Zenbane

The Book of Genesis was written down much later? Later than when? It was derived from the Hebrew Bible which was written before the time of Christ. The Bible is a collection of only a few books presented in a way that supports a specific opinion. There are many passages within the Gospel's that contradict each other. The contradictions in the Bible are evidence that the Bible is non-factual and non-historical. The only thing the Bible proves is that someone wrote different books, and someone chose some books to call the Bible. And even though some of the books in the Bible were theoretically written by the people that were there, they were written many long years after the death of Christ. They were not written at the time of the historical events in which they describe. Although, what proof do you even have of the authenticity of the authorship of the writings in the Bible? There is no factual source to confirm the identity of the authors nor the claims they make. The proof is accepted on faith; specifically blind faith. Josephus writes about history, whereas the writings in the gospel's add the necessary filler to create religious indoctrination. There are other Bible's as well, such as the Satanic Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Necronomicon. What proof are you offering that one writing holds more validity over the other? Based on your presentations of "proof" the Book of Mormon is more valid than the Christian Bible, since the Book of Mormon was not only written by people that were there... it was also written at the time the events occurred. The fact is, if the Bible itself was "proof" that a God exists, then Christians would not need to rely on faith. Yet the concept of faith is the center point of all deity-based religion, because they all lack any semblance of proof. *EDIT* The Gosep's are NOT eyewitness accounts: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm#eyewitness

You can agree with Thaos on the point that 'Gods are indeed unreal but the concept of God is needed to keep people in order'..........this is kind of a loaded idea......telling kids that there is no such thing as Gods and people who believe in Gods know that Gods don't exist but people believe anyway so that order can be kept........which ultimately means that belief in a deity is a faulty disposition........ The game pushes the players in this direction deliberately as no dialogue options are given in disagreement of this theory........all NPCs involved also accept this theory...... Honestly this is bull****..... And are you sending your tithe's to the Church of Obsidian every Sunday like a good zealot?

Not quite. My response was to, "let's add to the confusion of a religious debate by injecting semantics." And I responded by asking you to set a baseline that we can hopefully agree on and make some sort of progress. Otherwise, it would be 5 more pages of arguing over definitions of simple words like, "proof." The Bible is non-historical, as any well documented piece of research will tell you (look it up). Also, what Bible are you even referring to? Different versions of the Bible include/exclude different books. Furthermore, none of the actual Historians of the time of Jesus are included in the Bible, such as the writing of Josephus - which predate any known Gospel by over 20 years. Not to mention that one must differentiate between the Old Testament and New Testament. And if you think that the Old Testament is anything close to a historical document then you are defining "proof" as anything that has been written down. In which case, everything on the Internet is "proof." The Bible is a purely fictional piece of work that re-interprets pieces of historical fact in order to achieve indoctrination in to mad-made religion. There mere fact that someone typed up that work of fiction is not evidence that a God exists. Unless, of course, you can prove that the writings in the Bible are historical facts? Other than just saying "look it up."

How about we start with you presenting whatever you deem to qualify as either proof or evidence that a God exists.

You're definitely not calling this "as it is." You're ignoring a lot in order to claim that something is as you are calling it lol Also, to state that, "the intentions with story telling doesn't seem pure... it distinctively feels like there is more at play here," is you literally trying to fill in blanks instead of calling it as it is. You're doing the very thing you accuse everyone else of; and everyone else is doing the very thing you claim to be doing. It must be opposite day.

That is completely untrue. There is no proof in the existence of a deity that has ever been formally presented nor acknowledged. In fact, the entire concept of "faith" entails maintaining a belief despite the complete lack of proof.

Yet you're the one crying over the idea of spoilers in a game that has been available to the public for a year. The general discussion thread was locked, and you're crying about spoilers on the Spoilers forum.

Well this forum, that you are typing inside of right now, is the Spoiler Warning forum. The other thread from your screenshot is on the non-spoiler forum. Are you lost? lol There were no spoilers presented on the general forum discussion - which is now a locked thread. There are spoilers in this thread, but that's okay cause this is a different forum that allows spoilers. Do you really feel the need to derail the topic by mixing up the forums?

lol... wtf are you talking about? This forum specifically states the following: Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!) Discuss your favorite stories about your playthroughs of Pillars of Eternity & what makes a good cRPG experience. Spoilers are permitted in this forum, but please warn the reader in your title.

This is a pretty common Western misconception, because in Buddhism, gods (devas) are generally acknowledged to exist but not actually worshipped. You can't even get through the Buddha's backstory without bumping into Brahma, the Hindu creator. The crucial point is that gods are seen not as a wholly different class of being, but rather as having a better spot on the wheel of karma (see: death and rebirth) despite not having escaped it. Of course, Buddhists of many schools do pray to the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Arhats more-or-less as if they were gods, so this is all a bit esoteric. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, the difference gets even more arcane, for complicated syncretic cultural reasons that I won't get into. Suffice it to say that not only does Buddhism have gods, it has lots of gods, who are unusual by Western standards mostly in that they had nothing to do with the world's creation. What's interesting is that this attribute is actually also the most unusual thing about Eora's gods (by Western, post-classical standards); what it shares with Buddhism is not a lack of gods - it's the principle of gods as created beings who are not themselves creators. This isn't a novel idea - to Buddhism or PoE - but most of us are used to the Platonic notion of "god as unmoving mover," so we interpret "created artificially" and "god" as mutually exclusive. It says even more about our own concepts of divinity than it does about the setting's that we imagine Thaos' secret as being such a big deal. A lot of cultures, historical and extent, would see no problems. Hooray! I was beginning to lose faith (pun intended) that anyone else around here had a solid foundation in religious studies lol Nice post.

There is a single core belief that all forms of Christianity subscribe to. I will give you a hint: it is in the world "Christianity" Well I'm glad you know how to use a search engine, but my point still stands: Christianity is a belief system; Atheism is a lack of belief. Nothing you've presented effectively disproves that fundamental truth.

The argument you pose in your disagreement addresses an invalid assertion. Your disagreement treats 'all but said there will be a sequel' as though it equates to 'said there will be a sequel.' Deny it all you like, but your error is quite blatant. I am not presenting a semantic argument at all, I am demonstrating your flawed interpretation of a common phrase. "I didn't mention anything about contracts and I don't have any intention of doing so." And this further illustrates yet another flawed understanding on your part. You specifically tied "being sad" to "being a backer." You clearly don't understand what the term "backer" entails if you think that contract terms do not apply. I suggest doing some research on what is involved to become an official Backer.

You seem very determined to force these established concepts in to your own imagined version. First you butchered the idea of Atheism, now you're butchering Christianity, "it's not a belief system but a category of multiple belief systems." I don't care to change your mind about anything. By all means, think what you like.

You are wrong according to Atheists.org: https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism So I repeat: Christianity is a belief system; Atheism is a lack of belief. The problem is that you defined the origin of the word "atheist" without defining the origin of the word "soul." If you want to prove that the concept of a soul within this context can exist without the concept of a god, then maybe show the origin of the word "soul"?

Christianity is a belief system, Atheism is a lack of belief.

You actually didn't make that argument, or at least not in response to my post. Even if you had, it wouldn't have mattered since it's a terrible argument. First, unless you very much blur the lines of what a god is, this correlation doesn't exist. Secondly, even if it did, what would that matter. If someone defines soul to be some immaterial essence of a being then isn't contingent on a God or gods. The only way it becomes so is when you start to claim that that isn't the definition of a soul, and that's exactly where you're claiming ownership of the word (whether it be for Christianity or religion in general). There's no reason to assume that the two should be linked at all, hence the burden of proof lies on the party claiming that they are (you here). You haven't discharged that burden hence I have nothing to prove. EDIT: by the way, to anyone not familiar with this move, what Zenbane did here is called burden shifting. He realised his argument, or lack thereof, wasn't having the desired effect so decided to go with the "yeah well you prove the opposite" tactic. It's kinda cute when you know to look out for it Blur the lines of what God is? There is no line to be blurred since there is no proof any God has ever existed, and both the definition and purpose shift from culture-to-culture. I find it funny that you call what I'm doing a "burden shifting tactic" when all I did was ask you to affirm your own assertions. But since you are a self-proclaimed Atheist I do understand the mindset; Atheists find the burden of proof to be too cumbersome. It's easier for you to make a claim and then force the other person to prove it. That's what Atheism is based on afterall: deny the existence of God and force everyone else to prove you wrong. It's a lazy approach to critical thinking, and super cute to identify (and even cuter to counter). I hold the argument that concept of a soul that carries memories (which is the context of soul's in PoE) does in fact come from the concept of a God. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods; with that comes a lack of belief in all things made possible by gods, such as: divine intervention, reincarnation, and souls. You can say that I'm wrong but you certainly can't prove it. One of the primary (and possibly only) tenets of Atheism is the desire to prove the difference in "a lack of belief in gods" vs "a belief system in the denial of gods." https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism It's a cute safety net, and an elaborate way to sell "laziness" under the guise of "lack of belief."

I did demonstrate it, by drawing a correlation between the concept of a God and it's connection to the concept of a soul. All you did was draw away from it by discussing Christianity as a monopoly religion. I countered your red herring by pointing out that the concept of God's and soul's extends beyond and before Christianity. And now you're asking me to prove it all over again? lol I challenge you to prove your claim as well. Merely stating that lack of belief in a soul has nothing to do with Atheism doesn't make it so. Prove it.

In the immortal words Gromnir: "HA! Good Fun! Of course souls pre-date Christianity, and all extant religions also. That doesn't contradict what I said. Once again, religion has no monopoly on the word "soul". As for the effort of research, I've read the bible several times (being raised as a Catholic) as well as read commentaries on it. I've also read the Quran through once and the Bhagavad Gita: the latter is far more compelling than any Abrahamic holy book. I've read several apocryphal books of the bible too, which are really interesting. I've also read a fair amount of philosophy regarding religion and epistemology. I continue to read and research religion in general and specific religions in particular because they fascinate me. I can assure you that my atheism is not a product of laziness. I've read and studied lots too. Analyzed the Gospels in college as well as a study of the Historical Jesus vs the Mythical Jesus. The point of this particular exchange is that you specifically denied that a lack of belief in a soul is not tied to Atheism; and that is a fallacy.

The Christian concept of a soul comes from God (as does literally everything in the Christian world view), but Christians don't have a monopoly on the word "soul" and, if by soul we mean an immaterial essence of a person that may (or may not) continue to exist after their death, there's absolutely no reason one cannot believe in souls but not God or gods. Indeed an awful lot of people do. What is "an atheist in practice"? Atheism isn't a religion, there are no practices associated to it. It's merely a description of a belief, or more accurately a non-belief. The concept of a soul not only spans multiple cultures and religions, but also predates the time that Christ walked the earth. But that is information that comes from research which does tend to require more effort than the effortless practice of "non-belief." If anything, the mere fact that so much effort went in to PoE as a product is an argument against the fundamental principles behind Atheism.

And you know this based on all the fabricated research about real Magic? lol Magic is an imaginary concept. When I made the connection with Magic and "God" I am referring to the magic described in the Bible. Things like parting the Red Sea, turning water to wine, etc. Based on the Bible, magic is very much related to divinity. The fact that you don't know that before posing a question about Atheism is very telling of your overall ability to grasp even the most fundamental of these concepts. The tactic you are referring to is called a: counter-argument. I can see why you are against it though, since a valid argument involves facts, examples, context, etc. You know, all those things you purposely avoided when you tossed out the "bait"

Atheists have a non-belief in a God, and the concept of a soul comes directly from the idea of a God. If you claim to be an Atheist but deny that connection between a God and a soul, then you are likely just an Atheist in label as opposed to practice. And by practice I mean "thought."

Oh and that! lol Atheists don't believe that humans have souls. Fin. This thread can be marked as "solved"

I'm not sure how much you know about Atheism, but the way I see it... there is a difference between the possibility of a God and the existence of man-made religion. I think that if anything, the narrative in PoE takes place somewhere in the middle. I mean, even if it trashes the idea of a deity, in the end you can play characters that cast magic and there's even a God-like race. That is hardly a pure Atheistic point of view.

Josh is usually pretty open about his thoughts on the Something Awful forums. Go read that thread if you want specifics. Anything beyond that is just media friendly material. With that said, I never read anything from the Codex because I find it to be just as biased as the very biased media they claim to be against. Members of the Codex try too hard to be outspoken that they purposely choose outspokenness over everything else, which creates a bias in itself. lol Infinitron is fairly entertaining; and likely too good to be wasting time and talent at the Codex.

That is incorrect. Here is the exchange that illustrates your confusion: Karkarov said: He all but said, "yes there will be a sequel". Your direct response: Actually no. He said "we'd love to do a sequel." not 'yes there will be a sequel.' If you understood the difference between "all but said" and "yes he said" then you would not have responded in such a way. If you had been a backer then maybe you would have read the terms of the contract, which would result in you understanding why there is no reason to be upset about OBS moving on to a new product after completing the current product. Your own statement has the answer: "new world." Backers only had a hand in funding the PoE world, which is complete. That does not extend to a new world. A new world would require a new contract with new funding and new backers. Which is what they have with their other projects. Goodness.