ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

I am not claiming that MY beliefs are that broad. I am only pointing out that atheism denies the possibility (even the possibility) of their being a God. Theism, as its opposite, admits the possibility of their being a God. I am prepared to go quite a bit further about that being humans call God.

My position, in a theistic vs. atheistic side, is theistic. As such, and considering that many here are approaching things from the atheistic side, I thought I should get out the most basic difference between the sides.

As put forth, an agnostic is a theist.

And while your latter argument is droll, it is simply another way of putting that you do not believe in God. Believe me, I don't speak here about God for my own edification.

[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. 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. 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.

[atul]

Scott Hebert said:
I am not claiming that MY beliefs are that broad. I am only pointing out that atheism denies the possibility (even the possibility) of their being a God. Theism, as its opposite, admits the possibility of their being a God. I am prepared to go quite a bit further about that being humans call God.

It's just that what you claim about theism to be goes a bit contrary to what I've always thought as a common consensus (theism - god, atheism - no god, agnostism - oh dunno give it a break). Of course, anyone who can claim the gray area has a far better argumentative position...

Defining theism as an opposite of atheism is, however, a bit weird. Like defining Unholy first (something bad, wicked, evil) and then defining Holy as its opposite. I at least would like to define Holy first and then Unholy as its anathema.

Same goes for theism ("there is god") and atheism ("oh yeah, prove it"), but that of course serves just to make my personal position (agnostic with a firm belief in smallness of probablity of some god's existence) better in these argumentations. But discussing that is arguing about semantics, and in a forum this wide the consensus might be hard to be found.

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:
I wouldn't know. 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. 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.

Amazingly enough then, we seem to be in agreement.

[Scott Hebert]

It's just that what you claim about theism to be goes a bit contrary to what I've always thought as a common consensus (theism - god, atheism - no god, agnostism - oh dunno give it a break). Of course, anyone who can claim the gray area has a far better argumentative position...

I define it precisely. If atheism denies God, the opposite is something that allows God. The opposite is NOT something that requires God. That is logically flawed.

Defining theism as an opposite of atheism is, however, a bit weird. Like defining Unholy first (something bad, wicked, evil) and then defining Holy as its opposite. I at least would like to define Holy first and then Unholy as its anathema.

Which is how it arose. Except that, at the time it arose, holy meant 'good'. With people denying that, it was necessary to show that 'unholy' still meant 'evil', and then work from there.

I define atheism first because it is the more extreme position (no possibility of God). From there, the opposing viewpoint is defined, logically, by the way I did above.

Same goes for theism ("there is god") and atheism ("oh yeah, prove it"), but that of course serves just to make my personal position (agnostic with a firm belief in smallness of probablity of some god's existence) better in these argumentations.

Heh.

Lim Agnostic -> Atheist
belief->0

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

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

Anyway, happy Easter everyone.

Thank you. A Happy Easter to you, too.

[Scott Hebert]

Amazingly enough then, we seem to be in agreement.

What is so amazing? I am human; I have to live in the real world, same as you.

[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.