Ok you win.. go look at the Invetions thread... CoX uses an idea of magic very similar to yours....
[ QUOTE ]
Any idea, theory, or befief of creation is a relgious stand point. Choosing not to believe is a extreme relgious statement just as saying you do believe. I am curious to what you think you are and who your belief is not a religous one?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should take this up with Prof Hawking (if he's not too busy appearing in Simpsons episodes).
I'm agnostic, the ultimate kind of fense-sitter and, IMHO, the one true position for a scientist. I have no evidence for the existance of the supernatural, God, god, Lord Cthulhu, or anything else, and I also have no proof they don't exist.
Unfortunately, I cannot become a 'believer' because the only way I'll 'believe' in (say) God is if I have proof of his existance. People who believe in gods because if they don't the gods will come throw stones at their windows aren't believers, they're just realists.
As for creation stories, there's really no need for any entity to have created the universe, it can happen by pure random chance. There's also no problem with that chance having been triggered by some uber-being. Essentially, science has 'proven' that God is not required to create the universe, and Occam's Razor says if God isn't required, he doesn't exist, but the simplest solution isn't always the correct one, so science cannot disprove God either.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok you win.. go look at the Invetions thread... CoX uses an idea of magic very similar to yours....
[/ QUOTE ]
It does? I'll have to go read this Brainstorm stuff, it appears. It'll be kind of embarassing if they are using a mechanism like mine. 
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Ok you win.. go look at the Invetions thread... CoX uses an idea of magic very similar to yours....
[/ QUOTE ]
It appears to because 'my view' of magic has a broader application. You can fit it to pretty much any actual magical paradigm. 'Your view' has a far more restricted viewpoint, such as the idea that technology supresses magic.
You've looked at what they've described and seen the bit about "blending magic and technology" and you think it fits better into 'my view'. However, that blending probably relies on stuff like Orichalcum and "bio-neural chips", and any other pseudo-science technomagical jargon they can stuff in.
It's in Cryptic's interests to keep the actual way magic works in their 'system' as vague as possible. Since 'my view' of magic encompasses more or less any kind of magic depending on the beliefs of the magician, and those other sentient minds around him, of course mine fits to their vague system.
If 'your view' of magic had an absolutely fixed view that technology and magic cannot exist in the same 'device', then you were bound to find something in CoX that didn't fit your view eventually, for the simple reason that CoX cannot be restrictive and you are being highly restrictive.
I didn't think 'your view' precluded any technological/magical interface, however.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't think 'your view' precluded any technological/magical interface, however.
[/ QUOTE ]
AA see "my view" never said that magic and tech cannot exist together. That was a game called arcanum which i said i liked, but this is not my viewpoint. They to can exist without interference, but my view stated that because, from the viewpoint of magic that i chose to use, androids,robots, and technology is "souless", they themselves cannot use magic. They can channel magic, be a focus for magic, but not "use" it in the same way a human can. You might say that contradicts itself, but from this viewpoint you would say its not the being themselves that channel the magic, rather the materials they are made of or the charms placed apon them. If a charmed a robot to fly, then it would fly magically, however the robot unless charmed or made of a magical material, could not out of its own will, has access to magic, where like you said a living being would be able to learn magic.
So in retospec, my theory can actually work with Dr. Brainstorms. The Matrix, is charmed or given magic, not magic itself.
[ QUOTE ]
depending on the beliefs of the magician
[/ QUOTE ]
Again you misunderstood. My version does not require the magican to know the truth about magic or have any religious viewpoint about it, they simply can be taught to wield it never knowing its true purpose and form. Just like i can teach a dog to type, even tho its does know what it is actually doing. (This is actually possible, a man customised a type writer and taught his dog to type things.)
[ QUOTE ]
I'm agnostic, the ultimate kind of fense-sitter and, IMHO, the one true position for a scientist. I have no evidence for the existance of the supernatural, God, god, Lord Cthulhu, or anything else, and I also have no proof they don't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm agnostic, the ultimate kind of fense-sitter and, IMHO, the one true position for a scientist. I have no evidence for the existance of the supernatural, God, god, Lord Cthulhu, or anything else, and I also have no proof they don't exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually what i believe. I just didn't know the term, Thanks now i know "what i am."
Still choosing to believe nothing is just a strong viewpoint to be something.
When I said creation myth, it emcompasses all "beliefs" or disbeliefs. The problem is that people like to confuse what religion should truely mean. Since we can't prove anything yet, or maybe ever, these are all theories as to how we came into existance. Thats all religion is, theories. Problem is the word religion, especially with non believers, is the people who do believe take it as fact or the gospel truth, and therefore, people who don't try to distance themselves to what i believe is the true meaning of religion.
Raven, just out of curiosity again do you know what a spiritualist is?
I think we have to be very careful that this doesn't turn into a religion-bashing/atheist-bashing flame war... keep it civil, I hope, even if it's alright for the moment?
UN, I'm going to stop now. You are taking quotes out of context and then rambling on about them. That's enough.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we have to be very careful that this doesn't turn into a religion-bashing/atheist-bashing flame war... keep it civil, I hope, even if it's alright for the moment?
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of "benefit of the doubt?"
Doesn't matter. See above.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we have to be very careful that this doesn't turn into a religion-bashing/atheist-bashing flame war... keep it civil, I hope, even if it's alright for the moment?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how when I said me and him are both fence sitters, but ok 
Oh and when I said you win. It appears you can't take or notice a joke. This wasn't a competiton, but it that's how you see it then ok :P
I'd like to thanks your for saying I was rambling. I will choose to believe that you have some reason to take everything I say as an attack against your ideas, challenging you to a debate, rather than what it was as a disscussion of our ideas. But maybe thats me psychoanalysing you :P
Its a shame you don't RP anymore. It would be fun to meet you IC in-game.
Come on Ravey, come join us in Pocket D!
[ QUOTE ]
shrug* As I recall (and bare in mind that my brain is turning to soup as I type), the 'debate'
[/ QUOTE ]
*confused* I never wanted to debate with you that was the message in half my post. I frequently said this were my ideas, just as you stated mine. Reread our posts, and its more your "attacking" my idea and me simply defending it, saying I don't disagree with your idea, but this is the one I use.
Like in the most powerful thread, you seemed to wanted to try and debate with me, when the original message" hows does your character benefit from a non structured canon" but I am not that best with words, especially when i get excited about an idea. I have a biological reason for this but most people say its a cop out to state things like that, perfering to imply your badly educated or lack basic literature skills. Not sayin that you would or that many people I have met in this thread would.
If you wish to debate however.
Any idea, theory, or befief of creation is a relgious stand point. Choosing not to believe is a extreme relgious statement just as saying you do believe. I am curious to what you think you are and who your belief is not a religous one?