Main Story, an atheist cliche?

[house2fly]

 

 

 I am calling it as it is

 

And you've got a bunch of people in this thread explaining to you how it's not 'as it is'. You can feel however you like about whatever, but people have explained in various ways how the game does not argue what you think it argues. 

 

Here: the game's point is that here is a fantasy world where everyone thinks these gods are real and it turns out that they are, but they were created by some ancient race. Are these gods still gods? Should people still believe in them? Is it right or wrong to tell them about this truth? 

 

If you think that is pushing an agenda then OK.

 

My point of disagreement with them is that, they are rationalising, they are filling the blanks with their reasoning, not calling it as it is..........

 

Dont give it benefit of doubt.......

 

All I am saying that the intentions with story telling doesn't seem pure........it distinctively feels like there is more at play here........

 

EDIT: Anyway, that's how I felt after playing the game, and I shared it........and if anyone ask me about the game.....I'ld say its got great gameplay but story telling is pushing an idea, its not sincere.......

 

By "not sincere" do you mean the authors are "pushing an idea" that they do not themselves believe?

[Silent Winter]

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).

[SkySlam]

 

 

 

and btw our world does not lack the proof that there is a deity.

 

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.

 

Disagreed.......

 

Damn.  Demolished that argument.

 

 

What did you expect?

This kind of conversation reminds me:

 

 

The story of Poe, in my opinion, is far from an atheist clichè, and much more than the single line "gods are fake".

 

I find that the religious theme is very elaborate in the game, and you get to see both sides of the coin: the fanatism and the treachery, but also the faith and the genuine hope of the people. It's actually interesting and it makes you think, just like a good RPG should do!

Edited March 8, 2016 by SkySlam

[Zenbane]

 

 

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'.

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

[house2fly]

You can agree with Thaos.  You can even side with Woedica in the end and take his place.

[Miquel93]

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).

 

 

 

You can't voice disagreement with the conclusion that the engwithan came up with because it's impossible to discuss. The Watcher has only known a world with gods ruling over him, if then he finds out these gods are man made and they were created becuase the people that made them didn't find any tangible god, how can he argue otherwise?

 

The companions have their own opinon on things, and the conlusion some of them come up with depends on how you've solved their quest. Edér can still be an Eothasian by the end of the game, and I believe Hiravias no matter how you end his quest, he wil still be a firm follower of Wael or Galawain. Durance can also be faithul to Magran (to the point that he kills himself because that's what he thinks he needs to do to regain her goddess favor)

 

You can agree with Thaos ideals, and you can tell that to both him and Iovara, but you can't jjoin him in his crusade, he'll want you dead.

[Silent Winter]

 

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'.

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' ?

[Silent Winter]

You can agree with Thaos.  You can even side with Woedica in the end and take his place

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?

 

You can't voice disagreement with the conclusion that the engwithan came up with because it's impossible to discuss. The Watcher has only known a world with gods ruling over him, if then he finds out these gods are man made and they were created becuase the people that made them didn't find any tangible god, how can he argue otherwise?

 

The companions have their own opinon on things, and the conlusion some of them come up with depends on how you've solved their quest. Edér can still be an Eothasian by the end of the game, and I believe Hiravias no matter how you end his quest, he wil still be a firm follower of Wael or Galawain. Durance can also be faithul to Magran (to the point that he kills himself because that's what he thinks he needs to do to regain her goddess favor)

 

You can agree with Thaos ideals, and you can tell that to both him and Iovara, but you can't jjoin him in his crusade, he'll want you dead.

 

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.

[house2fly]

 

Your conversations about it with party members have them displaying varying levels of acceptance but Iovara herself admits that she can't prove it.

[Guest]

Does anyone else think the main story of the game is quite unoriginal, it seems more like a story that an atheist parent would tell his child before putting him to bed?......there are no Gods, its all the creation of some people in old times and blah blah blah.......

 

I mean I honestly believe they could have done much better than that...........most of the dialogue in Act 4 seems like a piece from some kind of atheist text lol.........

 

On a seperate note, the main story of the game seems quite vague because if all these so called Gods in the game, (who are later revealed as creationi of Engwithans) , what are they? What kind of creation are they? The game leaves so many loopholes in the main story that to me it all seems like a lump of mumbo jumbo..........it appears that there was no authentic procedure involved in building up this fantasy.

 

At least that's the impression I got from my playthroughs.

Thread Created = Today

Reply Count = 100+

Troll Level = Expert

[Silent Winter]

Your conversations about it with party members have them displaying varying levels of acceptance but Iovara herself admits that she can't prove it.

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.

[Zenbane]

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).

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."

 

 

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)

 

 

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."

Edited March 8, 2016 by Zenbane

[house2fly]

Probably from a practicality standpoint it's better for the flow of the story for them to understand that she's speaking the truth rather than get involved in big philosophical debates with them one at a time on your way through the dungeon.  Since they're talking to a soul you could say they sensed the truth of what Iovara was saying through a spiritual connection- as she says, she's not exactly speaking to you mouth-to-ears in English.

[Caribou]

 

Does anyone else think the main story of the game is quite unoriginal, it seems more like a story that an atheist parent would tell his child before putting him to bed?......there are no Gods, its all the creation of some people in old times and blah blah blah.......

 

I mean I honestly believe they could have done much better than that...........most of the dialogue in Act 4 seems like a piece from some kind of atheist text lol.........

 

On a seperate note, the main story of the game seems quite vague because if all these so called Gods in the game, (who are later revealed as creationi of Engwithans) , what are they? What kind of creation are they? The game leaves so many loopholes in the main story that to me it all seems like a lump of mumbo jumbo..........it appears that there was no authentic procedure involved in building up this fantasy.

 

At least that's the impression I got from my playthroughs.

Thread Created = Today

Reply Count = 100+

Troll Level = Expert

 

 

Troll Level...godlike?

[Brimsurfer]

You can agree with Thaos.  You can even side with Woedica in the end and take his place.

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 to keep the illusion alive, so that order can be kept........which ultimately means that belief in a deity is a faulty and misguided 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...... I loaded the game multiple times to find an alternate dialogue options but all dialogue paths lead to this same conclusion......

 

Honestly this is bull****.....

Edited March 8, 2016 by Brimsurfer

[Zenbane]

 

You can agree with Thaos.  You can even side with Woedica in the end and take his place.

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?

[house2fly]

 

You can agree with Thaos.  You can even side with Woedica in the end and take his place.

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 and misguided 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...... I loaded the game multiple times to find an alternate dialogue options but all dialogue paths lead to this same conclusion......

 

Honestly this is bull****.....

 

Other fantasy stories are telling kids who don't believe in God that there is a God....existence of gods in the Forgotten realms goes completely unchallenged...........is there a point in any Infinity Engine game where you can say that you believe there are no gods and have atheism be a valid character trait..... I think not....................never mind the question of what the hell "kids" are doing playing a game that starts with a corpse tree and includes depictions of horrific rapes, murders and torture....

[Tigranes]

The Engwithan gods aren't real in the story. That's a fact, a fact about a fantasy world. 

 

You seem to have severe difficulty distinguishing facts in the fantasy world from theories people have in that world.

 

I suppose in this case POE is atheist, and the Forgotten Realms is sacrilegious, especially since BG is all about a God raping women all over the place before he crocks it.

[Silent Winter]

 

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).

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.

 

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)

 

 

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.

 

Probably from a practicality standpoint it's better for the flow of the story for them to understand that she's speaking the truth rather than get involved in big philosophical debates with them one at a time on your way through the dungeon.  Since they're talking to a soul you could say they sensed the truth of what Iovara was saying through a spiritual connection- as she says, she's not exactly speaking to you mouth-to-ears in English.

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.

 

The Engwithan gods aren't real in the story. That's a fact, a fact about a fantasy world.

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.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Silent Winter

[Zenbane]

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.

 

 

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

Edited March 8, 2016 by Zenbane

[Tennisgolfboll]

Does anyone else think the main story of the game is quite unoriginal, it seems more like a story that an atheist parent would tell his child before putting him to bed?......there are no Gods, its all the creation of some people in old times and blah blah blah.......

 

I mean I honestly believe they could have done much better than that...........most of the dialogue in Act 4 seems like a piece from some kind of atheist text lol.........

 

On a seperate note, the main story of the game seems quite vague because if all these so called Gods in the game, (who are later revealed as creationi of Engwithans) , what are they? What kind of creation are they? The game leaves so many loopholes in the main story that to me it all seems like a lump of mumbo jumbo..........it appears that there was no authentic procedure involved in building up this fantasy.

 

At least that's the impression I got from my playthroughs.

Of course.

 

Such is the liberal socialist agenda. Alot of show business has these "ideas". Its like a sect, they dont think for themselves

[Tennisgolfboll]

 

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.

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

What a load of garbage.

 

 

Nothing in ancient history is as well documented as what happened when Jesus lived.

 

In fact if you take all ancient texts, like the odysseus, the illiad and every last roman, greek, chinese history scholar text etc the bible texts that have survived dwarf them ALL PUT TOGETHER.

 

There are thousands of original texts from the bible. But there is only 1 for Caesars biography for example. Caesar is one of the most famous rulers ever, and Jesus was a carpenter. Do the math.

 

Only a fool does not see that God has kept and protected his message.

 

There were thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses and that is why the jewish history text dont say that Jesus didnt heal the infirm etc but rather say it was done with sorcery.

 

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.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Tennisgolfboll

[falchen]

It is kind of a cliche, not necesarily a bad one though. The kind of gods that are in Pillars are actualy more common in fantasy than the other sort, it's just more interesting than the alternative.

[Guest]

 

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

Edited March 8, 2016 by Achilles

[Enkeli]

Probably from a practicality standpoint it's better for the flow of the story for them to understand that she's speaking the truth rather than get involved in big philosophical debates with them one at a time on your way through the dungeon.  Since they're talking to a soul you could say they sensed the truth of what Iovara was saying through a spiritual connection- as she says, she's not exactly speaking to you mouth-to-ears in English.

I think this is well stated! Also, even Thaos says that Iovara is virtuous. So there is good reason for the party to accept Iovara´s testimony that the Engwithans did not believe in the existence of gods, and that the gods known to Eora are created. However, it does leave a lot of open questions though. Like how did the Engwithans manage to prove that no gods exist using their soul science? All of their technology seems to be adapted to manipulating human souls. But in traditional theology God is very much unlike a human soul, being the ground of being for all of reality. It seems hard to capture such a being in a lab to be tested against his will. Therefore it´s hard to understand how the Engwithans could have tested things. I would have liked an option to talk about this.

 

It seems to me that on Eora we would still have a lot of the same reasons to believe in a Creator God, like the teleological argument. For many (most?) people on Earth the orderly nature of the cosmos, including the possibility of complex life capable of thinking about the universe, is better explained as the creation of a purposeful Creator, rather than e.g. random chance. Phenomena like consciousness (let alone souls, if they were proven to exist) also fit a lot better with theism than with atheism according to many people. We might disagree with such arguments but they are very intuitively compelling even according to critics like Richard Dawkins and David Hume. On Earth we find such arguments in diverse cultures, already in Ancient Rome, Greece and India. So, I would guess that these kind of arguments would also occur to someone on Eora. As a Watcher I would have liked to ask Iovara´s opinion on such cosmological questions.