What about Jane Christian, who fully believes that anyone who casts and proclaims to be Christian is doing God's work, and those who don't are using tricks given to him by Satan?

The really smart ones know this, sure. But John and Jane Average don't. They may think there's some grand conspiracy to who gets magical powers and who doesn't.

I think if it lasts 3 days it'll be a miracle, and therefor proof that God exists and wants this thread to thrive.

The atheist would simply view the magic, spirits, etc as the cause rather than the effect, i.e., the ancient peoples encountered that rare spirit that was able to manifest in the 5th world and wrote about it in their holy books, or tales passed down through the milennia about spirits, mages, etc were the basis for those beliefs.

I don't see how irreligious magic creates or requires any real change in the reasonable arguments on either side of this particular debate. It'll create a whole host of unreasonable arguments, of course, but such things usually only serve to radicalize people who had already chosen what they believe/don't believe in.

People who do not currently believe those miracles happened would quite likely not believe they happened even if there was magic in the world. That they are works of fiction is a simpler assumption than that there were mana spikes.

Those are the things I'm looking for.

"I can do magic without god so there is no god!" (Non Sequitur)
"zOMG all majique is from teh devil!" (Fallacy of WTF?!)
That sort of thing. Not really worth thinking too hard about.

Powerful Free Spirits certainly could be. After all, they grow more powerful when people donate them Karma, which means creating a religion where they are god, or the one and only prophet, would make perfect sense. Certain existing religions, centering on the belief just about everything has its own god/spirit/thingie, might also consider metaplane-dwellers as god-equivalents or whatever (though that's not saying much).

The Abrahamic religions would beg to differ, of course. Metaplanar beings do not really fit into the faiths of omnipotent, omniscient creator gods.

How so?

This is how so

"If a may be false, then b, c, etc. must be false"

That's a hell of a logic jump, but one that's not uncommon in pro-atheist arguments even today - all it needs is a blatantly misapplied reference to Occam's Razor.

Funny how the two groups who most strongly argue the requirement of a 100% literal interpretation of all religious texts are loony fundies...and atheists.

Anyway...back on topic.

How about this:

The current (in SR) existence of magic does not comment on the veracity of any religious beliefs...though it does offer an explanation of how certain claims, previously discounted as legends, may actually have been possible.


(spell check wanted to change fundies to fondues...heh.)

None of the large monotheistic religions are going to accept that explanation, because that would reduce their miracles to purely secular feats of explainable magic. It'd be like Da Vinci Code, only quite a bit worse.

interestingly enough, the Bible doesn't actually say that YHWH is the source of all power, or even that he's the only god out there. for instance, the Witch of Endor really did summon up the ghost of the prophet Samuel. Pharaoh's wizards turned their staves into snakes. even the prophets of Baal acted as if they expected their god to light the fire under their sacrifice at Mt. Carmel, when Elijah told them his god could beat up their god.

i was going to say something about how the Bible doesn't talk about the Awakening, which might shake the faith of some (despite the fact that YHWH has never shown a propensity for predicting future events in his written work). and maybe it did, but i'm sure there are a lot of people who twist reality and Revelations so that they match up.

i dunno, man. that would require people to be reasonable about their beliefs, and the line between having faith and acting like a retard is very thin (and don't think i'm not slamming atheists with that--lots of atheists i've met are as dogmatic as the Pope).

I was going to mention that, except that you know, it doesn't really matter as per this discussion a great deal except that it would allow all sorts of religions to claim it was thjeir deity, or even to summon (or summon part) of said deity (something which voudoun did a better job of reflecting before it got nerfed).

Isn't part of the Sylvestrines' mission is to determine whether something is just magic, or a true miracle? Or someone's, I thought.

Not really - because I didn't specify where the power came from even in general, let alone in any given case.

If they were God-created miracles, then it doesn't really matter where on the mana-wave-pattern they occurred. If they were done by magicians, then the relationship between the mage and God would have more to do with the 'holiness' of the event than the means by which it was accomplished.

The problem with The DaVinci Code is that little foreword claiming that the history and scholarship are proven fact - rather than the disproven speculative interpretations and flat-out misrepresentations that it consisted of. If he'd simply called it historical fiction, he'd have gotten many fewer complaints. Most of his arguments are about as convincing as those of the people claiming a missile hit the pentagon on 9/11 - they keep forgetting that there's another plane to account for.

no ... but it does say that he is the one TRUE God and the creator of all things.

Where is this referenced? Can't say I remember this one in the bible.

yes they did, they also turned the nile red. The bible does acknowledge that there is magic, demons and spirits. What God creates the devil duplicates and perverts to cause confusion. Which could explain why religion and spirituality is so controvertial.

Are miracles and healings from God, magic? I personally don't think so, but they are wonderful and unexplained so it is easy for people to label it as so.

I think it challenges a person's beliefs because it is based strongly on truths. It is fantasy but it is so close that people think it could be plausible, and that can sow seeds of doubt.

I'm pretty sure that's true, though I couldn't confirm it on a brief glance at MitM.

In SR, it cannot be reasonably argued that magic (which accounts for all magical occurrences relying on the manasphere) in general is tightly connected with any particular religion, because for any religion there are more magic users who staunchly denounce it than those who believe in it. The religious authorities could just say that their god(s) produced the magical powers in question, but that would still be devaluing the divinity and miracle-aspect of such an occurrence -- like saying Jesus didn't walk on water but on an ice floe. It doesn't seem likely any major religion would go there, and in canon SR none apparently have.

The Da Vinci Code only demonstrates how important the purely divine nature of holy objects and persons often is to religions.

Most apathetic and mildly atheistic agnostics, for one.

That was sarcasm, meant to engender the feel of the thread, not explain any personal beliefs. I'm a tried and true agnostic, and it's gonna take one hell of a reasonable argument, plus some backup, to get me to pick a side. I'm interested in this thread with the arguments people would make, whether reasonable or not. Take this one for example

Completely and totally reasonable from the viewpoint of an atheist looking to prove himself right. Unfortunately it leaves out the part where God not shouting his name around doesn't prove he isn't out there, or that he isn't the one behind some magical gifts.

People who really believe in some god/gods probably see their Idol, Totem, Dweller on the Threshold, etc. as the being they believe it should be. This is not a huge leap from the Creator and Sky Father Idols, for example.

Anyway, the ever-redefined gods of holes continues to exist as long as humans aren't omniscient, likewise for purely creator gods.

If only logic and validity were that subjective, eh? Then we'd have no trouble with all these One True Gods and One True Faiths.

I'm scared shitless of willful ignorance right now, so I've been missing a lot of jokes lately.

I think I mispoke. It did challenge beliefs. People couldn't just *ignore* it.

What I meant to say is that belief is like flowing water. It'll just go around obstacles.

The interesting thing about modern, and to a lesser extend SR's, society, is that we require logical, "scientific" reasoning, even to come to terms with our irrationnal thoughts. We require consistency, even for religious dogma.

At first, the Awakening must've been a shock, and many may have loss faith because their mind could not deal with the inconsistency. But as religions incorporate the Awakening, explaining and assimilating it with existing dogma, all returns to normal. The explanations don't need to make much "sense". They just have to be consistant.

Ultimately, though, since belief is a choice that does not stem from rationnal explanations, NOTHING can stop it, except the believer. You simply believe, or you do not, regardless of what proof or lack of proof there is. The only true lack of belief is agnostism. Everyone else believes something.

You can challenge beliefs, but can't disprove it, since proof is irrelevant.

I agree, though I'd be happier with a phrasing like "you can disprove what people believe in, but that tends to make no difference to the believers".

Certain beliefs are, of course, completely outside the realm of reasonable debate, study or proof, such as belief in omnipotent god-beings who simply choose not to allow any proof for or against them. Other religous beliefs can be disproven easily, for what it's worth (not a whole lot, usually).

I am curious... like what?

Not really. There is a very conspicuous use of plural pronouns in Genesis.

That sounds panthestic to me.

Early Hebrews acknowledged the fact that the other gods did exist and that they were really gods, they simply didn't worship these gods because of their covenant with YHWH.

Notice the use of the possessive pronoun. He isn't the one true God. He is their God. He is the God of the Isrealites. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, they have their own Gods and these Gods are just as real and as valid as YHWH. The difference is the YHWH kicks ass while the other gods twiddle their thumbs.

It is important to keep the bible in historical context. When Exodus was written o one would seriously beleive that there was only one real God any more than one could beleive that the Earth is flat today. Genesis, which was probably written later than Exodus with the purpose of promoting a monothestic worldview, still couches itself by using the plural pronouns to suggest a the possibility of a pantheon.

Currently, no. Historically, yes. The Abrahamic religions are all derived from a polytheistic base. I don't know how far one would get trying to argue historical polythesim to dogmatic fundamentalists but that problem can be solved through the judicious application of deadly physical violence.


In my universe These guys died horrifically in a freak magical event and now tourists can interact with their eternally suffering ghosts at the site of the church. Their lamentations are proof enough that God does indeed exist.

It was only a guess at how those religions might behave in the SR era -- it doesn't seem likely that they'd go back to their polytheistic roots in the next 60 years. But then I've never studied religions much, so I might be way off base.

Flat earth carried on a turtle's back, the geocentric model, young earth creationism, that sort of thing. Falling back to "but my deity created the evidence to test our faith" makes those proofs no less valid.

This has been FAR too civil to be locked down, especially given the subject matter.

Why don't you chime in?

Tell that to 2,000 years of Catholic scientists and scholars.

Not if you view science as a miracle being slowly revealed.

And lots of atheist scholars say she cheated on him. Ain't perspective funny.

I still need to make time to follow the technomancer link.

that was not religion that said that ... it was science.... science also said there were 4 elements.

Science changes ... God doesn't.


And this thread is not talking about people's personal beliefs... it is talking objectively about a relavant subject. if it has survived this far without flames ... I'd say it is definitely worth keeping open.

Touché

The Roman soldier theory has been well discredited.

same principle as this


Atheism as a dogmatic philosophical belief is difficult to hold in the Sixth World. In addition, dogmatic theologies are difficult to hold. Agnosticism would be very tempting, especially for magicians. Recognizing that you don't understand is the first step in learning.

Dragons have the potential to influence human views on theology, as well. They have the greatest potential of all beings.

If Lofwyr one day made a flipant remark like "Yes, I know Allah/Jehova/YHWH/Odin/Zeus/Jupiter/(insert deity of your choice). I had dinner with him last week. I really don't see wh everyone makes such a big deal about him." It would either change the way the world perceives Gods or make many people very angry. I'm not sure which.

Pantheistic Humanism might be the most accurate religion in SR. Acknowledge the power of all gods but refuse to bow to any one of them. They have no right to demand worship or to condemn metahumans to torment. Kingdom of Heaven? Frag that, I'll be going to the Democratic Republic of Heaven.
Metaplanar quests help this worldview. Any person who wants to can go on an Astral quest and actually meet their God, recruit two Martians named Station, come back in time to destroy the Evil Robot Usses, and win the Battle of the Bands.

c) all of the above!