Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Brimsurfer

Main Story, an atheist cliche?

Recommended Posts

It's an utterly absurd contradiction to admit that you're making a leap of faith to believe in "god" but then accuse atheists of being intellectually lazy. There's no greater sign of mental laziness than saying "it's true because I think it's true!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an utterly absurd contradiction to admit that you're making a leap of faith to believe in "god" but then accuse atheists of being intellectually lazy. There's no greater sign of mental laziness than saying "it's true because I think it's true!"

 

No one ever said, "it's true because I think it's true." There's no greater sign of mental laziness than changing someone's words.

 

Also, there is no contradiction between having faith in God and calling atheists intellectually lazy. If there is a contradiction it certainly isn't apparent, and you failed to explain it. Which means that you expect the contradiction to exist merely because you said it exists; in other words, "it's true because you think it's true"

 

:dancing:

Edited by Zenbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also the Gospels are not the only source of the evidence for God (as you'll recall I listed many philosophical/scientific arguments that attempt to show just such a thing, to varying degrees of success). in fact they're not even the only source for the evidence for the historical Jesus.

 

First off, I was referring to the Christian God which stems from the Bible, which contains the Gospel's. Second, my exact comment was, "the Gospel's as the only source of evidence," which is in reference to my discussion with Silent Winter, where he presented the Bible - specifically the Gospel's - as evidence of God's existence.

 

Third, I'm fully aware of other sources for Jesus. I mention Josephus in an earlier post, and I specifically cite the "historical Jesus" in a recent post. I am also aware of other sources of evidence of "God" as I mentioned to you specifically "The Dead Sea Scrolls" in a recent post.

 

 

I never twisted your words, I quoted you repeatedly in as close to an accurate manner as I can.

That is false. You quoted me saying, "Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured."

 

And turned in to something else:

"A lack of evidence does not entail that something doesn't or probably doesn't exist."

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1788864

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm more than happy to get into this, but just letting you know it would be walls of texts.

That's the only thing you've said in this thread that is accurate lol

 

 

1. "However, science has proven that ALL known evidence for God is purely manufactured". This is another quote of yours just before the quote you mention, and I don't take things in isolation, I read them all in context. You were not only claiming the gospels, not only the entire bible, but ALL evidence has been proven to fail. Also mentioning you're familiar with some evidences for God, does not mean you're familiar with all (which is what you seem to be implying).

 

2. Something that is purely manufactured (the wording you used in your original quote https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1788457), does not exist Thus my treatment of your point was completely accurate, as it was not meant to be a quote of your point but a response to the main thrust of it.

 

3. Pointless and completely without evidence, in other words just like the rest of your points so far. Still waiting on specifics/evidence rather than bare assertion and blind faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. "However, science has proven that ALL known evidence for God is purely manufactured". This is another quote of yours just before the quote you mention,

Which is still NOT the same thing as saying, "science has proven that God does not exist."

 

You are twisting my words and then proclaiming that I must provide evidence that proves your version of what you only wish I really said. I reject the notion that I must prove something I didn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. "However, science has proven that ALL known evidence for God is purely manufactured". This is another quote of yours just before the quote you mention,

Which is still NOT the same thing as saying, "science has proven that God does not exist."

 

You are twisting my words and then proclaiming that I must provide evidence that proves your version of what you only wish I really said. I reject the notion that I must prove something I didn't say.

 

 

Alright, true, and that 1 quote of mine was a simple mis-stating of your point. A simple clarification is all that's required (as you'll remember, I asked for clarification on exactly your point very early on). Can we move on and stop pretending small mistakes like this never happen? I still mostly represented your point correctly and gave accurate replies to it. You can choose to keep obsessing over one instance of misuse of words or move on, your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one paragraph you ask if we can "move on" and then you falsely accuse me of "obsessing over one instance of misuse." You are the one who quoted TWO different statements of mine from two different posts in an effort to prove I must mean something other than what I said. So not only does that indicate "two instances" of misuse as opposed to the "one instance," but it also indicates that you are the one obsessing. Unless of course you are trying to say that my attempts to correct your obsessive misuse of my statements is an obsession? lol

 

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I've said in this discussion and are now misrepresenting my attempts to defend those misrepresentations by calling my defense "an obsession." I do not believe that there is anything to move on from nor move on to since it is quite clear that you are more interested in a fictitious version of the real discussion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one paragraph you ask if we can "move on" and then you falsely accuse me of "obsessing over one instance of misuse." You are the one who quoted TWO different statements of mine from two different posts in an effort to prove I must mean something other than what I said. So not only does that indicate "two instances" of misuse as opposed to the "one instance," but it also indicates that you are the one obsessing. Unless of course you are trying to say that my attempts to correct your obsessive misuse of my statements is an obsession? lol

 

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I've said in this discussion and are now misrepresenting my attempts to defend those misrepresentations by calling my defense "an obsession." I do not believe that there is anything to move on from nor move on to since it is quite clear that you are more interested in a fictitious version of the real discussion.

 

Firstly, you were caught and shown to be misrepresenting my position, in the exact same way, no less than 3 times, once even after I showed it was outright misrepresentation. "You keep typing up 100 different ways of claiming the same thing: "it's okay to claim that something exists, and no one can deny it until they prove that it doesn't exist." Good for you." I never claimed any such thing and yet you claimed I did. So I find it kind of funny you continue to try to throw a fit about me misrepresenting your case (and I tried to be polite and simply concede so we could have a fruitful discussion) in one post.

 

Since this is the hill you've chosen to die on, I'm not misrepresenting anything, it's a quote. I understand now what you MEAN, but you cannot argue what you SAID. You spoke inaccurately and that lead to a misunderstanding. These are your exact words: "Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured."

 

Those words directly imply, whether you intended it to or not, that God is purely fabricated (indeed if you look up manufactured definition, it gives fabricated as a synonym), anything that is purely fabricated does not actually exist. That is what fabrication/manufactured means in the context in which you said it, like it or not. Taken from Merriam Webster (a dictionary) "to create or make up something (such as a story) in order to trick people" Unless of course you meant fabricate/manufactured in the sense of to produce a physical item lol.

 

If you don't see how your use of language was incorrect and lead to this misunderstanding, then nothing can be done. It's best we just end the conversation as you're not interested in fruitful discussion, but attempting and failing to play word games with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, you were caught and shown to be misrepresenting my position

 

That is a complete fabrication; and little more than you just accusing me of the very thing I accused you of doing.

 

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything, it's a quote. I understand now what you MEAN, but you cannot argue what you SAID. You spoke inaccurately and that lead to a misunderstanding. These are your exact words: "Science supports my point that the idea of "god" is purely manufactured."

 

I stand by my claim that science supports the idea of God as being purely manufactured. You misrepresent that repeatedly, and obsessively, by claiming that it is the same as saying, "Science has proven that God does not exist."

 

They are not the same thing. Accusing me of playing word games when you've spent so much time twisting my words is futile.

 

You already admitted that I was right and you are wrong:

 

Alright, true

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/?p=1789506

 

But I guess now you need to restart the debate since nothing else seems to be going your way.

 

 

anything that is purely fabricated does not actually exist.

 

That is an illogical conclusion that you are using to justify your twisting of my words. Just because current evidence of God's existence comes in the form of man-made manufactured doctrine in no way concludes that God definitely does not exist.

 

If you don't see how your faulty logic is leading you to invalid conclusions which in turn lead you to twisting my words... then nothing can be done; well, other than correcting your obsessive attempts to fabricate my statements.

Edited by Zenbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Except for I gave you the exact quote of you doing it and you simply ignored it. I give proof, you give assertion. That's the difference between us. Tell me how that quote of yours was NOT misrepresenting my position.

 

2. That claim means God does not exist in English, again, unless repeating your own axiom (which idk if you even hold) that all ideas are manufactured. That's a philosophical viewpoint that I respect, but I highly doubt that's what you were saying. You were saying that the idea of God specifically was manufactured. While you may not have meant that to mean he is not real, that's what it means in the english language.

 

3. And I already dealt with that admission, I was trying to be polite and move the conversation onto fertile grounds. You're ignoring what I've said to try to find any way to save yourself from the obvious conclusion that you're wrong.

 

4. No that is a conclusion derived from the english language. I used dictionaries to show your words mean what I've said they mean. If you don't like the English language, don't speak it. This point is even stronger when you consider what people take from certain words/phrases in language (connotation). Ask anyone, "x is purely fabricated" means "x is false". "God is a purely fabricated idea" = "God is false". You might not have meant it that way, but that's the way any rational person would take it, and when I asked for clarification you should have given it in your first response. You had room to, you did not.

 

Regardless, I have no interest in these blame discussions. If you insist on keeping at this I'll simply exit this conversation. You're trying to keep it as petty and futile as you can instead of focusing on the overall point, and I have no interest in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for I gave you the exact quote of you doing it and you simply ignored it. I give proof, you give assertion. That's the difference between us. Tell me how that quote of yours was NOT misrepresenting my position.

You quote things, twist things, and then say things. That's about it.

 

 

And I already dealt with that admission, I was trying to be polite and move the conversation onto fertile grounds. You're ignoring what I've said to try to find any way to save yourself from the obvious conclusion that you're wrong.

Except that you already admitted I was right:

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85055-main-story-an-atheist-cliche/page-17?do=findComment&comment=1789506

 

Being "polite" doesn't involve admitting the opposite of the truth. You had a moment of honesty, admitted I was right, and when the conversation didn't go your way you retracted. So either you were lying then or you are lying now. Either way, your integrity is in question as you will obviously say and do anything to try to declare yourself "winner" of whatever you think this discussion is about.

 

 

That claim means God does not exist in English

 

Incorrect. The claim in question, "the idea of 'god' is purely manufactured," means that the "idea" itself is manufactured; as clearly depicted by the English language. If God does in fact exist, God exists beyond the manufactured ideas produced by man.

 

I will give a simple example despite the fact that you will likely butcher it to no end:

People once had the "idea" that the Earth was flat. However, the Earth has always existed as a round planet (not counting any theories on how the Earth was originally formed). Thus, the facts of the Earth itself are independent of the manufactured ideas of Earth.

 

You may challenge my grasp of the English language all you like, but you certainly can't prove it by any stretch of the imagination. In contrast to your lack of English comprehension: you believe that "the idea of God" directly equates to "God." If the plain English hasn't clued you in then nothing will. And let us not forget that your version of the English language equates being polite with lying lol

 

Each of your replies involve falsely accusing me of the very same thing you factually exhibit.

Edited by Zenbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said, I have no interest in this kind of discussion. Blame games and petty squabbles are pointless. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

Edited by B_Dubb_B
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread, yo. Y'all got trolled hard.

  • Like 3

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny, to talk about God how everyone's going back to the faulty Christian concept of God, where Romans tried to merge Polytheism with Monotheism, where God is 3 and is 1 as well........lol. Its not what the followers of Jesus believed in, at least for 250 years or so after his passing.........and then the Romans came up with the bright idea to twist his teachings and put their claim in on a share in divinity ......

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the topic though......i just hope another RPG from obsidian doesn't carry this crappy cliche.....btw is there a limit of pages or posts for a topic?

Edited by Brimsurfer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its funny, to talk about God how everyone's going back to the faulty Christian concept of God, where Romans tried to merge Polytheism with Monotheism, where God is 3 and is 1 as well........lol. Its not what the followers of Jesus believed in, at least for 250 years or so after his passing.........and then the Romans came up with the bright idea to twist his teachings and put their claim in on a share in divinity ......

This I agree with  :dancing:

 

 

 

i just hope another RPG from obsidian doesn't carry this crappy cliche.
lol, you naughty boy. Stirring that pot  :devil:

 

Which cliche do you mean? The Theist cliche of the main story, or the Atheist twist at the end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings from sunny Oz,

on hols but just popped in for a quick look and had to reply:

 

 

 

 

and I will gladly engage in the ideological debate with Silent Winter.

 

Well, I'm now officially on holiday and flying soon so I'll have to bow out.  Thank you for the discussion and your patience in explaining your points, even if I didn't always agree with, or perhaps get, what you meant.

 


Aww booo! Enjoy your holiday. I'm super jealous.

I enjoyed our debate, although you did manage to frustrate me to no end lol. Yet I never actually managed to state my own beliefs. So for the record, I am not Atheist, I do in fact believe in the "historical" Jesus, and yes I do believe that there is a God. I do not believe in what I refer to as the fairytale God that stems from the any Bible (Christian, Mormon, etc).

I am one of those who believes that science and spirituality can co-exist. I acknowledge that my belief in God is purely faith based due to the complete lack of convincing evidence that God exists. I view Atheists as intellectually lazy, Agnostics as fodder, and all other forms of indoctrination as mindless fanaticism.

You and I probably believe in the same God, but we arrive to that belief in a fundamentally different way. Cheers!

Wow - ya got me! You win the obsidian award for narrative twist :lol:

No time to continue discussion but it's interesting considering your arguments from this new perspective (that'll teach me to leap to conclusions ;) )

Have a good'un :)


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, well to bring the topic full circle,

 

I stated that I consider Atheists to be intellectually lazy, and based on the article Brimsurfer recently posted we witness exactly that in the closing sequence of PoE.

 

In the article, the author adequately illustrates that Theology (or "Theism" for Silent Winter) saturates the Main Story in every convincing way possible; so much so that any attempt to suggest that "God's are non-existent" makes zero intellectual sense. Yet at the very end of the story, the plot very "lazily" attempts to do exactly that without offering an ounce of intellectual credibility that satisfies anyone paying attention to the overall dialogue, tone, and mythos.

 

Everything leading up to the ending sequence is convincingly Theistic, and shares the following traits: well-formed, consistent, believable, intellectual, engrossing, and thorough. 

 

Whereas the ending is unconvincing, inconsistent, unbelievable, and completely disconnected from the main story. It is intellectually lazy because it depicts the work of someone who could not be burdened with the task of reading and understanding everything that came before.

 

The first 90% of the story shows that Theists can manufacture some great stuff when it comes to deities; the last 10% of the story shows that if an Atheists takes over they will just throw together whatever they think will get the job done the fastest (where "thinking" is clearly optional).

 

FIN.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I had the opportunity last night to replay through the end game encounter again and I still don't see where OP is getting is getting bent out of shape.  The gods of PoE seem to be gods and are able to tangibly impact the world.  (The gods that were unhappy with my choice for fate of the souls wreaked havoc on the Dyrwood for it).  They certainly EXIST.  I don't see why knowing where they came from makes them any less of a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you think makes a god a god. Depending on your definition Barack Obama might be kind of a god, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exacty get how a game that has existing, tangible gods (that you can have chats with, for frick's sake) and portrays a vast array of religious people, some of them being very nice and reasonable like Éder, is somehow an ''atheist cliché''. 

 

As for the gods of Eora being jerks, a cursory glance at any polytheistic pantheon shows us that Woedica would be tame compared to the likes of Zeus. To say nothing of Old Testament God who smote all the things which displeased him with extreme prejudice.

 

You want an atheist cliché? Look at The Witcher games, where almost every hip and cool main character is atheist to various degrees and the main stand-in for Christianty is invariably, across three games, portrayed as overzealous, corrupt, racist, or a combination of those three.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't exacty get how a game that has existing, tangible gods (that you can have chats with, for frick's sake) and portrays a vast array of religious people, some of them being very nice and reasonable like Éder, is somehow an ''atheist cliché''. 

 

As for the gods of Eora being jerks, a cursory glance at any polytheistic pantheon shows us that Woedica would be tame compared to the likes of Zeus. To say nothing of Old Testament God who smote all the things which displeased him with extreme prejudice.

 

You want an atheist cliché? Look at The Witcher games, where almost every hip and cool main character is atheist to various degrees and the main stand-in for Christianty is invariably, across three games, portrayed as overzealous, corrupt, racist, or a combination of those three.

 

Well damn, if the Witcher is from an Atheistic point-of-view then that completely destroys my "Atheists are intellectually lazy" argument ;(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't exacty get how a game that has existing, tangible gods (that you can have chats with, for frick's sake) and portrays a vast array of religious people, some of them being very nice and reasonable like Éder, is somehow an ''atheist cliché''. 

 

As for the gods of Eora being jerks, a cursory glance at any polytheistic pantheon shows us that Woedica would be tame compared to the likes of Zeus. To say nothing of Old Testament God who smote all the things which displeased him with extreme prejudice.

 

You want an atheist cliché? Look at The Witcher games, where almost every hip and cool main character is atheist to various degrees and the main stand-in for Christianty is invariably, across three games, portrayed as overzealous, corrupt, racist, or a combination of those three.

 

Well damn, if the Witcher is from an Atheistic point-of-view then that completely destroys my "Atheists are intellectually lazy" argument ;(

 

 

I'm not going to make friends by saying this, but I find The Witcher to be a bit of a lazy setting overall. A lot of its stories are fairy tales with added gore, its monsters are often lifted straight from Eastern European folk tales, its different countries and nations are either stereotypes (Nilfgaard, Skellige) or undistinguishably bland (all the Northern Realms). It also abuses character archetypes; peasants are pogrom-happy and supersticious, soldiers are sociopaths who hang everything that moves, sorceresses are conniving and ambitious, kings are racist **** when they aren't just mad. Eora has shown more originality and personality in its setting that the Continent did in three games to me.

 

In the light of the above, the writers of that series treating religion with all the maturity of an edgy teenager doesn't surprise me. Cripes, even Dragon Age did much better in Inquisition.

 

Also, if one example is sufficient to challenge your ''atheists are intellectually lazy'' theory, maybe it wasn't that good a theory in the first place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't exacty get how a game that has existing, tangible gods (that you can have chats with, for frick's sake) and portrays a vast array of religious people, some of them being very nice and reasonable like Éder, is somehow an ''atheist cliché''. 

 

As for the gods of Eora being jerks, a cursory glance at any polytheistic pantheon shows us that Woedica would be tame compared to the likes of Zeus. To say nothing of Old Testament God who smote all the things which displeased him with extreme prejudice.

 

You want an atheist cliché? Look at The Witcher games, where almost every hip and cool main character is atheist to various degrees and the main stand-in for Christianty is invariably, across three games, portrayed as overzealous, corrupt, racist, or a combination of those three.

 

Well damn, if the Witcher is from an Atheistic point-of-view then that completely destroys my "Atheists are intellectually lazy" argument ;(

 

 

I'm not going to make friends by saying this, but I find The Witcher to be a bit of a lazy setting overall. A lot of its stories are fairy tales with added gore, its monsters are often lifted straight from Eastern European folk tales, its different countries and nations are either stereotypes (Nilfgaard, Skellige) or undistinguishably bland (all the Northern Realms). It also abuses character archetypes; peasants are pogrom-happy and supersticious, soldiers are sociopaths who hang everything that moves, sorceresses are conniving and ambitious, kings are racist **** when they aren't just mad. Eora has shown more originality and personality in its setting that the Continent did in three games to me.

 

In the light of the above, the writers of that series treating religion with all the maturity of an edgy teenager doesn't surprise me. Cripes, even Dragon Age did much better in Inquisition.

 

Also, if one example is sufficient to challenge your ''atheists are intellectually lazy'' theory, maybe it wasn't that good a theory in the first place.

 

 

But The Witcher is based on a series of Polish fantasy books. That kinda makes sense, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't exacty get how a game that has existing, tangible gods (that you can have chats with, for frick's sake) and portrays a vast array of religious people, some of them being very nice and reasonable like Éder, is somehow an ''atheist cliché''. 

 

As for the gods of Eora being jerks, a cursory glance at any polytheistic pantheon shows us that Woedica would be tame compared to the likes of Zeus. To say nothing of Old Testament God who smote all the things which displeased him with extreme prejudice.

 

You want an atheist cliché? Look at The Witcher games, where almost every hip and cool main character is atheist to various degrees and the main stand-in for Christianty is invariably, across three games, portrayed as overzealous, corrupt, racist, or a combination of those three.

 

Well damn, if the Witcher is from an Atheistic point-of-view then that completely destroys my "Atheists are intellectually lazy" argument ;(

 

 

I'm not going to make friends by saying this, but I find The Witcher to be a bit of a lazy setting overall. A lot of its stories are fairy tales with added gore, its monsters are often lifted straight from Eastern European folk tales, its different countries and nations are either stereotypes (Nilfgaard, Skellige) or undistinguishably bland (all the Northern Realms). It also abuses character archetypes; peasants are pogrom-happy and supersticious, soldiers are sociopaths who hang everything that moves, sorceresses are conniving and ambitious, kings are racist **** when they aren't just mad. Eora has shown more originality and personality in its setting that the Continent did in three games to me.

 

In the light of the above, the writers of that series treating religion with all the maturity of an edgy teenager doesn't surprise me. Cripes, even Dragon Age did much better in Inquisition.

 

 

I love the Witcher to bits, and I do think it has more nuance than you give it credit for, but indeed, its treatment of religion can be summed up by the words "edgy bull****".


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Caribou, you aren't really gonna make enemies either since you illustrated your opinion of the Witcher quite elequently. As opposed to you, y'know, the Author of this thread lol

 

I understand your impressions of the Witcher, and I felt them to a lesser degree ever since the first game. However, I went in to the Witcher series knowing it's background and cultural origin so I ended up feeling more impressed than disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
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...