Silent Winter

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. I consider the research flawed and show why that is the case - I notice you didn't actually rebut any of my points but merely declare yourself the winner again. 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? 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: Romanul, on 13 Mar 2016 - 06:49 AM, said: you tried to show that PoE was not atheist because it included 'gods' as manufactured beings(totally ignoring the possibility of metaphor as a literary device) you support this by saying 'atheism entails zero deity references' while 'theology entails manufactured deities'. Thus merely a statement of your point to support your point. Atheists (The ones that bother to argue these things, yourself included) are often saying that deities are manufactured - therefore, PoE having gods that are manufactured, plays into that idea. again you add the word 'system' to what I said because you can't understand the difference between 'belief' and 'belief system' My example was that 'believing something doesn't exist' (sans system) is equivalent to 'not believing something exists' in a situation where the existence of said thing has been posited and supported by some evidence (whether you find the evidence persuasive or not will merely result in which way your belief goes). I have a complete lack of belief in anything I haven't even heard of. Whereas my lack of belief in the Hindu gods is effectively the same as my believing they don't exist. I know you need to think that atheism is a non-belief and somehow the sensible default position from which only a loony would deviate, but you put your faith in science above and somehow claim it proves your belief in the non-existence of God. But hey, whatever makes you feel secure in your beliefs ideas.

LOL - your author quotes regarding the 'We' passages in Luke: "Vernon Robbins has shown that this was merely a Greek literary device for describing sea voyages." Robbins tried to show that with a very selective bit of research. 1) Many of the examples used by Robbins to establish this 'literary device' as standard are written in 1st person throughout, 2) Many are not Hellinistic or contemporary to Luke, 3) The number of contemporary Hellinistic writings that DON'T use this so-called standard far outweigh any examples that do. Even IF Robbins had established such a standard literary device, Luke doesn't fit it because: 1) Luke only sometimes describes sea-voyages with 'we' but also uses 3rd person for others. 2) Luke uses 'we' when on land and far from the sea. The rest of the 'research' by your chosen author is similarly flawed - they found something that agreed with them but looked no more beyond that. As for my misunderstanding of sentence structure: If I said "Football entails the eating of ice-cream on a ball" would you think I didn't know what football meant or that I had some funny ideas about football. My conclusion over your definition was based on what you said. Words need context. You still made no point with it. 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.

Quote mode is being wonky - I'll try this: Wrong again. What I really said: "you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible" https://forums.obsid...iche/?p=1785689 And what you said was in reply to this (emphasis added below for those who like to miss the point): 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 in order to show that it does indeed claim that - Then you simply say "ho ho, he quotes the Bible to prove something" You completely avoid that argument because you know it debunks your own argument from the link (you were claiming that the Gospels weren't eye-witness accounts or even contemporary). Instead you repeat a different point that had nothing to do with what was being stated or argued. (More detailed argument from the link can also be debunked with a simple search - the author relies on outdated and inaccurate scholars) I'm not quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is true - I'm quoting it for the purposes stated above - sorry you can't see the difference. 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. 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. Your argument for 'atheism is a lack of belief' was 'atheism entails a lack of belief in any deities, whereas theology entails manufactured deities' - how exactly is that a supporting argument? Sigh - we're not going to come to an agreement - but you could at least try to acknowledge my point rather than argue something else. Anyhoo - I'm off on holiday - have fun arguing that I said X when I said Y.

You are 0 for 5 in this debate. Well I'm glad you're keeping score - even if you're declaring your own points LOL (Still waiting for you to score my "Zenbane says you can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible says something" from earlier - great logic. Then again, see the Fenstermaker interview thread where you also conveniently ignore the word 'automatically' so you can apply your dodgy logic to your arguments there - at least you're consistent). You seem enchanted with your own semantic/grammatical arguments to the point of avoiding any actual points. Nobody said 'Belief SYSTEM' - I said 'Belief' - there's a difference. 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.

Depends on your definition of 'god' - if it's merely 'very powerful', then superman counts and the known gods of Eora fit the bill. If it's 'eternal and outside the created realm of which we're aware' then the PoE gods don't count. To be fair, that view of god(s) seems like a uniquely Abrahamic one to me. I'm not sure the average resident of Eora would ever define gods like that. Fair point - though 'man-made' wouldn't necessarily fall under their definition either as Iovara claims they're 'not real' based on that. So there's room within the world for the characters to argue that 'yes, they're still gods regardless of their origin' or 'no, they are merely god-like (as opposed to godlike ) and man should bow to no god' (which is what happens, those are our choices). There's also room to argue 'no, they aren't real gods but there must be some real god/s out there'.

Perhaps this is a cultural thing - where I'm from, it's common to respond to someone in the same style they used in the hopes that they will see the error of their ways. (Not that I'd expect it in this case). Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what you meant? Because the only thing I can think at this point is that your failure to see the equivalency is down to bias against Christianity and affinity for atheism. If you're not an atheist but think I'm wrong on some other level, please state it plainly. Do you also think that "How Christian of you." was a stupid thing to say? Or was that eminently sensible? Since you only called me out on it (despite it being tongue-in-cheek from me at least, but I'll admit that tone can be hard to read in written form). As for my argument being that of a 5-year-old - did you actually read the rest of my comment? Pointing out that his use of selective definitions was in violation of his own argument against me? It's easy to throw out a '5-year-old' insult if you don't actually follow the argument but focus instead on the dressing.

It was in response to "How very Christian of you." - rephrasing Zenbane's own comment to point out the absurdity of his using it - try reading the whole thing.

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. 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. 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" ? Good times. My definition of proof never varied - I pointed out that it wasn't the same as yours. Your argument against the Bible included linking a source that said "The Bible doesn't say 'X'" - I pointed to where in the Bible it says 'X' and you complained that I quoted the Bible to prove something. Who's got selective definitions? (I read the link in more detail and the specific arguments have all been thoroughly debunked by scholars (atheist and theist) who bothered to do the research in more detail). (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 - same thing in the end. If atheists were simply having an absence of belief, they wouldn't spend so much time on the subject. (some of them don't, but you seem to).)

Depends on your definition of 'god' - if it's merely 'very powerful', then superman counts and the known gods of Eora fit the bill. If it's 'eternal and outside the created realm of which we're aware' then the PoE gods don't count. It's more a question of whether your character accepts that 'gods' can be created or whether they believe that there are gods that predate and exist beyond the known 'gods' of Eora. [Again, I'm speaking from the POV of the characters here, not the devs/players - except for the superman reference, that was just for illustration] So "I've spoken the the gods and they're clearly real" is one character's POV but not another's. They are clearly real beings, but does that make them 'real gods'?

Only if you discount the possibility of it being a metaphor - the gods represent various religions/religious outlooks - something that was suggested earlier for literary works. I'd distinguish this situation from novels though, as in a novel there's only one main character whose experiences and personality lead to one end. If this had been a PoE novel, I wouldn't even mention it. In an RPG, we have multiple possible main characters depending on character-creation and role-play throughout. So the more choice we have with that character and how they react to the game, the better. In a CRPG, this is limited by how much the devs can program. But we were given a choice between 'lie to the people because they need the gods to control them', or 'tell the truth because people are mightier and should be free' - there was no choice to 'tell the truth because the real gods must be out there' (Again - based on what the character perceives, not what the world creators (devs) know). 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).

Sometimes a local library has a better connection (not sure if they have DL limits though). I wonder if someone like gog support would put the installer on a disc/usb (since they're cheap enough) and mail it for a fee. (If not, they should probably consider it - there's not a lot of people perhaps who'd want such a service, but still quite a few). (Alternatively - get a mate with a good DL speed to do it for you).

I apologise for my part in that. I'll leave it there.

You have yet to define proof outside of, "if it is written then it is true." That wasn't my definition - and I'd still like to hear yours. If you're not willing to give one, why should I bother trying to reclarify mine? As for your scholarly quotes - see 'How did people write at the time and for what purpose?' - writing that two things happened one right after the other, for example, when in truth they were separated by some time, was an accepted literary device. As was amalgamating separate events into one. It doesn't mean they didn't happen. For the last time - this isn't my 'persuasive argument' to you to turn you into a Christian. You asked what 'proof' could mean (since I pointed out you were having a semantic argument with another poster without realising it) - I equated it to 'evidence' - a bloody glove won't convict you but it is included. Several separate writings all agreeing on central points (and only disagreeing as far as things like Mark writing things down in a different order or summarising separate events as one) is evidence. Several events in my own life are evidence too, but I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it. There are perfectly reasonable explanations for all these so-called 'inconsistencies' that it would take very little research to find. But I've been down that road so many times before that it becomes tiresome to revisit it on every internet forum. Again, you quote the Bible to try to prove the validity of the Bible... lol Nope - I quoted the Bible to prove that the claims made by the author you linked to were wrong. Read it again.

Not sure what happened to my quote box... "And you also show you know nothing about the bible. It never, not even once, contradicts itself. You have not read it and understood it at all." Here's 492 to get you started This site is fun too Gotta love the skeptics annotated bible for taking things out of context with no regard to the way the language was used at the time. (I still remember the insects with 4 legs argument from gog - hilarious stuff). And the first quote on the 2nd site was Scientific Absurdities & Historical Inaccuracies"And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads." Revelation 12:3 When it states quite clearly in Revelation that this is a metaphor.

Er...later than it happened. I was talking about the books being written by people who were there at the time, which is why they got the details right. Abraham didn't write stuff down, so it wasn't written down contemporaneously - it was written down around the time of Moses. (Did you really think I thought that Genesis was written AFTER Christ came to Earth?) such as? (also btw - (Grammar Nazi alert) Gospels not Gospel's) Proof of that statement? Are you sure about that? Since the places named are often (as yet) not supported by other historical facts. And there aren't the remains of elephants or whatever they used to get to the US. The historicity of the Mormon bible is not up to the level of the Vulgate for example. 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. 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. I'm not here to prove to you or anyone that God exists. All I said was that the argument earlier about whether there was such proof, was probably based on a semantic difference in the meaning of the word 'proof'. Your definition makes the word 'conclusive' redundant but that's your POV so, ok I guess.

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." Why ask me to set the baseline? I wasn't previously in the argument of "there's no proof"-"Yes, there is." Clearly you'd already had your own idea of what it was - I was merely asking both sides to clarify their position (not to argue over what 'proof' means, but to make clear what each person meant by it). Semantic arguments are only useful in order to clarify what you mean by something, not to get a universally agreed definition of a word. 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." I did look it up - many times before. Leaving aside the book of Genesis, which was written down much later, the other books were written at the time by people who were there. The knowledge of places and climate and other details is consistent with that. As I said: If I were to say "This is conclusive proof that it all happened exactly like that" then I would be wrong. I was using it to define a baseline of what the word 'proof' meant to me. We accept other documents of history to show that certain things happened. The Bible isn't one book but many writings that support each other. This is 'evidence' by my definition of it. If you have a different definition, state it and be done. Edit: Josephus: 'Antiquities of the Jews' was written around 93–94 AD (The Gospel of Mark, was written down around 65-70 AD), and mentions Jesus Christ and also John the Baptist but neither in great detail to show His teachings - as I explained, the Gospels were written by people who were there (I know you don't believe that - I mentioned the 2 POVs in my post). There were many books not included in the bible as they didn't add anything. Josephus merely mentions that Jesus was there and that He was called the Christ. Sure - I can accept that it was a limitation in resources meaning that at some point we have to say "and the story moved on". I was just suggesting it might be better from an RP perspective to allow more freedom. Yes, it's a fact in the story (and is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?). My only beef is with the way these characters all accept the fact within the narrative - they live in that world and hitherto didn't believe it to be a fact - but see above (it's just a game and is therefore limited in what it allows the player to do). To clarify - I don't mind the story, I think it was a clever take on the pantheons idea. I just wanted more RP within that scope, and the fact that everyone accepts the idea (with or without grumbling) is limiting to me. I can see Brimsurfer's point that making your team accept that 'the Engwithans were right that there were no gods but it was better to have man-made gods to control the populace' can come across as a bit atheist since it's forcing the player to accept that it's the logical conclusion from the facts as presented to that point (which, depending on how you've played, could very well not be). But I don't think the developers were pushing an 'atheist agenda.' But it's not worth arguing about on a forum like this so I'm out.

Then why do they all accept it? - maybe I need to give it another play-through (I only did it twice and it's been a while - I've been waiting for White March Pt2 before buying the expansions and playing again). I remember this same question came up shortly after release - there were various points of view on it then too. I'd have liked the option to persuade (or try to) companions that Iovarra is wrong and that Thaos is deluded etc - then I could roleplay a zealot. My first play-through was a benevolent druid and I believe I gave the souls to the hollow-born. My 2nd was a cruel rogue, but I think I dissipated the souls - can't remember.

Hmm - it's been a while, guess I'd forgotten that option. I stand corrected. Can we offer to join him? Or merely assume to take his place? Why is it impossible to discuss? "Why should I believe what some ancient civilisation concluded?" would be a perfectly reasonable response. And he only finds out they were man-made based on what he's told (The vision with the people and the machine comes a little later, no?). There are big hints up to that point but the acceptance comes without choice on the part of the player. Eder can still be an Eothasian - but not one who believes Eothas is more than a man-made god. They all believe the story that the gods were man-made, it's just a question of whether they still believe that their gods are right.

How about we start with you presenting whatever you deem to qualify as either proof or evidence that a God exists. I see - so your response to "How are you defining 'proof'?" is to say "No. You define it first." (even though I wasn't in the argument and was just trying to help both sides understand each other's POV). Very well - How about the Bible? A collection of books and letters written across various time periods recounting people's experiences with God. The historicity of the Bible is well documented (look it up) and even atheistic scholars largely agree it was written contemporaneously. The difference between atheistic scholars and theistic scholars with regard to the Gospels is that atheistic scholars put the writing of them after AD 70 because they don't believe Jesus could have predicted the sacking of Jerusalem. (Which is merely an assumption against the existence of God) ^I agree, that doesn't count as 'conclusive proof'. My point was that those arguing above that there was proof or not, were arguing based on different definitions of 'proof'. So again - how are you defining 'proof' ?

First up - it's just a game. Second - I did get a bit of an atheist vibe from the ending - but that was mostly down to lack of choice on the part of my PC. We get told that the Engwithans searched and concluded there were no true gods, but we can't even voice a disagreement with that conclusion. We get told that the Engwithan gods were man-made - and all the NPCs accept it without any real argument (one or 2 perhaps voice uncertainty before coming to their certain conclusion) and we can't even agree with Thaos (by even attempting to join his side before he inevitably rejects our offer and we have to fight anyway because he's the final boss in a CRPG). I'd agree with some others above that the actual world of Eora seems based more in Buddhism. Third - for those arguing proof v. no-proof. Can you define the word first? I suspect you're having a semantic argument. If you define 'proof' as 'conclusive proof' (aside from making the word 'conclusive' irrelevant) then sure, God isn't 'proven' - but 100% proof isn't even available for many scientific theories - they're just shown to fit the available facts and are not dis-proven). If you define 'proof' as 'evidence' then there's some, but it depends on what you accept as 'evidence'. The thread in the general discussion section should have some spoiler tags inserted by a mod (the thread is locked but is still readable there).

Submission (Competition #3) Title: We went in the front door Composition could do with a bit more work (and probably more Revenants and other undead) but sadly I'm not too well at the mo' so I won't be able to do any more. Still it's fun to join in We've got a Vailian Ranger with Lion companion and an orlan wizard using Ray of Fire. And given PoE's ability for anyone to use any gear, that could be anyone in the armour with the mace, but I'm calling it an Aedyr fighter for the sake of it.

Great performance of a beautiful piece

Submission (Competition #1) Caption: The caravan master surveys the group. "Yup. We all shouldn'a eaten them berries."

actually that sounds really cool - I can see it now: "Sir Hatchetsalot of the Forest" Right, that's my next character

Those are fantastic - thanks for sharing