Zenbane
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Zenbane
-
-
A lack of evidence does not entail that something does or probably does exist.A lack of evidence does not entail that something doesn't or probably doesn't exist.
I have supplied plenty of evidence showing that the only attempt at proving the existence of God is through man-made writings that explain phenomena that has never been confirmed or directly observed. Since the only attempt to ever prove the existence of God comes from humans, and not an actual deity, I draw the conclusion that the God as described in the man-made doctrine does in fact not exist.So please, supply positive evidence that a god of any kind does not exist. "
Do you believe that a 6 foot tall Orc is outside your house simply because I failed to prove that it isn't?Do you dismiss the possibility of a 6 foot tall person being outside my house right now, because you don't have any evidence that there is one?
All evidence of God comes from man-made doctrine. That is a statement of fact. I hold the stance that science does in fact prove that our only evidence of God comes from man-made doctrine. If you need proof, Google "sources of the Bible." Scientific methods have confirmed that ancient writings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are in fact writings that are ancient.
-
^^^
LMAO - best post in this thread.
All hail Atheist Crop!
-
I found a very interesting review that expains why the ending is total crop. The review is written by somebody who loves the game btw. I selected some quotes:
[iNSERT QUOTES THAT CONFIRM THE OPPOSITE OF PoE BEING ATHEISTIC PROPAGANDA]
You can read the whole article here: http://johnswritersblock.com/2015/04/20/pillars-of-eternity-ending-review/I'm sure he's just another unintelligent, poorly educated fool who just doesn't appreciate atheist propaganda.
The author actually confirms that the game is more Theist than Atheist, which you even quoted! LOL
"It’s like every internet argument atheists and theists get into on Facebook. Only this time the theists have some pretty damn compelling evidence on their side."
Nothing you quoted shows that the author of that article feels that the game is atheist propaganda. What the author is pointing out is the fact that the entire game is from a Theist point of view, and the writing at the end which portrays the God's as being fake doesn't make sense because everything else in the game shows that the God's are real.
Some quotes from the article that confirm this:
"And with all this overwhelming evidence of the gods existence, Thaos’ mission suddenly looks really, really stupid. Was all this death and destruction really necessary to make people believe?"
"But at the end, when I relive the final moments of my former life, and have our final conversation… I’m forced to ask him whether the gods were real. Despite the fact that neither my current or former characters would have asked that."
"But the gods don’t exist? Yeah that’s not something the setting lends itself to."
You start off that post with, "I found a very interesting review that expains why the ending is total crop," (did you mean "crap" ?) but the title of your thread is "atheistic cliche."
You might need to make up your mind:
1) Do you think the story is total crop?
2) Do you think the ending is an atheistic cliche?
3) Is the ending both an atheistic cliche and a total crop?
4) Is the ending a total crop because it is an atheistic cliche?
5) Is the ending an atheistic cliche because it is total crop?
6) Is the phrase "total crop" an atheistic cliche?
All you did was find an article that talks about story inconsistencies, none of which indicate either directly nor indirectly that the game is an atheistic cliche. You might as well link to the Bugs forum ( https://forums.obsidian.net/forum/105-patch-beta-bugs-and-support/ ) and claim that because software problems exist, the game is an atheistic cliche.
It's nice that you can find well written articles, but you really aren't fooling anyone when you copy n paste a well-written article and act as though you are the one who wrote a well-written article. lol
The article proves you wrong by clearly illustrating how PoE maintains a story that is Theistic, with an ending that falls short by trying to suddenly introduce an Atheistic perspective. According to the article, PoE is a Theistic cliche with a bad ending. According to the article, PoE's story provides "overwhelming evidence" that the God's exist; and the ending is total crop writing.
You defeated yourself this time. Bravo!
-
I may not be qualified to give a rebuttal - but the research I based it on is - feel free to look it up if you're not afraid to do so.
Quoting from the Bible is not research. The Bible is a book of fiction, not a scientific journal. I have done enough research and already proved the invalidity of the Bible in an earlier thread:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1785689
You conveniently avoided the facts presented and simply waited for another opportunity to restart the debate in hopes of some small victory.
Ah, the old 'science disproves God' argument - completely ignoring the number of scientists who believe in God. What exactly is this science you speak of?
I am aware that some scientists believe in God but that in itself is not proof that God exists. Where is the scientific evidence that God exists?
At least you admit there was no point. But your statement being directed at someone else doesn't mean I can't respond - it's a public forum. As for your 'valid point' - lets look at the context:
On the contrary, I said that my point was valid in the context in which it was stated. Learn to read.
My point was to Romanul and I was stating that PoE is more theological than atheist because PoE contains manufactured Gods; which is the basis of every major religion. There is no scientific evidence that God exists, therefore the idea of God is purely man-made. God is manufactured by man. Simple example: science provides the observable theory of Evolution, the Bible presents the fairytale of a man in the sky creating the first human. Science is observable, the story of creation is manufactured.
I know you need to think that atheism is a non-belief
More irony lost on you, considering you're the one that needs to believe that the Bible is factual. I, on the other hand, do not need to believe anything about either Christianity nor Atheism. I simply know how to read, and I am capable of critical thought beyond Biblical fanaticism; feats that you clearly cannot claim.
Atheism prides itself on it's correct definition:
https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
You're the one that needs to believe the opposite of what Atheism dictates about itself; because your own twisted version best allows you to categorize and dismiss atheism. I already consider you weak for your belief in a fantasy book (the Bible), but to also know that you can't even address other ideologies on their own merit makes you that much weaker.
In my case, I have no respect for Atheists because I find them to be intellectually lazy. I am not an Atheist, but I can understand their viewpoint without changing it; and I can counter argue their rhetoric at face value. People like you can't think outside of your own fairytale, which is why you need to morph concepts like Atheism in to an idea your limited viewpoint can handle. Hell, you consider reading the Bible "research" - which says it all lol
you put your faith in science above and somehow claim it proves your belief in the non-existence of God
Your weakness comes shining through again when you - someone who claims that the Bible is "proof" that God exists - tells me that Science requires "faith." hah!
I do not put faith in science, little one. Science contains observable and repeatable laws and theories. There is nothing in the Bible that anyone has ever been able to repeat, duplicate, or directly observe as it pertains to God. Religion relies on faith, Science relies on observation. A common trait among fanatical Christians is to falsely believe that Science is also a faith-based system. That's what happens when you spend too much time doing "research in the Bible."
Where does science support the idea that "god" (please define what you mean by that) is manufactured? Now if you're making the point that all 'ideas' are manufactured by the human brain (indeed, this is taken to be true axiomatically by certain people), I have no issue with that. Please do not confuse science supporting the idea that certain old testament verses in the Christian Bible are not literal, with the idea that science has supported the idea of God is a manufactured one. Specific evidence please (note: as this is an all-too-common trope in these types of discussions, I have not claimed God exists, or any evidence for God exists, you have made a claim and as such the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders). Personally I couldn't care less what you believe fyi (I'm pretty "live and let live" about it all myself) but making such grossly overstated assertions on a video game forum simply demands a thorough rebuttal.
There is no scientific evidence that God exists, and the only proof we have entails the idea of god being manufactured by the human brain.
Science does not have the burden of proving that "God does not exists" any more than Science has the burden of proving that: elves dont exist, fire breathing dragons dont exist, goblins dont exist, every character race in Pillars of Eternity don't really exist, etc.
-
1
-
-
You are not qualified to rebuttal the author, or anyone for that matter. You may consider the research flawed, but the irony is lost on you when faced with the fact that you look past the many obvious flaws of the Bible in order to consider it a historical document.
My conclusion over your definition was based on what you said. Words need context.As your quote clearly shows, you were trying to correct my use of the word "theology" because you had a very limited understanding of its definitions. Everything you say in defense of your error is merely you stringing random words together to avoid admitting your error.
You still made no point with it.There is no point that anyone can make that a religious fanatic will accept. More importantly, my statement about atheism vs theology wasn't directed at you, it was directed at someone else and makes a valid point within the original context.
You were trying to show that atheism had one meaning while contrasting it with another. Not supporting your point was all you did if all you said was what you claim.Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured. But again, that is not something that a religious fanatic will accept. Besides, you have shown repeatedly that you can't even understand what Atheism involves; as noted by your terrible example of how "believing something doesn't exist" is the same thing as having a complete lack of a belief system.
Science and English literacy are on my side in this discussion. The only thing you bring to the debate is logical fallacies, out-of-context quote humping, and an oatmeal shaped approach to blind faith in the form of historical non-fiction mythology lol
-
And you can see here that I quoted the part of the Bible where the Bible claims something that your argument said it doesn't claim
The author of "Shredding the Gospel's" begins by stating the fact that eyewitness testimony is represented in the Bible, he said it in the very paragraph that you butchered:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eyewitnesses but I'm going to address Mark and Luke as well because I feel like wrecking those authorship traditions just to be thorough. First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves. All of the traditional ascriptions of authorship come from 2nd century tradition.
You decided to focus on one sentence, then quote the Bible to disprove that sentence, even though the sentence before already states that the Bible contains claims of eyewitness testimony... and the last sentence states where any notions of authorship are derived from. So very Christian of you to pick and choose which parts of a text best suit your agenda. And you've spent several posts arguing that I must be ignoring the point you only think you're making when you took a sentence out of context. Nice try.
The author goes on to show just how non-factual any claims of eyewitness accounts from the Gospels truly are:
To sum up for John, it is an early 2nd century book which is heavily Hellenistic in its language and theology. It is markedly anti-Jewish, it contains speeches for Jesus which are not only incompatible with the character of Jesus as he is presented in the synoptics (not to mention that it simply strains all credulity that a 1st century Jewish audience would tolerate a guy claiming he was God) but simply cannot be credibly defended as authentic transcriptions of speeches remembered verbatim for 70 years by an illiterate Palestinian fisherman (and by nobody else) and then translated into Greek by that same fisherman. It contains contradictions with the synoptics which I will get to in time. It shows multiple hands of authorship and it contains an anachronism so glaring that it is a fatal blow to any consideration of eyewitness testimony. Its traditional authorship stems from a single unreliable claim by Irenaeus (a guy who couldn't keep his "Johns" straight) around 180 CE.
Neither Luke nor Paul is a witness of Jesus even by tradition so I suppose I could stop right there but I think I'll take the time to point out that even the tradition which does exist is dubious.
Furthermore, Luke knew Josephus, which puts that Gospel into the mid 90's CE at a bare minimum and probably later. This means that Paul had been dead 30 years before Luke-Acts was written.
The fable of a physician named Luke who traveled with Paul comes from a claim made 150 years after the crucifixion and is corroborated by nothing in the text itself.
The eyewitness testimony you quote directly from the Bible are nothing more than shifts in dialogue to either match tradition or simply persuade.
merely trying to establish a track-record for missing the point and arguing something else, then refusing to even acknowledge that you were wrong about it.
I have a track record of beating a point to death, but missing a point is a feat that you are dedicated to religiously. As easily shown above when you took a quote of out context, and below...
So by pointing out that your 'argument' was in fact merely a statement of your belief, you decided to make it about my misunderstanding of your definition of theology instead.
No you are just warping a basic timeline and missing the mark terribly.
Here is my original sentence:
Atheism entails zero deity references; theology entails manufactured deities.
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1787871
Here is your exact reply to that sentence:
You're contrasting atheism with theology - a belief in no gods vs. a study of God,gods and religions.
Better to contrast it with theism - a belief in the existence of God (monotheism) or gods (polytheism).
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1787894
Clear as day... you're the one who made the debate about a misunderstanding of the word "theology" when you defined it and then recommended a replacement term (theism). Unfortunately for you, the replacement term (theism) wasn't necessary because...
Theology: The study of religious faith, practice, and experience; the study of God and God's relation to the world; a system of religious beliefs or ideas
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology
... and ever since I corrected your terrible attempt at literacy, you have lunged in to a corkscrew motion battle formation:
If you were using 'theology' to mean 'a set of religious beliefs' then your claim that "theology entails manufactured deities" is using a definition that fits your whims/ideals. How very atheist of you.
This quote of yours is my favorite, as it shows that you simply have no firm understanding of sentence structure. My use of the definition of theology is not concluding that the deities are manufactured. I added the "manufactured deities" conclusion completely independent of either the word "theology" or any of its meanings. You even suggested that I use the word "theism" instead; which shows that at one point your brain understood that if I took your advice and stated, "theism entails manufactured deities," that I would have been using a valid definition of theism that is independent of the "manufactured deities" conclusion.
But oooh no, all I had to do was slap you with some smarts and bam! Now my use of the word theology magically signifies abusing one of it's definitions for my ideals. lol
Keep on spinning.
-
Zenbane says you can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible says something
Wrong again. What I really said:
"you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible"
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1785689
Another failure:
7) Accurate quoting vs Gross misrepresentation
You think that the Bible is "proof" that God exists, and you back up that proof by pointing back at the Bible. It is a logical fallacy, and I'm pretty sure that God said, "thou shall not commit logical fallacies" ...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
You place authority on the Bible - specifically the Gospels - and claim that the existence of God is true because the authority said it is true. Purely illogical. And in a stunning portrayal of illogical thinking, you are also presenting the fallacy of "beggging the question" :
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
8 ) Logical fallacies vs Valid reasoning
Then again, see the Fenstermaker interview thread
Uh oh, since you can't address the points I posed against you in this thread, you decide to introduce a red herring.
9) Staying on topic vs red herrings
Your use of 'theology' in the sentence you gave made me leap to the conclusion that you were using the definition I applied. Since you were using the other definition, your 'argument' was basically "I'm right" to the point of not including any other information. Since you seem to like that kind of argument, I'll leave you to it.
You took that logical leap all on your own, and no one told you to leave your brain behind. My use of theology was accurate, which you failed at understanding when you tried to correct my grammar. After I pointed out your literacy flaw, you decided to attack the words that came after "theology" because that's the kind of argument you need to rely on.
-
I never said I detest atheist video games. I dislike atheist propaganda especially when is out of place. It has no place in a fantasy universe with souls, fireballs etc. Had this been a universe without supranatural occurrences (no magic, souls, gods!!! etc) then it would have made sense and I wouldn't have complained. It wouldn't be my cup of tea but I would understand.
There are no rules that govern when and where Atheism can be represented since by definition it is nothing more than a "lack of belief." The "Wizard of Oz" is all about magic and fantasy, yet at the end the Wizard wasn't even real. That is very similar to the story in PoE, and if that theme worked so well for the Wizard of Oz as a pure fantasy setting, then it surely can work just fine in a fantasy Role-Playing Game.
If anything, since Atheism tends to view all religion as fantasy, a fantasy universe seems the perfect place for atheism. Regardless, the biggest problem is that you are incorrect to label PoE as an atheist cliche. PoE reflects many theological perspectives: atheism, agnosticism, satanism, hinduism, christianity, and pantheism.
It's unfortunate that you have allowed a narrow view of the games story to overcome what would have been a great analysis. Because you are right to say that there is a semblance of atheism in PoE, but you are wrong to say that the entire game is saturated with atheism to the point of being considered propaganda. If you could take a step back and realize your folly, the conversation could turn much more stimulating by revealing the aspects of the game that reflect the wide breathe of theological perspectives.
-
Regarding your fun fact. I'm sorry that happened in your country. I can't the say the same happened here. Back then all Western music was banned (we were a communist dictatorship ) and had limited access to rock and roll. When people did manage to (illegally) get their hands on it it was revered.
You do understand that your government banning music is worse than a few American's in the 1960's burning a few records, right? So you should also know the difference between a video game with a story and "atheistic propaganda."
In case you're still not getting it... you claim that you revered rock n rock that was illegally obtained, but if Rock n Roll is the devil's music, doesn't that mean that you revered Satanic Propaganda? In which case, why do you revere satanic propaganda but detest atheistic video game software? Perhaps the real problem here is that you don't like the PoE soundtrack? lol
-
A few things to keep in mind:
1) This is a video game
2) The EULA you accept before playing the game
3) All information about the game is publicly available before buying it (e.g., the storyline)
Another thing to keep in mind:
If the ending of PoE confirmed that one or more God's exist, based on your line of reasoning, all Christians can rally against the game by calling it "Sacrilegious propaganda".
Fun fact: In the 1960's, people called Rock n Roll the "devil's music" and would burn all the record albums they found lol
-
You call it "effect and impact", I call atheist propaganda.
Which makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who understands what the words "atheist" and "propaganda" mean.
I guess it had an effect and impact on me, just wasn't a positive one.Neither did education apparently.
it's natural that they receive some negative feedback from us playersThere is nothing natural occurring here, other than the very natural impact an online forum has on trolling.
To tell you the truth I don't get it why people are so passive aggressiveI think people are just having an allergic reaction to the highly unintelligent use of the phrase "atheist propaganda."
-
1
-
-
Of course you can use same definition. There is no point to change definition of word like atheist for fantasy world
So you are arguing that even if the entire laws of the universe change, the definitions of the words that apply to those laws must remain the same? I hope you realize how nonsensical that sounds. The definitions are part of the change in the new universe lol
The point that you completely missed is that in the "real world" the term Atheist refers to a lack of belief in the unproven existence of Gods. In the fantasy universe, even the manufactured Gods may be experienced. That fact alone removes the need for a belief system based on 100% "theory" since we can make direct observations.
Do you understand the difference? When the Gods are a myth we need to invent a belief system based on the possibility of a Gods existence. When the Gods are real we simply choose which God to follow and invent a belief system based on the ideals given to us by the chosen God.
The idea of a belief system changes when Gods are a matter of fact; and the term Atheist changes meaning as well. In fact, in a fantasy world the term Atheist is virtually non-applicable; instead we would call them "Heretics."
Real World = Atheists
Fantasy World = Heretics
new Universe = new Laws = new Definitions
-
If you were using 'theology' to mean 'a set of religious beliefs' then your claim that "theology entails manufactured deities" is using a definition that fits your whims/ideals. How very atheist of you. Why not claim "theology entails the belief in a deity or deities" ?
First up...
My use of a valid definition for theology simply means I can type this:
"theology entails manufactured deities"
instead of this:
"a set of religious beliefs entails manufactured deities"
The portion of my sentence that demonstrates my own whims/ideals is the predicate in the sentence, whereas the theology term/definition is in the subject. You managed to get your wires crossed at an impressive level of awful. Worse yet, the only reason we are now over-analyzing the word theology is because you are trying to save face from your earlier failed attempt at correcting my grammar. You thought theology only meant "a study of religion" - which means you started off understanding my original sentence (subject vs predicate). But once I sent you to the dictionary you stumbled back in to the discussion not knowing the"I know you are's" from the "what I am's."
So to be clear: I am not using any definition of the word "theology" in order to prove that the word itself (theology) includes manufactured deities. I am simply using the word in place of one of its valid definitions, and then constructing additional thoughts around it that yes, do fit my own ideals. There is a difference.
As for your question, "why not claim that theology entails the belief in a deity or deities?"
Even in the Bible there are stories of cultures who worship false deities, such as the false god, Marduk (the Book of Jeremiah). Theology is merely a belief system, or study of that system. The word itself does not require confirmation of a deity. My use of the definition and its application in my sentence is not only valid from a grammatical standpoint, but also a scientific one - since the existence of any "god" has never been scientifically proven. To say that the concept of God is manufactured is scientifically accurate.
Second...
Even if I was morphing the definition of theology in to something that, all by itself, fits my own ideals, that would mean I am acting like a Christian, not an Atheists. Christians morph virtually every passage in the Bible as needed in order to portray it as a work of non-fiction. So making the comment, "how very atheist of you," after falsely accusing me of using a definition to fit my ideals makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Atheists do not subscribe to a belief system, thus they have no system to morph ideals/whims in to.
"How very atheist of you." ugh. what a stupid thing to say. really.
Indeed. If anything, I was acting like another Christian, not an Atheist.
To keep score of Silent Winters failings:
1) Subject vs Predicate
2) Christianity vs Atheism
My definition of proof never varied - I pointed out that it wasn't the same as yours.
I never accused you of varying in your definition of the word "proof", I accused you of varying in your application of "definitions". You are very loose in your definition of "proof", loose enough to allow a fantasy book like the Bible to confirm, in your mind, that a floating man in the sky exists. But then you get very strict/firm in your use of definitions when it comes to theology; so much so that you spent two posts trying to convince me that there is only one very strict way to use the word "theology." You loosen/tighten the importance of "definitions" to fit your own ideals.
Another failing:
3) Definitions vs Words
And I stand by my definition of atheist - since there is no evidence for or against a thing, you can either believe that it exists or doesn't. I don't believe in Bigfoot and I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist
You can stand in whatever improper stance you feel most comfortable lol; but the fact remains that there is a difference between committing to a belief system vs refraining from any belief system.
In your self-defeating "Bigfoot" example, the first approach means that you deny the existence of Bigfoot until evidence has been provided to show the contrary; whereas in your second approach you would have performed research to show evidence that Bigfoot never existed. The first approach requires other people (other than yourself) to prove Bigfoot exists; the second approach involves you committing your own time, energy, and resources to prove that Bigfoot is a myth.
So, yet another failing:
5) Passive denial vs Active portrayal
You are 0 for 5 in this debate.
-
You're contrasting atheism with theology - a belief in no gods vs. a study of God,gods and religions.
Better to contrast it with theism - a belief in the existence of God (monotheism) or gods (polytheism).
Atheism is not a "belief in no gods" (as I quoted earlier), it is a lack of belief. Silly as it seems, there is a difference and those cute little atheists pride themselves in that difference. Also, you decided to apply only a single definition of "theology" - the one that best fits your counterpoint. How very Christian of you lol
Here is another valid definition of "theology" :
a system of religious beliefs or ideas
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology
That is obviously the definition that accompanied my earlier statement. So your counterpoint is invalid, unfortunately, as it completely warps the basic idea behind both atheism and theology.
Depends on your definition of 'god'
Well I think we have established on more than one occasion that the use of a "definition" changes on a whim for you personally. When it comes to proving God exists, you apply the concept of definitions so loosely that you consider the text in the Bible valid proof; but when it comes to debating atheism and theology, you apply the use of definitions so strict that you omit valid entries.
Good times.
-
Yeah, the ending sucked. It felt like atheist propaganda out of nowhere and out of place. The gods aren't real? In a universe with fireballs, souls, and "gods" with supernatural powers? Give me a break! What's worse is I didn't manage to find an option to use the souls to become a god or demigod or something.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of god's (whether real or manufactured); whereas PoE presents a scenario where the gods are manufactured - which makes it more like Christianity and all other deity-based religions.The simple fact that the concept of gods is presented in the games story disqualifies PoE as being an atheistic perspective.
Atheism entails zero deity references; theology entails manufactured deities.
At worst, PoE's main story is a long-winded version of the Wizard of Oz.
-
This is so incredibly basic christian knowledge that a little kid that had read just a tiny bit would know that there is absolutely no question to what the answer is.
Your list is complete garbage.
The phrase "christian knowledge" is an oxymoron; and your overuse of insults backed with a complete lack of intellectual thought exemplifies "oxymoron" without the "oxy."
Said it countless times, I am talking about the whole dialogue theme of final act........and why and what objections I have about it, have been discussed in detail previously, I don't want to link previous posts in the same topic for someone who keeps asking the same question over and over again without acknowledging the answer...........there is no point.....
The only thing you have said countless times is that you have said something countless times.
And to recap: you are arguing that if you take something out of context (e.g., remove the dialogue in the final act from the entire story of the game), then the original context is lost. Aside form the painful obviousness of that fact - much like arguing that a shining sun shines - you are spamming the forum with mindless rhetoric.
As much as I hate to admit it, Tigranes put the nail in the coffin for this debate:
He also refused to really respond to counter-arguments, instead choosing to repeat himself over and over and over and over and over again; e.g. he does not understand that the entire point of the story, as told in the game, is that religion and faith and gods may not be meaningless or fake just because you find out the gods are constructed.
That is 100% true. The title of this thread refers to the "Main Story" yet what Brimsurfer has done is butcher a specific dialogue sequence, and then present the theme of that dialogue sequence as the Main Story itself.
For the sake of clarity let's make an analogy. In the classic mobster movie, "The Godfather," there is a famous quote at the end of a murder scene: "Leave the gun, take the cannoli." What Brimsurfer has done here is spam the discussion with rhetoric about how The Godfather is not about a family-based crime syndicate, but is an unrelenting propaganda machine spewing gospel in favor of Italian pastries.
-
2
-
-
I agree that the ending could seem lacking due to the lack of options, but the OP's point is that this is an atheist cliche. As you stated, it's not that at all, so no, Brimsurfer doesn't have a valid point here. This thread's title should be: "perspectives of someone who takes video games too seriously"
-
If you played PoE and don't drink alcohol then you haven't been properly paying attention to the brainwashing narrative within the story. Alcohol is very prevalent, and is clearly presented as a biased uncontested universal truth that pushes the protagonist forward to... drink.
I have only this to say, I am against portraying a concept as an uncontested or universal truth of any world and push the protagonist forward in such scenario by taking all opportunity from him to create a contrast ......
Then you should remove yourself from the fantasy realm and spend more time in the real world, to be honest. When you subject yourself to the work of others (books, movies, music, video games, etc) you are automatically subjecting yourself to whatever the author wishes to portray. Instead of being a follower and complaining about how you are being led, try to lead yourself.
-
Someone convince Brimsurfer to go play the Diablo series from Blizzard. That way he can spend several weeks trying to convince that community that the developers are trying to force Satanism down peoples throats lol
The only thing this thread proves is that Brimsurfer is easily impressionable.
PoE's narrative only applies to the fictitious fantasy world in which that narrative was told. Any relation to the real world are purely coincidental. You know, like at the end of movie credits.
-
I gave you the exact definition in english of what the anglicized word "atheist" means in my own native language from where it actually originates. It was a grammatical/ linguistic observation about what is what. In that case - without god.
That's a lovely story, but has nothing to do with the fact that you are trying to make a claim regarding the concept of "souls" yet are talking about the linguistics of the word Atheist. Apples and oranges.
The proof is mathematical it requires axioms, theorems which derive through a logical process of cause and effect but it also requires the evaluation of these through repeated experimentation everything else is philosophy(best case scenario...)
What you described is a very simplistic approach to the scientific method, which no one is demanding. Something can be proven through logical reasoning and direct observation, neither of which require direct mathematical analysis. The legal system in America is one example, where concepts of "proof" can be interpreted on the basis of "reasonable doubt." Much like in the "soul" vs "atheist" description you gave earlier, you seem confused when addressing more than one concept.
Philosophizing whether soul came before god or vice versa is like philosophizing whether the egg came before the chicken.
This is just more of the same: you confusing matters to no end. At no point did anyone suggest an analysis on which came first, a soul or a god. The discussion was about whether the concept of a "soul" in the context of carrying life memories is directly tied to the concept of a god. You have failed to address any of the issues presented; and seem primarily concerned with introducing confusion.
-
It seems like this discussion builds on the idea that the Bible must either be 100 % error free or else it is a fairytale.
That is incorrect. You even quoted me saying the exact opposite, "I am not saying that proof must be conclusive, but it must fall in to a category of either observable or persuasive."
The user, Silent Winter, presented the premise that the Bible is proof of Gods existence based on the fact that all of the writings within the Bible are consistent. I am merely pointing out that many of the writings are inconsistent.
I do not believe that the Bible is a fairytale, since it does contain historical aspects to it. However, I do believe that the Bible consists of specific writings presented in a way that creates a fairytale. That, however, is beside the point.
-
Again - coming back to the point of me asking this - your definition of 'proof' is 'conclusive proof' - we disagree on such a definition, but that's ok. I'm not trying to offer you conclusive proof (or even offer you any proof at all by your standards).
I accept that my faith is based on faith and not proof. All I did was try to clarify a point.
You have yet to define proof outside of, "if it is written then it is true."
I am not saying that proof must be conclusive, but it must fall in to a category of either observable or persuasive. Your standards of proof justify the existence of Santa, Aliens, and Goblins. And when challenged to differentiate between the validity of any writings, all you do is reference the very writings that you are supposed to be validating. You quote the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible; yet the Bible is composed of writings from various authors that make no reference of a Bible.
Yes they are.
From your link, the author says:
"First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus." [sic - should be eyewitnesses or an eyewitness]
Well:
From John's Gospel: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.
And Luke "carefully researched everything from the beginning" - uses 1st person in parts and was with Paul when they went to Jerusalem (meeting "those who were eye-witnesses" - the apostles, at least Peter). Not to mention personally seeing miracles performed by Paul in the name of Jesus. Hence his writing of Luke-Acts.
You may not accept the above, but it's my position on the matter.
Again, you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible... lol
I will move to referencing a publication from Howard Clark Kee, "Jesus in History, An Approach to the Study of the Gospels."
Example of Gospel contradictions:
Examples are Mark 1:12 = Luke 4:1 and Mark 2:1-12 = Matthew 9:1-8. In the first of these passages Jesus is "led" in to the wilderness by the Spirit (Luke) rather than "cast out" or "hurled" there (Mark).
Regarding Mark (the oldest gospel) and more contradictions:
In Mark 11-16 there is pervasive stress on the occurrence of the events as the fulfillment of Scripture, so that the critical reader cannot tell whether the events have been conformed to Scripture or the Scripture has been modified to fit the event.
…
Almost certainly he had no sequential or chronological framework available to him, other than the obvious fact that the Baptism of Jesus came at the outset of Jesus' ministry and the Crucifixion came at the end.
…
The freedom felt by the gospel writers to rearrange the order of events in the gospel tradition for programmatic or literary purposes is shown by Luke's placing Jesus' rejection at Nazareth at the outset of his public ministry (Luke 4), whereas in Mark it comes in the middle of the story of Jesus' activity (Mark 6:1). The miracle stories of Mark (Mark 1 and 2) are moved by Matthew to a point following the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6, and 7) because that best suited Matthew's arrangement of material in alternating panels of activity and discourse.
From, "The Framework of the History of Jesus," by K.L. Schmidt, we can see Mark's lack of eye witness accounts:
The report that Jesus went from Tyre and Sidon through the cities of the Decapolis on his way back to the Sea of Galilea sounds as odd to one who knows Palestine as to say that a man stopped off in Boston on his way fro New York to Philadelphia.
Mark received his material in a period of oral transmission, or perhaps when pregospel documents were available in addition to the oral transmission process, which continued even after the Gospels had been written.
You may choose to ignore scholars, that's your choice. However, the proof offered by scholars such as Schmidt and Kee fall in to categories of observable and persuasive.
-
1
-
-
The Bible is certainly full of contradictions, and I can post more a bit later. If anyone needs to believe that the Bible is a historically accurate piece of evidence that a God exists, then all that shows is just how much faith is dead in the Christian religion. There are more than just links to websites that expose its contradictions, research books have been published and taught at universities around the world exposing the Bible's fiction.
Not to mention that even Catholic priests are openly taught that the Christian Bible is a work of fiction; where the point of teaching it as 'non-fiction literature' is to help provide guidance for the lost and faithless. Which, in my opinion, does more harm than good since the faithless never embrace faith, and instead become fanatics that aggressively (and falsely) believe the Bible is divine evidence.
-
1
-
-
Most of the early success of Blizzard Entertainment came from Triforge, a group of 3 developer/designers. Who then went on to form Arena.net and Guild Wars. Small groups of badasses work well in the gaming industry.
Main Story, an atheist cliche?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
I can agree with that completely. I would simply add that the God as described in the Bible is just as absurd as a purple dinosaur named Charlie who answers to Francis in a dimension outside of our own lol