ArcoBlood Mod Finished

BigDaddy · #1 March 24th, 2005, 08:45 PM

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 · #2 March 24th, 2005, 08:53 PM

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 · #3 March 24th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 March 24th, 2005, 09:41 PM

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.

It's a wonder that my TC mod hasn't provoked a discussion on the exact difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

quantum_mechani · #5 March 24th, 2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

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 · #6 March 24th, 2005, 10:24 PM

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 · #7 March 24th, 2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 March 24th, 2005, 11:06 PM

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.

BigDaddy · #9 March 24th, 2005, 11:55 PM

Quote:

quantum_mechani said:

Quote:

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.