.

What I was trying to refer to is the fact that whether there are other beings out there, other beings created by God besides the angels and the fallen angels, is not really touched upon by Catholic theology.

Some people try to claim that they receive their power from a being that is not angelic, demonic, or God. While the Catholic Church does not say, one way or the other, if these beings exist or not, it still frowns upon 'experimentation' with trying to receive power from said beings, as there is no way to tell whether or not the source is in fact benign or malefic.

The basic fact that the Catholic Church decries magic is not at all in contention.

Atheism is an amusing 'religion', since it is impossible to prove a negative. As far as evidence of God, I believe there is quite a bit of evidence. The fact that some people do not believe so has always rather astonished me.

I do find it amusing, as well, that such a thing as posting a mod can provoke this kind of discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's a wonder that my TC mod hasn't provoked a discussion on the exact difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Atheism is an amusing 'religion', since it is impossible to prove a negative. As far as evidence of God, I believe there is quite a bit of evidence. The fact that some people do not believe so has always rather astonished me.

Was this directed at me? I think it has not been near proven the existence of something before the universe, but it is certainly a strong possibility. I do find the sort of being that most religions describe (mostly concerned with humans/earth as opposed to the rest of universe, answering prayers, sending prophets, and in general constantly tinkering) highly unlikely. I would be interested in your strong evidence, however.

[Scott Hebert]

Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.

Sorry, but I think I'll take a rain check, out of this discussion I have already received one 'preachy' PM. I can see we are already talking past each other anyway.

I must admit I am more than surprised at the number of serious christians on the forum, given how easily most of them are offended.

[The_Tauren13]

Religion is just yet another excuse for people to gain power over others... and it works surprisingly well, too. One would think these people would realize theyre just thralls and drop out of the loop after a while.

[quantum_mechani]

The_Tauren13 said:
Religion is just yet another excuse for people to gain power over others... and it works surprisingly well, too. One would think these people would realize theyre just thralls and drop out of the loop after a while.

The strange thing is, as much debate as there is about the existence of a god, it is almost about one that is going around commanding people and issuing rewards and punishments. When you boil away all the nonsense about a god(s) setting rules for humans to follow, and the complex myths that inevitably come with organized religions, the question of whether or not something designed the universe becomes not that important.

[The_Tauren13]

quantum_mechani said:
...the question of whether or not something designed the universe becomes not that important.


Thats true. You could say I believe in god simply because I dont believe that dark matter really exists, yet I find the big bang theory reasonable enough. Without dark matter, there is not enough matter in the universe for it to eventually stop expanding and collapse. So, if there isnt dark matter, some force had to create the universe as it was before the big bang. Why not call that force 'God'? It doesnt really matter, as long as it isnt pointlessly mettling in the affairs of humans. And that I would find nearly impossible to believe. Its pretty damn conceited to think that some all powerful diety would care at all about us.

[quantum_mechani]

The_Tauren13 said:

quantum_mechani said:
...the question of whether or not something designed the universe becomes not that important.


Thats true. You could say I believe in god simply because I dont believe that dark matter really exists, yet I find the big bang theory reasonable enough. Without dark matter, there is not enough matter in the universe for it to eventually stop expanding and collapse. So, if there isnt dark matter, some force had to create the universe as it was before the big bang. Why not call that force 'God'? It doesnt really matter, as long as it isnt pointlessly mettling in the affairs of humans. And that I would find nearly impossible to believe. Its pretty damn conceited to think that some all powerful diety would care at all about us.

Thanks, that is exactly what I was getting at http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
some force had to create the universe as it was before the big bang


Actually, this is a logical fallacy. You are quickly (and conveniently) explaining away something in the natural universe, that is (as yet) not understood, by means of the supernatural. It's the same reasoning that had humans inventing rain gods not so long ago.


The_Tauren13 said:
Its pretty damn conceited to think that some all powerful diety would care at all about us.


If some deity was all-powerful, why would it create flawed beings? For amusement is the only logical answer. The more advanced the being, the greater the need for play. If you believe in some deity then you must believe we're all a not-so-huge cosmic joke. Unless ... people's pet deities are *not* all-powerful and all-knowing. I'll let folks try to figure out the ramifications of such a concept with regards to organized religions.

Humans invent deities because (most) humans are fundamentally insecure, and want someone or something to provide direction, meaning, and authority. It's also why, despite us having knowledge of democratic principles dating back from ancient times, most humans on this planet continue to tolerate dictatorships (in one form or another) to this day.

[BigDaddy]

quantum_mechani said:

Scott Hebert said:
Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.

Sorry, but I think I'll take a rain check, out of this discussion I have already received one 'preachy' PM. I can see we are already talking past each other anyway.

I must admit I am more than surprised at the number of serious christians on the forum, given how easily most of them are offended.



I am not offended, and won't crawl into a hole. You may be right about the "preachy" PM, perhaps it should have been public. Why don't you post it?

All I sent was an encouraging Thank you.

[TheSelfishGene]

The_Tauren13 said:

quantum_mechani said:
...the question of whether or not something designed the universe becomes not that important.


Thats true. You could say I believe in god simply because I dont believe that dark matter really exists, yet I find the big bang theory reasonable enough. Without dark matter, there is not enough matter in the universe for it to eventually stop expanding and collapse. So, if there isnt dark matter, some force had to create the universe as it was before the big bang. Why not call that force 'God'? It doesnt really matter, as long as it isnt pointlessly mettling in the affairs of humans. And that I would find nearly impossible to believe. Its pretty damn conceited to think that some all powerful diety would care at all about us.



Actually the ability for a God to meddle in the affairs of men is amazingly limited, because of the, for lack of a better phrase, "butterfly effect".

If you save Janine from cancer (say), and Janine runs into Clarice with her car and kills her, 20 years later, did God just kill Clarice to save Janine? No problem! God can fix that, he's God and can do anything! Sure.... except for that annoying concept of Free Will. If God created us to excerise Free Will, only to be constantly meddling in our everyday activities to reward believers, or subtly changing events without our knowledge at every turn, it rather cheapens the game of life, no?

Of course this logic, rather bizarrely, agrees with the "manifestation mythology" of the Old Testament - when God is going to change things, The Man shows up, not some trivial and lengthy chains of causation. It also means, of course, that you shouldn't bother praying to God since he can't help you anyway. At least if your praying for some temporal aid, although it doesn't exclude "guiding your heart".

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

quantum_mechani said:

Scott Hebert said:
Actually, it was not directed towards anyone in particular. I will note, though, that as untenable as agnosticism is, atheism is even more so.

If you would like to hear about evidence, please PM me. This thread is too cluttered already.

Sorry, but I think I'll take a rain check, out of this discussion I have already received one 'preachy' PM. I can see we are already talking past each other anyway.

I must admit I am more than surprised at the number of serious christians on the forum, given how easily most of them are offended.



I am not offended, and won't crawl into a hole. You may be right about the "preachy" PM, perhaps it should have been public. Why don't you post it?

All I sent was an encouraging Thank you.

By offended I didn't mean our discussion, but Dominions in general. I will post the PM if you like:

BigDaddy said:
Actually, this message was meant for Scott Hebert. I apologize for the error.

I want to congratulate you on your willingness to accept that there may be some sort of religion or god out there. I challenge you to challenge God.

It is no accident that most religions have similar laws, because the laws of god are "written on our heart." These are the same rules and morals your conscience lives by everyday. At the bottom of the well of seeking what is in your heart, you will find Buddhism. Or, you can use a manual like the Bible. Jesus death by crucifixion and the dates of the writing of his predicted life are not in doubt. These things have been proven by antropologists. This type foretelling is the most common way for God to show his existence.

Anything that exists is either neutral evidence, or evidence for the existence of god.

Thank you for reading this,

David

quantum_mechani said:
Which post are talking about?

BigDaddy said:
Thank you. I was so pleased to see another man in the forum. I was sure I would have had to say that myself, but I doubt I would have put it so elequently.





Dave




@arryn: If whatever created the universe is still watching, I think you're right that amusement is more than likely the reason...

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
Actually, this is a logical fallacy. You are quickly (and conveniently) explaining away something in the natural universe, that is (as yet) not understood, by means of the supernatural. It's the same reasoning that had humans inventing rain gods not so long ago.


I in no way meant to imply that whatever this force was is something supernatural.


TheSelfishGene said:
If you save Janine from cancer (say), and Janine runs into Clarice with her car and kills her, 20 years later, did God just kill Clarice to save Janine? No problem! God can fix that, he's God and can do anything! Sure.... except for that annoying concept of Free Will. If God created us to excerise Free Will, only to be constantly meddling in our everyday activities to reward believers, or subtly changing events without our knowledge at every turn, it rather cheapens the game of life, no?


There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact. If god were truly omniscient, he would be able to completely predict everything that will ever happen. Thus, any entertainment he may derive from actually running the simulation will fall flat, much like watching a movie 1000 times would. So is god not omniscient? Then what makes him so great?

[quantum_mechani]

The_Tauren13 said:

Arryn said:
Actually, this is a logical fallacy. You are quickly (and conveniently) explaining away something in the natural universe, that is (as yet) not understood, by means of the supernatural. It's the same reasoning that had humans inventing rain gods not so long ago.


I in no way meant to imply that whatever this force was is something supernatural.


TheSelfishGene said:
If you save Janine from cancer (say), and Janine runs into Clarice with her car and kills her, 20 years later, did God just kill Clarice to save Janine? No problem! God can fix that, he's God and can do anything! Sure.... except for that annoying concept of Free Will. If God created us to excerise Free Will, only to be constantly meddling in our everyday activities to reward believers, or subtly changing events without our knowledge at every turn, it rather cheapens the game of life, no?


There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact. If god were truly omniscient, he would be able to completely predict everything that will ever happen. Thus, any entertainment he may derive from actually running the simulation will fall flat, much like watching a movie 1000 times would. So is god not omniscient? Then what makes him so great?

Not necessarily, you can create your own game and still have fun playing, particularly with a random element. Plus, there is no particular evidence that anything that may have created the universe would have to be omniscient.

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact.

I don't disagree, but for the sake of argument, would you care to provide us with this proof?


The_Tauren13 said:
If god were truly omniscient, he would be able to completely predict everything that will ever happen. Thus, any entertainment he may derive from actually running the simulation will fall flat, much like watching a movie 1000 times would.


Entertainment derives from being surprised. If you cannot be surprised (kind of goes along with the all-knowing shtick) than how can you be entertained? heh What's the *point* of a universe if you (as the all-knowing almighty deity) already know every possible outcome, and worse, can change outcomes to suit yourself by re-initializing the starting conditions? A deity (or deities) only makes sense precisely if it is *not* all-knowing and all-powerful. Ergo throw out the bulk of what most of our religions teach as "undeniable fact".


The_Tauren13 said:
So is god not omniscient? Then what makes him so great?


Nothing at all, other than that such a hypothetical being is likely just a wee bit more advanced (evolutionarily and technologically) than we are. Whether that requires that others less advanced (and more gullible) worship it ...

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Not necessarily, you can create your own game and still have fun playing, particularly with a random element.


To an omniscient being, there's no such thing as "random". Which path an event chain might take might be random, but the being would already, in advance, know which path will be taken. It's the very definition of the term "omniscient": knowing the outcome. All possible outcomes and which one, specifically, will come to pass. Logically, then, where's the fun in waiting for what you already know will happen?

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
Not necessarily, you can create your own game and still have fun playing, particularly with a random element.


To an omniscient being, there's no such thing as "random". Which path an event chain might take might be random, but the being would already, in advance, know which path will be taken. It's the very definition of the term "omniscient": knowing the outcome. All possible outcomes and which one, specifically, will come to pass. Logically, then, where's the fun in waiting for what you already know will happen?

I suppose it depends on your definition of omniscient. I was defining it as knowing all that is happening, not all that will happen.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I suppose it depends on your definition of omniscient. I was defining it as knowing all that is happening, not all that will happen.


Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif "All" is a very encompassing term. When one argues philosophy, then little details like the meanings of almost every word used in the discussion becomes important. It's necessary so that both/all parties in the discussion are using a common frame of reference. Otherwise, one gets the morass that's common when people argue religion ...

No, I'm not picking on you, in case you're wondering. If anything, I'm picking on this very-much-gone-astray thread, which was ostensibly about a mod, and has been hijacked into an ethics and philosophy debate.

[TheSelfishGene]

I like to think that the thread "evolved" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. But yea, these sorts of discussions go on every day by the thousands throughout the net, and aren't appropriate here. But sometimes your bored and just can't resist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

[Graeme Dice]

Arryn said:
Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen.



That's assuming that the universe is completely deterministic, which is possible, but not necessarily true.

Anyways, on the topic of the Arco Blood Mod, if somebody is interested, I'll be starting up another "Modded Nations Only" game in the near future, and this one would be an excellent choice.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
I suppose it depends on your definition of omniscient. I was defining it as knowing all that is happening, not all that will happen.


Cause and effect. If you know *all* that is happening *right now*, then you will know what *will* happen.

Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.


I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
Actually, that only holds for classical physics. Following quantum mechanics, a particle can be in more than one state at once. It is not until it affects something that it solidifies into single state. Thus you could know the states of all the various particles at a single moment, but not know what will happen.


I think you meant to say "until it is observed", not "affects something".

Any entity that might be able to know the quantum states of every particle in the multiverse might also not be subject to our current understanding (aka physics) of how probability waves collapse. By definition, if you "know" the quantum state of a particle you've already collapsed its wave. We're positing a deity that can observe at the quantum level without interacting (affecting) what's being observed (something we don't currently believe is possible). Another way of looking at this is that according to quantum mechanics you cannot have an all-knowing deity. Which means that either one believes in such a deity and quantum mechanics is wrong, or the science is correct and what many modern religions posit is absurd. I've never been fond of the absurd ... especially my current theocratic government.

Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?


Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
Fair enough, it goes back to the definition of omniscient. If knowing the states of every particle at a single moment is not omniscient, it still seems rather impressive and god-like, so what do you call it?


Fantasy. Absurd. (take your pick) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....


Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omniscient). Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....


Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omniscient). Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.

I never said your definition was unreasonable, only that applying such a concept the universe was unreasonable. My only point is that the less extreme version is as deserving of a word for it as the normal definition.

Anyway, I've got to get to sleep, so I'm afraid we will have to shelve our definition nitpicking session for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[TheSelfishGene]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
I'm not saying someone has that ability, but it certainly seems more reasonable than your definition of omniscience, so it seems it should have a distinct term....


Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

But since you insist on calling "my" definition of omniscience unreasonable, I'll point you to Merriam-Webster Online's definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=omniscient). Please note that definition #1 is "infinite awareness", and definition #2 is "universal or complete knowledge". I believe "my" definition fits within both of those official definitions.



Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.

[Arryn]

TheSelfishGene said:
Why is it incompatable for an omniscient being whom *exists outside of the universe* to be able to know everything about said universe without affecting it? Arguing that God doesn't exist because Quantum Mechanics limits him seems like a particularly pedestrian argument.


You haven't been reading carefully enough. I did not use quantum mechanics to attempt to disprove the existence of God. I merely said that God and quantum mechanics are incompatible. Quantum mechanics does not, and cannot, be used to disprove the existence of God. Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.

[Kristoffer O]

> It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't.

No it isn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I might discuss whether or not Omega-man is the best movie ever without it being a waste of time. The discussion defines me and my views, not the quality of the movie or the attributes of God.

Strange thread BTW. It seems most threads with philosophical discussions end up in a discussion regarding the existance of a God.

[Scott Hebert]

There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact.



May I ask how you can prove a negative?

[Scott Hebert]

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?



I would say that omniscience is a basic concept. The fact that we cannot know everything can easily be juxtaposed against a theoretical 'someone' or 'something' that can know everything. That is an omniscient being, and nothing I've said even touches religion.

Also, I believe that my religion is eminently reasonable.

[Scott Hebert]

Kristoffer O said:
> It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't.

No it isn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I might discuss whether or not Omega-man is the best movie ever without it being a waste of time. The discussion defines me and my views, not the quality of the movie or the attributes of God.



I was wondering when Kristoffer would join the discussion.


Strange thread BTW. It seems most threads with philosophical discussions end up in a discussion regarding the existance of a God.



I don't find it that strange. My views on blood magic/blood sacrifice/selfishness are directly tied to my moral views, which are adequately explained by Catholicism. Naturally, that will bring the god-bashers out of the woodwork.

Rather why I didn't want to bring it up...

[Scott Hebert]

I just thought I should point out, also, that for those that think the universe is completely deterministic (i.e., no free will), Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be used in such a circumstance to show that you cannot use that as the basis for saying there is no God.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
. . .Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.



Tell me what part of these irrefutables are "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.":

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

And further an eyewittness account:

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

Also, remeber that the Old Testament which foretell Jesus was written far before his divine birth.

Further, an amazing four records record "Why" he was executed. In any case Scholars agree that there must have been at very least 2 such accounts.

Miracles do occur, and most institutions require scientific proof and expert testimony.

So which am I doing: "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

[BigDaddy]

Full apologies to Scott, whose mod is quite nice. . .

[Scott Hebert]

*laughs* Why apologize? You people are silly, with 'apology' this and 'apology' that.

I just wish I could find a way to mod my beloved R'lyeh without changing what's so fun about it.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

Arryn said:
. . .Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.



Tell me what part of these irrefutables are "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.":

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

And further an eyewittness account:

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

Also, remeber that the Old Testament which foretell Jesus was written far before his divine birth.

Further, an amazing four records record "Why" he was executed. In any case Scholars agree that there must have been at very least 2 such accounts.

Miracles do occur, and most institutions require scientific proof and expert testimony.

So which am I doing: "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

I have no problem believing that a few thousand years ago there was a person with a lot of followers, who believed he was the direct son of a god and could thought he could do all sorts of amazing things. 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.

I do find it quite funny that someone believes that those who believe in magic are a danger to society and themselves, could at the same time believe in miracles...

[Scott Hebert]

I don't see what is so funny about it. As already established in this thread, the question is not the nature of the power, but the source.

Miracles come from God. Magic does not (by definition). Therefore, there is a marked difference between them, and to treat them the same is the confusing idea.

'Apples and oranges' spring to mind.

[BigDaddy]

quantum,

Your problem, or attack on my thesis appears to be with your fear of or misunderstanding of Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is both.

Why does God have to lack humor? He see all that was or is or will be humorous at the same time! He calls his creation "Good." He can have feeling of the Whole creation, and a single place and point in time! And yet he gives us free will, so we can make him happy, sad, or angry.

Jesus is the Son of God. His Power comes from His Father, and so He is infallable, because of His Father.

Miracles are not well understood by the church. Mainly, because there don't appear to be concrete rules as to why, or how they work. And so, many christian ask themselves, "Why do children get sick at all?" While the church can has several rules about the faith of the leader, the candidate, and the community, some are healed and some not. A divine mystery I suppose, as "suffering is a part of the human condition" (Pope JPII).

God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.

[Scott Hebert]

I'm sure that will be seen as 'preachy', BD.

From what I've seen in this thread, I would say that a common issue that runs through the non-deist's thoughts is that God is a being on the same order as humans, only omnipotent and omniscient.

This certainly isn't what Catholic theology says on the point.

To put it another way, if a human were to be omniscient and omnipotent, he still would not be God (or even 'a god'), because his nature is not God's nature.

Christ, BEING God, would not fall under the above.

I guess what I'm trying to say that one nice thing about a Trinitine God is that there's no way to understand such a being (from a human perspective), and so there's need to try. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

For those that want a non-preachy approach to Christianity, I can only refer you to Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Lewis's Mere Christianity would also be profitable, I think.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
quantum,

Your problem, or attack on my thesis appears to be with your fear of or misunderstanding of Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is both.

Why does God have to lack humor? He see all that was or is or will be humorous at the same time! He calls his creation "Good." He can have feeling of the Whole creation, and a single place and point in time! And yet he gives us free will, so we can make him happy, sad, or angry.

Jesus is the Son of God. His Power comes from His Father, and so He is infallable, because of His Father.

Miracles are not well understood by the church. Mainly, because there don't appear to be concrete rules as to why, or how they work. And so, many christian ask themselves, "Why do children get sick at all?" While the church can has several rules about the faith of the leader, the candidate, and the community, some are healed and some not. A divine mystery I suppose, as "suffering is a part of the human condition" (Pope JPII).

God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'. As for the somewhat absurd comparison to betting, being agnostic is the ultimate safe bet. If you consider that in theory, every religion has an
equal chance of being true, at the point when you die there are a lot more religions that would forgive you for being unsure than for choosing the wrong one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?

[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]

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'.



To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.


@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?



I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:

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.



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."

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.



The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."* For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

* Jon Murray and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists: With All the Answers (1982 ed.) vol. ii., p. 18.


this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1110i.htm

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'.



To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.


@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?



I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.

It is true, in this case the only dangers are to themselves, but that was one of the reasons BD gave for needing treatment. And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".

[johan osterman]

BigDaddy said:
...
God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.



How do you know which brand of religion will result a positive outcome of the bet. What if God rewards people for not worshipping him, and sends to hell those that do. Unless you introduce what it to most atheist very unsatisfactory reasoning it is not at all clear what form of worship you should bet on. While there are christians that like to claim that christianity is the only self consistent religion this is not at all evident to most outside observers. And as long as you have no sure knowledge of how to act in order to achieve a positive outcome of the bet and have no idea of what the reward in itself to be there is no particular point in making the bet at all. So without an effective, effective as in convincing to nonbelievers, way of showing that any particular worship dominates the others and results in a positive outcome the Pascals wager is pointless.

[Scott Hebert]

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable.



Actually, the atheist claims that God does not exist. A theist (at the minimum) claims that God may exist. Of the two, the one that is the most radical, and least susceptible to argument, is the atheist's position.

Also, if the theists claim (as most do) that God is not directly observable or directly detectable, it should be obvious that someone who relies only on such methods will not find God. That does not mean they are correct.


It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist").



What you believe is the default position has not been the default position of mankind for most of its history. And yes, this opens the whole 'progress' can of worms.


"One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."*



Lovely. So the theist has to come up with evidence that the atheist can accept, when the atheist fully knows that he can reject anything and everything the theist says.

If someone is looking for something, not looking where it is most likely to find it is absurd.


For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever.



Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.


The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).



Heh. So how can you say that God cannot exist? You just said you can't prove it.

[The_Tauren13]

It appears even god is atheist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.


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

[Scott Hebert]

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.



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.


And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".



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.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.


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?

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:

Scott Hebert said:
Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.


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



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?

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:
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?



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.

[Endoperez]

The_Tauren13 said:

Scott Hebert said:
The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.


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?


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.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.



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.


And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".



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.

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.

[quantum_mechani]

The_Tauren13 said:

Scott Hebert said:
The distinction, that in miracles it is God's will, and in magic it is the human's will, is important.


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?

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/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Scott Hebert]

*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?

[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.

[quantum_mechani]

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



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.

[Scott Hebert]

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

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

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
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

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

[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. 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


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



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


Anyway, happy Easter everyone.



Thank you. A Happy Easter to you, too.

[Scott Hebert]

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



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

[Grey]

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Grey said:
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.

Technically, only 'blessed' status gives combat bonuses.

[Grey]

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.

[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... :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


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




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



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

The_Tauren13 said:
By the simple fact that god has never been physically detected in any way by anyone.



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:

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?

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

[quantum_mechani]

atul said:

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

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.

[Scott Hebert]

atul said:

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 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... :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



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





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



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.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
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.



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.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
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.



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.


Arryn said:
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?



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.


Arryn said:
"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.



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.


Arryn said:
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.



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


Arryn said:
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.



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.

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


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?

[BigDaddy]

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/factbook/geos/xx.html

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

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.

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

[johan osterman]

BigDaddy said:
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.



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.

[Scott Hebert]

Arryn said:
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).



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.


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?



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.


That's not proof. I'm still waiting for some.



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


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.



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.

[Scott Hebert]

BigDaddy said:
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/factbook/geos/xx.html



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.

[Scott Hebert]

quantum_mechani said:

BigDaddy said:

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.

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




Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

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

[Arryn]

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


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.

[Zen]

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

quantum_mechani said:

BigDaddy said:

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.

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




Um, did you mean 'omnipotent' there?

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

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.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
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.


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).

[Arryn]

Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
Are you aware of Aquinas's arguments regarding the existence of God?


Yes, I am.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.


Scott Hebert said:
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.


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.

[BigDaddy]

johan osterman said:
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.


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).

[Zen]

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).



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.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

johan osterman said:
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.



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.


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?

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
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?


Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

[BigDaddy]

Zen said:


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).



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.



I assumed I wouldn't have to discuss religions positive effect on society.

You have colored that particular arguement with the spirit of another one. Except for the second to last comment, the entire arguement is one you will find in any philosphy class. That is why it was finished with the portion you quoted.


quantum_mechani said:

BigDaddy said:

johan osterman said:
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.



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.


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?



Of course. I knew that that possibility would be mentioned. I would suggest asking thugs in prison if they where wrong to kill, but I have no idea what they would say. I'm sure, though, that many would say they were sorry that they got caught.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
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?


Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).



Actually, IF when he is talking society he is talking about family then the practices of successful societies will likely be the same ones that allow people to live, have sex, and not be killed.

And I'm not sure I'd agree with you on evolution either. Analogy: It guessed that we lost our hair, because it was attractive to our mates and allowed us to run faster.
So, if girls thought it was cool that we didn't kill anything with a schlong, that would allow us to have more children. Also, many primate females will push out violent males and defend virile but less agressive ones.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
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?


Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".

What many religions preach against is what's inherently bad about human nature. The aversion you speak of is society's attempt to curb such nature. It is my view that in the absence of religion, we'd either make up the same rules anyway, or we'd invent a religion so that those in charge of said religion imposed such rules on everyone else by force (as has been done historically, and continues to be done in parts of the world).

I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.

[Zen]

BigDaddy said:
I assumed I wouldn't have to discuss religions positive effect on society.

I'd actually rather you discuss the positive effect of mass murder on society. As it's incredibly prevalent in and outside of religion.

Just because something has a positive effect (purely perspective) doesn't mean it's overall impact is equated one way or another.

Even if you could possibly understand the scope of the entirety of something like "Religion" or "Murder".

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.


Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

[BigDaddy]

Zen said:

BigDaddy said:
I assumed I wouldn't have to discuss religions positive effect on society.

I'd actually rather you discuss the positive effect of mass murder on society. As it's incredibly prevalent in and outside of religion.

Just because something has a positive effect (purely perspective) doesn't mean it's overall impact is equated one way or another.

Even if you could possibly understand the scope of the entirety of something like "Religion" or "Murder".



This sounds like more fun, huh? Well:

Mass murder helps society:
-weak and diseased individuals are often easy targets leading to a better gene pool
-stolen/looted money is a great influx to the economy, especially when the murder is of someone who is rich
-stupid or easily misled people can be encouraged to kill themselves in group "suicides"
-murdering people can benefit murderers that derive pleasure from knowing they are personally powerful
-women are often killed by mass murderer, which helps to restrain population growth

I don't think mass murder is commonplace today, however, it does still exist. Although I might be inclined to agree that it is SURPRISINGLY commonplace.

Negative aspects of religion:
-religion is often used to control people
-religion is often used as an excuse to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing
-religion is used to emasculate, without surgery, many otherwise strong men
-religion is often used as a cover for cowardice
-religion is often used to exclude perfectly fine individual (self-rightousness)
-religion is often a source of unhealthy pride

As for understanding the scope these practices, I think that it is important to try, but impossible to succeed.

ahh, why'd you skip me Arryn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

BigDaddy said:
This sounds like more fun, huh? Well:


It's about time we had some fun in the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



BigDaddy said:
I don't think mass murder is commonplace today, however, it does still exist. Although I might be inclined to agree that it is SURPRISINGLY commonplace.


It's going on *right now* in the Darfur region of Sudan. As it is in the Congo -- by the same people who commited the atrocities in Rwanda. And on a smaller scale in many other countries.


BigDaddy said:
Negative aspects of religion:
-religion is often used to control people
-religion is often used as an excuse to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing
-religion is used to emasculate, without surgery, many otherwise strong men
-religion is often used as a cover for cowardice
-religion is often used to exclude perfectly fine individual (self-rightousness)
-religion is often a source of unhealthy pride


If religion was a drug in pill form (it's a drug, but of a different sort), the FDA would ban it because of its dangerous side effects.


BigDaddy said:
ahh, why'd you skip me Arryn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Feel better now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.


Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better. And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

BigDaddy said:
I don't think mass murder is commonplace today, however, it does still exist. Although I might be inclined to agree that it is SURPRISINGLY commonplace.


It's going on *right now* in the Darfur region of Sudan. As it is in the Congo -- by the same people who commited the atrocities in Rwanda. And on a smaller scale in many other countries.



I don't thingk this is a disagreement. Widespread would seem to be more like in my neighborhood or town. . . Surprisingly commonplace would be like Darfur, Peoria(IL), etc. To me anyway.




Arryn said:

BigDaddy said:
ahh, why'd you skip me Arryn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Feel better now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



Actually, I meant you should attack my society and evolution arguements (thats right I'm callin you out). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


As for religion as a drug:
Nah, the FDA would make it prescription only, and charge the drug companies millions of dollars for testing and review.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better.


I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.


quantum_mechani said:
And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.


Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.

[Arryn]

BigDaddy said:
Actually, I meant you should attack my society and evolution arguements (thats right I'm callin you out). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Why should I attack your arguments? If you fail to make your case then I needn't go through the effort to kick what I consider to be a dead horse. You peddle snake oil, I'm not buying, and I just keep on walking while you attempt to hustle the next mark coming down the road.

Besides, ignoring the absurd is so much more effective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'm quite enjoying the discussion with Quantum. He raises *valid* points which merit consideration and debate.

I do admit that your analysis of mass murder was good. Pity you haven't put as much effort into dissecting religion as you did that. heh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


Clue: ball's back in your court ...

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better.


I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.


quantum_mechani said:
And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.


Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.


As you say, whether or not such a mechanism is necessary depends on ecological niche and environment. Nonetheless, I can certainly see the advantage of such built in inhibitions for humans (and in fact many social animals).
It is quite obvious, that whatever causes such aversions, they are not flawless. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is not necessary that they be. Even if they stopped less than 50% of tribe-internal killing, it could still be an advantage.

It does become rather hard to say if it is the sociology evolving, or an actual biological change.

[Kristoffer O]

BigDaddy said:

Of course. I knew that that possibility would be mentioned. I would suggest asking thugs in prison if they where wrong to kill, but I have no idea what they would say. I'm sure, though, that many would say they were sorry that they got caught.



I've visited a prison with a couple of my students and talked to a sentenced murderer. I find it likely that he was sorry that he was caught, but his main concern was some kind of regret. He repeatedly told my students that 'it is very easy to kill a human'. He had a son and wanted a new life outside the prison.

Everyone knows that it is wrong to kill, at least in the eyes of society. Most people understand that if you want to live in it you have to abide by its rules. Most people can also relate to or come up with the notion that you might not want to do to others what you yourself do not want them to do to you. Psychopaths perhaps lack this ability, but can still be taught the implications of not following the rules of society.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:

quantum_mechani said:
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?


Actually, no. If anything, historical and evolutionary (biological, not social) factors tend to favor "kill or be killed", cheat on spouse because it increases the odds of spreading your genes (as well as spreading STDs), and that those who amass wealth and power tend to live longer than those who don't. The "thou shalt not kill" is a relatively modern concept to try to tame otherwise inherently violent humanity. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife has roots in "if you do you'll piss off her husband and he shall kill you" and "if you screw her you'll catch whatever she has or give her whatever creeping crud you have".


So your arguement is that thoug shalt not kill is modern? I think not. I will attack your arguement directly, and not sidestep or divert.

Maybe you misunderstand my arguement. There is nothing missing. Primate females prefer "nicer" males. This is clearly true of humans as well (though you can argue that women don't like wimps, I doubt you would argue that they prefer thugs to real men). So, nicer males make more babies. Even in todays societies, but then today's society has all kinds of things that don't apply to the evolution arguement.

So, do you believe I can't site research about the primates? Or from the evolution scientists? Or do you simply disagree?

Evolution isn't always about making something more powerful, its often about feathers, hair, intelligence, and parenting.

In typical societies families pass their "values" on to most of their children. Therefore, those activities that promote having children, staying out of prison(or not getting killed), and live longer lives will be promoted by SUCCESSFUL families more often than by other families. I dare say that successful families rarely Kill people, because of its inherent danger, rarely steal things (except for very nice things). And so forth. Until it was understood that stealing and such was bad, because it led to massive death (murder in a small society, but generally not in a family). Societies that are violent to other societies are violent amongst families as well.

Social evolution?

It gets rather sticky, however, to argue either one of these points, because you actually have to argue against both. I looked for and found evidence, and professional opinion. AND my arguement has not been significantly altered.

As far as religion goes, you are quite aware that if you disregard "evidence (and I am using the term loosly)," it is rather difficult to even discuss. If you where willing to discuss probability of the few known things it could get us somewhere, but not far enough. I'm sure you've had this arguement many times and where happy to do so again. No one (except God) is ever going to be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of God.

Oh, and you still haven't said anything about my arguements other than that you believe their points aren't valid. So tell me, is it a specific sentence you have trouble with, or just the whole thing.

[BigDaddy]

Kristoffer O said:

BigDaddy said:

Of course. I knew that that possibility would be mentioned. I would suggest asking thugs in prison if they where wrong to kill, but I have no idea what they would say. I'm sure, though, that many would say they were sorry that they got caught.



I've visited a prison with a couple of my students and talked to a sentenced murderer. I find it likely that he was sorry that he was caught, but his main concern was some kind of regret. He repeatedly told my students that 'it is very easy to kill a human'. He had a son and wanted a new life outside the prison.

Everyone knows that it is wrong to kill, at least in the eyes of society. Most people understand that if you want to live in it you have to abide by its rules. Most people can also relate to or come up with the notion that you might not want to do to others what you yourself do not want them to do to you. Psychopaths perhaps lack this ability, but can still be taught the implications of not following the rules of society.



Thats quite interesting actually. I defends my original preface. More importantly, I want to direct anyone who can't just accept religions as they are to join a philosophy class. Preferably contemporary moral issues. Religion is only as much as you put into it. Oh, and whenever you're in a PHIL class argue with your proffesor whenever you can. I doubt you'll ever win, but maybe, and you'll learn a ton.

[Evil Dave]

I'm not sure why I'm wading into this, but...


Scott Hebert said:

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.



Yup, which is why historians don't consider unsupported oral traditions to be very reliable sources of information.

I think I could prove the existance of Julius Caesar, but it would be a slow process, which would have to start with ideas of what you would consider proof of the existance of any historical person or event... and it would be slow 'cause I'd have to bone up on the philosophy of history, which I don't know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



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.



I'm not sure I'm reading this right... are you saying that you've investigated every claim the Church has made, and found them true to your satisfaction, or that you believe only the ones you've investigated?

And may I assume you're aware that Catholic beliefs have changed over the 1800 or so years that the Church has existed?

[Evil Dave]

Scott Hebert said:
Y'know, anyone who can say Blood magic deals with life sickens me.



My hazy understanding is that the real people who practiced blood magic (ie, human sacrifice) believed just that. Apparently, in tropical jungles, people saw new (plant) life rapidly growing on decaying dead things, and concluded that the "life force" was recycled into new living things. I can't remember the intermediate stages of the idea, but the final form was that sacrificing living things -- especially people -- was necessary for the world to keep living.

From that viewpoint, Dom2 has the wrong effects for blood magic. "Real" blood magic should produce effects like nature magic does, but in bursts when blood slaves are sacrificed.

I think the current Dom2 view is essentially that of Christians, in that Mesoamerican and African human sacrificers didn't intend to summon demons or other "unholy" beings, but merely didn't want the sun to go out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:
I think the current Dom2 view is essentially that of Christians, in that Mesoamerican and African human sacrificers didn't intend to summon demons or other "unholy" beings, but merely didn't want the sun to go out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



How silly of you! The Aztecs sacrificed blood slaves, and subsequently, the White Man came from an unknown plane of existance and wiped them out. Just like when you cast Summon Horror carelessly.

[Evil Dave]

Saber Cherry said:
How silly of you! The Aztecs sacrificed blood slaves, and subsequently, the White Man came from an unknown plane of existance and wiped them out. Just like when you cast Summon Horror carelessly.


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I assume you're joking around, but that rings a distant bell... Didn't the Aztecs have some prophesy of light-skinned people coming from far away?

[Saber Cherry]

Evil Dave said:
I assume you're joking around, but that rings a distant bell... Didn't the Aztecs have some prophesy of light-skinned people coming from far away?



There's a prophecy for anything that's happened, and a million more for things that didn't. But one would be wise to consult prophecies before performing blood sacrifice.

[BigDaddy]

Evil Dave said:

Saber Cherry said:
How silly of you! The Aztecs sacrificed blood slaves, and subsequently, the White Man came from an unknown plane of existance and wiped them out. Just like when you cast Summon Horror carelessly.


http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I assume you're joking around, but that rings a distant bell... Didn't the Aztecs have some prophesy of light-skinned people coming from far away?



You could of just typed "aztec human sacrifice" into your browser . . . I was surprised at the number!

"When the Spaniards under Hernan Cortez gazed upon the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán in Mexico in 1519,they were amazed by the scene before them. There, in the middle of a wide lake was a shimmering city with bright white walls of vast buildings sitting on an island in the middle of a large lake with causeways linked to it. The astonishment of those first Spanish visitors soon turned to horror when they saw the vast scale of ritual sacrifices made by the Aztecs.


Even today, it is hard to comprehend the extent or rationale for this ritual sacrifice. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 people per year were sacrificed by the Aztec royalty. Captives were taken to the top of pyramids where, upon a ritual flat stone table, they had their chests cut upon and their hearts ripped out. Then the bodies of the victims were tossed down the steps of the pyramids. The scene to both the Spaniards of that time and to us today is truly gruesome. But it was not mere thirst for blood that motivated the Aztecs to engage in this mass ritual sacrifice.

Critical to understanding the motivation behind the ritual sacrifices is the concept of ”tonalli,” which means “animating spirit.” The tonalli in humans was believed to be located in the blood, which concentrates in the heart when one becomes frightened. This explains the gods’ hunger for the heart. Without this sacrifice, all motion stops, even the movement of the sun. So when the Aztecs made their sacrifices, as far as they were concerned, they were keeping the sun from halting in its orbit.

...

There was another reason for these ritual sacrifices---cannibalism. After the hearts were removed and the bodies tossed down the temple steps, the limbs were removed and later cooked. As repugnant as cannibalism is to us today, back then to the Aztecs, cooked human bodies were looked upon as great delicacies which explains why only Aztec royalty, not the common people, were allowed to engage in cannibalism. The favorite parts for the Aztecs to munch on were the hands and thighs. The Aztec emperor, Moctezuma, was reported to have been partial to cooked thighs served with tomatoes and chili pepper sauce.

..."

HAPPY EASTER!

[PDF]

Arryn said:
Good point. All Blood nations should be Unholy. That they currently aren't seems (to me) more than a bit unthematic.


Huh ? Why that ? In Dom2 Unholy is for necromancing nations (it gives reanimation powers), and has nothing to do with Blood (Demonic) magic. Granted, for us judeo-christians Westerners all this fall under "Evil" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif but this is no reason to confuse everything http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[Verjigorm]

Most of what I've seen in this thread (believe me, I didn't read the whole thing), seems to be a boiler-plate argument between the Freddie N's and the JC's. If, of course, you ascribe to the merits of "Relativism" you can wash away milleia worth of Dogma and logical thought and claim that everyone is correct, and no one group or faction can be more or less right than any other http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

As for the rules of Holy/Unholy magic.... Raising the dead is not necessarily a nefarious act. It is quite possible that the dead want to come back and serve a/the god. Obviously, those who raise the dead will want their followers to believe it righteous and those who do not will desire their followers to believe it blasphemous (Relativism raises it's ugly head oncemore). It is best to simply consider them empirically rather than using the connotation of their naming. We shall call "Holy" magic "Living" magic and Unholy, "Dead". Races that lean toward "Living" sacred units will be more thematically suited to "Holy" magic while those who tend toward "Dead" units or who require additional (low-rank) troops to flesh out their ranks will be benefitted more by "Unholy" magic.

If we examine the traits of blood magic, we find that it includes no sacred units, 3 types of undead units, and most of it's units have high morale, but are generally lower in population than say...Nature. Thusly, Blood magic finds its niche with "Unholy" because of a) little need for Courage magic, b) no need for Blessings on non-undead units, c) a need for rank-and-file troops (not, really, but one could make an argument), and d) an interest in using the general undead "buff" spells for vampires/bone fiends.

Thus, Blood magic is both empirically and thematically suited for Unholy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[quantum_mechani]

Verjigorm said:
Most of what I've seen in this thread (believe me, I didn't read the whole thing), seems to be a boiler-plate argument between the Freddie N's and the JC's. If, of course, you ascribe to the merits of "Relativism" you can wash away milleia worth of Dogma and logical thought and claim that everyone is correct, and no one group or faction can be more or less right than any other http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

As for the rules of Holy/Unholy magic.... Raising the dead is not necessarily a nefarious act. It is quite possible that the dead want to come back and serve a/the god. Obviously, those who raise the dead will want their followers to believe it righteous and those who do not will desire their followers to believe it blasphemous (Relativism raises it's ugly head oncemore). It is best to simply consider them empirically rather than using the connotation of their naming. We shall call "Holy" magic "Living" magic and Unholy, "Dead". Races that lean toward "Living" sacred units will be more thematically suited to "Holy" magic while those who tend toward "Dead" units or who require additional (low-rank) troops to flesh out their ranks will be benefitted more by "Unholy" magic.

If we examine the traits of blood magic, we find that it includes no sacred units, 3 types of undead units, and most of it's units have high morale, but are generally lower in population than say...Nature. Thusly, Blood magic finds its niche with "Unholy" because of a) little need for Courage magic, b) no need for Blessings on non-undead units, c) a need for rank-and-file troops (not, really, but one could make an argument), and d) an interest in using the general undead "buff" spells for vampires/bone fiends.

Thus, Blood magic is both empirically and thematically suited for Unholy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

It is all fine and good if some nations have unholy and blood magic. But I don't think they should be linked together any more than say, astral and holy. You argument could just as well be used to say that nations with blood magic should all have earth magic, since they work so well together.

[Verjigorm]

Indeed, but I wansn't stating that the two should be inextricably linked. Simply that nations favoring blood should prefer Unholy to Holy.

[Verjigorm]

Take, thematically, the nation of Marignon in it's blood aspect. The veneration of demons yields a certain "sacred" air to blood magic resulting in a thematic preference to "Holy" which ignores the empirical evidence suggesting that Blood and Holy be disjoint. A sacred demonic unit would help to solidify this relationship...

[BigDaddy]

You could give a nation Blood and Unholy, but it may "unbalance" the nation. Unholy adds fodder to the punch of demonic units, so Unholy "fits" better with Demons.

[Saber Cherry]

Unholy also allows leadership of demons, while holy does not, strongly indicating a positive relationship.

[Verjigorm]

Ah yes. I missed that point. By the way... (Back on topic after 11 pages of tangents) I thought the mod was interesting, but a little vaporous--I'd like to see more stuff. Maybe a different National spell or something to replace the Heart Companions....