126 réponses à ce sujet

[Andorfiend]

Grovermancer wrote...

The Maker makes too many mistakes and behaves like a typical fallible self-conscious entity to be omniscient and perfect beyond perfect as it should be by definition.  As it is (according to the Chantry), the Maker basically acts like people...  if people were all powerful.  

See, again you're projecting modern monotheistic views onto the Maker. Why should the Creator be omniscient and perfect beyond perfect? This would be a requirement only if he were supposed to have created a perfect world. And he obviously did not. He screwed up more than once, and so did his creations and now they are self destructing.

So why would the maker of a flawed world need to be perfect? Hell, technically Thedras was created by Bioware who are flawed mortal vessels of flesh and blood just like you and me. And that explains the bugs.

[Andorfiend]

Luc0s wrote...

Wait, you say you can actually be "fundamental" in atheism? Really?

Then tell me, how can be one fundamental in not believing in god?

As an atheist friend of mine once said: "We're all atheists, I just believe in one god less than you do."
There are many many many gods, believes, deities, religions and theologies and most of us only accept one or just a few of these theologies. We all dismiss religions and gods, so in a way we're all a littlebit atheist. But only someone who doesn't believe in any god at all, is labeled as 'atheist'.

You have two different kind of atheists, agnostic-atheists and gnostic-atheists. Agnostic-atheist don't believe in any god and simply don't care, while gnostic-atheists are sometimes called anti-theists, because they are actually against religion and faith in god, for several reasons.
Agnostic-atheists lack a believe in (any) god, but don't dismiss the possibility, while gnostic-atheists say (any) god simply can't exist.

However, neither of these two types of atheists are "fundamental".

I always prefered Militant Agnosticism. Like the cult of Slag-Blah.

[Grovermancer]

I just deleted my entire thesis, cause I'm supposed to be working this into a personal project instead!  
I hope no one quoted it yet!


Short responses-

1.  if someone is rigid, dogmatic, and their beliefs are tied to their self-identity, they're fundamentalists, regardless whatever their beliefs are


To the other point:
2.  I admitted to 'projecting' certain worldviews onto the DA cosmology as a way to have reference points and a discussion about it

Modifié par Grovermancer, 03 avril 2010 - 03:47 .

[AlanC9]

filaminstrel wrote...

It's purple, man. Either it's a tainted Barney crossover, or it's the Old God of Beauty.

(I can only imagine the Old Gods of Chains, Fire, and Silence were similarly obvious. Although the Chaos one might have been more of a challenge.)

That's all tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I would guess that there are some surviving accounts of what the Old Gods looked like, or what kind of attacks they used, or etc. (because the Old Gods seem to have been more "hands on" in their dominion than their contemporary is). Now just add Blight spikes everywhere, and you probably have a pretty good "police sketch" to help determine which Old God is behind the current Blight.

Exactly. Was purple associated with that particular god? He doesn't seem to have any distinctive attacks or abilities, and besides the purpleness and spikiness he's an ordinary dragon.

[AlanC9]

Grovermancer wrote...
One could go on and on, but just seems like a lot of errors and human-like behavior for something that should be, by definition, perfect beyond comprehension.

*** One could say that's another projection on my part of putting our definitions of 'god' onto the Maker, but I'd argue that must be the definition of any ultimate Maker, even if put in a fictional universe.

Have you actually read the Bible? The Maker may not be perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than Yahweh.

[Nukenin]

That's not randy!  This thread needs to be rerailed to the topic at hand, which is a frank apprentice-to-apprentice discourse on  the pleasures to be had in the Fade, not theology.

Not that I'm a participant here, just a horrified onlooker.

[CptPatch]

redhead1979 wrote...

what is the difference between an atheist, an atheist fundamentalist, or a militant atheist?

Atheist:  "There ain't no God.  'Nuff said."

Fundamental Atheist:  "There ain't no God because of these reasons: ________________"

Militant Atheist: "There ain't no God, and by God I am going to make you believe likewise!"

[frayjog]

Of course atheism is a belief system. Atheists believe there is no god(s).

[huxley00]

Fate Elixir wrote...

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist personally. Look around. The marvels never seem to cease. There is evidence overflowing. The Human body is nuts! No person, not even groups of our smartest, could come close to designing it. Look at the mountains, at photosynthesis, or gravity. If the Earth were one degree off with its gravity it would be catastrophic. If we were a smidge closer to the sun we would burn up. A smidge closer to Mars and we freeze up. Like it or not, the Earth was designed for life. You made the comment "what did I do to deserve such treatment" , every breath is a gift, and a privilege. What did we do to deserve to live? Yet we are given such a gift. I'm not trying to tell you your wrong, or that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe (people saying such things give religion a bad name), I'm just trying to provide an alternative point of view. Believe it or not, I respect your point of view and find it interesting. To quote my favorite scripture "Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for" - Hebrews . Take care.

I am a christian but I have to say your argument is really flawed.  As with most research, you have to take one piece and examine it.  You name many different things, the human body, mountains, air, gravity, at base level these all seem unexplainable and amazing.  That is why we study them individually.  Almost all fields have many sub-fields as well to better study and understand how something works.  The world isnt that amazing once you begin to understand how it works.  People used to think rain was an amazing unexplainable gift from the gods.  Now we see how moisture evaporates and turns into rain and it becomes mundane.  Eventually the human body will be unlocked and people will find it funny that others thought it was some great unexplained mystery.

The world is a gift, but it isnt beyond understanding and to write everything off as an 'amazing miracle' is to make yourself and Christianity look bad.  Blind faith is what starts wars, we need to question and understand our surroundings to make things better for all of us while we are on this planet.

[TheComfyCat]

frayjog wrote...

Of course atheism is a belief system. Atheists believe there is no god(s).

If you want to argue semantics... atheism is actually a lack of a belief in a god (or gods).

[frayjog]

senorfuzzylips wrote...

frayjog wrote...

Of course atheism is a belief system. Atheists believe there is no god(s).

If you want to argue semantics... atheism is actually a lack of a belief in a god (or gods).

Tomato, tomato?

[TheComfyCat]

Well, where theism is a belief in god (or gods), atheism is a lack of such theistic belief. The definition of atheism is only accurate and exhaustive if considered in that light, for by this definition there is no middle ground: one is either a theist or an atheist.

Agnosticism is related more specifically to the impossibility of such knowledge... (a being negative, and gnosis Greek for "to know"). It's therefore not a middle ground between theism and atheism (as previously defined).

When describing agnosticism, one must commit to theism or atheism (as previously defined). An agnostic theist claims that the nature of god (or gods) is unknowable, but such a claim relies on theistic belief (god exists, but it is unknowable). An agnostic atheist claims that not only would the nature of god (or gods) be unknowable, but one cannot know if god (or gods) exist. They therefore lack theistic belief.

[London_Liche]

khathaway71 wrote...

Yes. Your mage can get romantic with a desire demon in the fade in a quest.

So this is where STD's come from.  It's all so clear now.

[CptPatch]

senorfuzzylips wrote...
Well, where theism is a belief in god (or gods), atheism is a lack of such theistic belief.

I think that both views are, in fact, faith-based.  Theism is a belief in the actuality of a deity, despite the fact that there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove such is the case.  Atheism is a belief that there is NO deity, despite the fact that there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove that such is the case.  (Just because you've never seen something personally does NOT mean that it's safe to assume it doesn't exist.  I've never seen a Blue Whale; does that mean I can safely assume that they don't exist?  What about the other 99% of humanity that has never seen a Blue Whale?  Keeping in mind that any videos and photos may just be clever fakes.)

Both views tend to argue, "Since you can NOT _prove_, irrefutably, that I am wrong, I _must_ therefore be right!"  But when all is said and done, both views rely on the beliefs held by the practitioners.

[redhead1979]

CptPatch, you are treading dangerously close to solipsism. There is a reason solopsists have no friends



I've never been to Australia. From my point of view, Australia might not exist. However, other people have been to Australia. I can call someone in Australia. There are pictures and videos of Australia. Orbiting sattelites show a giant landmass that people claim to be Australia. Is this proof that Australia exists? No, but it is pretty good evidence that it does. Now, there is a chance that some of this evidence may be false. But the more evidence that is available to more reasonable it is for me to take the position that Australia exists.



If I told you that I saw a 6-armed woman milking a cow at the local supermarket you would be rightly skeptical. If you asked for evidence that such a thing took place, and I told you that only I could see it, and it was an experience, you would laugh your head off and call the loony bin. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and the notion that an all powerful entity created and continues to manipulate the universe is, indeed, a fantastic claim.

[Grog415]

Getting laid in the Fade would be a wet dream wouldn't it?

[TheComfyCat]

CptPatch wrote...

I think that both views are, in fact, faith-based.  Theism is a belief in the actuality of a deity, despite the fact that there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove such is the case.  Atheism is a belief that there is NO deity, despite the fact that there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence to prove that such is the case.  (Just because you've never seen something personally does NOT mean that it's safe to assume it doesn't exist.  I've never seen a Blue Whale; does that mean I can safely assume that they don't exist?  What about the other 99% of humanity that has never seen a Blue Whale?  Keeping in mind that any videos and photos may just be clever fakes.)

Both views tend to argue, "Since you can NOT _prove_, irrefutably, that I am wrong, I _must_ therefore be right!"  But when all is said and done, both views rely on the beliefs held by the practitioners.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not upon those who refuse to accept a claim based on lack of evidence (especially when the claim is of an exceptional nature).

And I think you're also confusing faith and knowledge.

[CptPatch]

Redhead1979 wrote...
CptPatch, you are treading dangerously close to solipsism. There is a
reason solopsists have no friends

So _that's_ why I have no friends!  I was wondering about that. 

BTW, did you ever see a movie entitled "Capricorn One"?  All about a faked Mars landing that was actually done in studio.  (As MANY people still claim the 1969 moon landing had been done, along with all of the subsequent moon landings.)

senorfuzzylips wrote...
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claim, not upon those who refuse to accept a claim based on lack of evidence (especially when the claim is of an exceptional nature).

And I think you're also confusing faith and knowledge.

For one who Believes, the burden of proof has been met -- to his/her satisfaction.  To others that do not believe likewise, unless God Himself materializes in front of them and puts on a godly dog-amd-pony show, the burden of proof will most likely _never_ be met to their satisfaction.

Faith is all about believing when the proof is inadequate.  If the proof is there, then it's not believing; it's knowing the fact.  No faith required.  The two get confused because some/many people seem to think that if they believe in something strongly enough, "it MUST be True!"  (Just ask a Mormon: "I prayed to God and asked Him to show me the way -- and He did!"  Even if two Mormons pose the same query and get two different distinctly different answers, both feel that _He_ did indeed speak to them and gave them the correct answer.  It's that other guy that got it wrong!  )

[Mlai00]

Faith is a strange concept. Why must anything be taken on faith? Why does a God ask us to take anything on faith, when he is omnipotent?

Believing something without evidence is called gullibility. Why does God think gullible people are better/worthier people; does He want to sell me cars?

Does he think showing us evidence that He is God, somehow impinges on our free will to choose? Action based on evidence isn't interfering with free will; it's just smart business! Why is he asking us to guess? He gave Moses miracles 2000 years ago... but that's 2000 years ago! Time for some new evidence!