Jump to content

Main Story, an atheist cliche?


Recommended Posts

I seriously don't remember any dialogue options where your character is shattered by the revelation, the only direct reaction I know of at all is that if you're a philosopher and say at the beginning you don't believe anything you get an "i knew it!" dialogue option when Iovara tells you.

 

Huh, I didn't know that. That's pretty neat!

Then again I always play with unavailable options hidden, so I guess its not much of a secret reactivity-easter-egg if you just display them all game long.

Maybe I should do that some time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All believers are one god or perhaps one pantheon of gods shot of being atheist.   Considering this is a fantasy game set in a fantasy world with magic, dragons, non-humanoid racers, and where souls exist as something tangible that can be manipulated, I really don't see why the revelation that the in-game gods are artificial is so scandalous.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote mode is being wonky - I'll try this:

 

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.obsid...iche/?p=1785689

 

And what you said was in reply to this (emphasis added below for those who like to miss the point):

 

From your [Zenbane's] 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 - correction by me - 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.

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.

 

Uh oh, since you can't address the points I posed against you in this thread, you decide to introduce a red herring.

 

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.
 

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.

 

 

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything which reflects an author's worldview is propaganda, you know. Most things do. How could they otherwise?

While entirely true in theory, it's a pretty fine line, honestly, and it's very hard to separate propaganda from not-propaganda in media, in regards to this standpoint.

 

But as for how could they otherwise? It's actually not that complicated. I routinely take stances which are not my own, for the sake of argument. Sometimes I even lose.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Zenbane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The eyewitness testimony you quote directly from the Bible are nothing more than shifts in dialogue to either match tradition or simply persuade.

 

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Zenbane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not qualified to rebuttal the author,

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.

Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured. But again, that is not something that a religious fanatic will accept.

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

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:snapback.png

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not everything which reflects an author's worldview is propaganda, you know. Most things do. How could they otherwise?

While entirely true in theory, it's a pretty fine line, honestly, and it's very hard to separate propaganda from not-propaganda in media, in regards to this standpoint.

 

But as for how could they otherwise? It's actually not that complicated. I routinely take stances which are not my own, for the sake of argument. Sometimes I even lose.

 

That's still reflecting your worldview. You're just taking a different point of view on it.

 

Consider Ivan Karamazov. He's a rationalist who rejects God, entirely unlike the deeply devout Dostoevsky. He's sympathetically portrayed. Yet it would be pretty ludicrous to claim that therefore The Brothers Karamazov doesn't reflect his philosophical and religious convictions, or that The Brothers Karamazov is Orthodox propaganda. It's neither: it is a great and complex book which springs from Dostoevsky's struggles with his faith, his demons, and his world.

Edited by PrimeJunta
  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured.

 

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.

Edited by B_Dubb_B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting what kind of a (although pretty small here) ruckus this kind of topic gets.

 

I find the fabrication of belifs aspect rather fresh take in this context. No one would've flinched twice in passing if the set up was a "business as usual" fantasy where gods and deities exist and manifest themselves in various ways and are handled in the narrative as such, or if they were illusive and in the marginal of the narrative but simply assumed to exist by default since there's magic and worshipping of them, nobody would've called it out. But introduce a twist like this one and now it's somehow awful "atheist cliche" and "atheist propaganda". The contrary never happens. How fun. Seems to be a bit too touchy subject even in fiction. 8)

Edited by Undecaf
  • Like 1

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Zenbane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

I'm fairly sure someone with no religious upbringing whatsoever would end up either

 

1) agnostic/atheist*

2) joining an existing movement

3) coming up beliefs of their own

 

Now consider someone growing up on an isolated island with no connection to the outside world, several generations of this process so whatever influence the island's original settlers might have had is all but gone. It's fairly safe to say it's impossible for the inhabitants to share the faith of any specific organized religion elsewhere in the world, thus largely eliminating option 2. Of course the inhabitants could come up with answers of their own and form a new faith (or several), one that shares the properties religions elsewhere in the world [single omnipotent creator deity, reincarnation, afterlife, etc.], possibly several or even a majority. But they would have no knowledge of Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha, thus they could never be considered Christians or Muslims or Buddhists.

 

But what about the period where they haven't formed beliefs of their own or haven't been taught them? Is it not fair to say during that period they can only be considered atheists or agnostics? Even if it is in human nature to seek answers to questions we don't or cannot (yet?) understand such as death or consciousness or the reason for the existence of the universe (or, if sophistry is your cup of tea, the ability to ponder these things) you can't share the myths, stories or teachings (although you might still agree to or follow their principles) of something you've never heard of.

 

It could be in the nature of human beings to seek whatever available solace or security there is in what can be called a religion of one form or another, but it could just as well be said it's in human nature to seek out hobbies or pastimes found useful or pleasant or important. That doesn't mean everyone ends up collecting stamps and if you exclude every form of stamp collecting what is left is only their absence.

 

That is atheism. The blank slate you might or might not end up building upon. Claiming atheism is a belief is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

(*I consider atheism and agnosticism largely intertwined, with our current knowledge it's impossible to know phenomena we would call "supernatural" don't exist.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

"Yes, after riding a magic carpet of souls made by the gods themselves, a ghost who has literally been damned by the gods tells you that the gods aren’t real. I’m sorry, I thought I was playing a well written Obsidian game Iovara, I seem to have made a wrong turn. Can you point me back to the real story?"

 

"This is made worse by the fact that Iovara doesn’t actually tell you what made her reach the conclusion that the gods weren’t real. She literally just says “I saw things and heard things that proved the gods weren’t real.” The entire argument basically boils down this:

 
Iovara: “The gods aren’t real!”
 
Thaos: “Are too!”
 
Iovara: “Are not!”
 
Thaos: “Are too!”
 
Iovara: “Nuh-uh!”
 
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."
 
...
 
"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."
 
"If the ending had been framed as “the gods were created by an act of pure evil and we should stop following them,” then yeah I could have hopped on board with that. Or if it had been “clearly the gods are ****ing up our lives more than they’re helping, we should get rid of them” then I could have worked with that. But the gods don’t exist? Yeah that’s not something the setting lends itself to."
 
 
I'm sure he's just another unintelligent, poorly educated fool who just doesn't appreciate atheist propaganda. :yes:
 
 
 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, in your case one can assume English isn't your first language, and either that or a shoddy translation is responsible for you not getting the reveal, but that guy doesn't have the same excuse. He literally thinks the reveal at the end of the game is "the entities known as Ondra, Galawain, Magran, etc do not exist" rather than what it actually is: "the entities known as Ondra, Galawain, Magran, etc are not gods"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

propaganda

 

Inigo Montoya has a message for you.

 

See, in your case one can assume English isn't your first language, and either that or a shoddy translation is responsible for you not getting the reveal, but that guy doesn't have the same excuse. He literally thinks the reveal at the end of the game is "the entities known as Ondra, Galawain, Magran, etc do not exist" rather than what it actually is: "the entities known as Ondra, Galawain, Magran, etc are not gods"

 

...the latter being a vital point of conflict. See: Eder's reaction, Hiravias' reaction, Thaos.

Edited by kvaak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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]

 
 
I'm sure he's just another unintelligent, poorly educated fool who just doesn't appreciate atheist propaganda. :yes:

 

 

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!

Edited by Zenbane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

A lack of evidence does not entail that something doesn't or probably doesn't exist. Consider, for example, the following scenario: Science does not have evidence that there exists an animal with 5 horns. Do we therefore have evidence that no such animal exists? Not based on the fact that science does not have evidence of it alone. There's an absence of evidence that other universes exist, therefore no mulltiverse exists, or such an idea is purely fabricated? Aliens, ghosts, undiscovered animal/plant life, any fact that we don't currently have evidence for, this applies to ALL of it. Apparently, according to your rationale, the North American continent didn't exist in the early dark ages from a western European perspective, because they didn't have any evidence of it (and therefore it doesn't exist)!

 

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence when we ought to expect evidence and instead simply find absence. Science utilizes methodological naturalism, and therefore we would not expect science to (by itself) prove/disprove or evidence the existence of a deity. This is a very basic logical fallacy you've committed, which is strange considering how fond you are of utilizing logical fallacies against your opponents.

 

So please, supply positive evidence that a god of any kind does not exist. "I don't see evidence for it" is not good enough. 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? No, but funny, when it comes to God it's automatic dismissal.

 

Also, you're right, science has no such burden, you do for trying to misuse it and claim it has shown God to be a fabricated idea.

Edited by B_Dubb_B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...