159 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I bet the elves "respectfully" denied converting to the chant of light belief and look what that got them....the dorf in orzammar that opens a chantry if you help him even causes the chantry to consider another march against the dwarfs..

They threaten a march because the Assembly restricts the new Chantry's rights and their leader is killed. Obviously, this outrages them.

And the Qunari did let the people in their Thedian territories go to the chantry. Why can't we be as respectful as them?

[Jawson]

Tirigon wrote...

I agree with you, OP. AND, being a chantry-hater myself, i would like a second, new option on the lines of "**** your Maker, go scare children with that crap, noone else believes it"

Wow, someone has issues...  I personally have never met a respectful atheist in real life.  Case in point.

[Sarah1281]

Jawson wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I agree with you, OP. AND, being a chantry-hater myself, i would like a second, new option on the lines of "**** your Maker, go scare children with that crap, noone else believes it"

Wow, someone has issues...  I personally have never met a respectful atheist in real life.  Case in point.

That hardly means they don't exist, just that you have never discussed religion with someone who identified themselves to you as an athiest and were respectful about the beliefs of others without believing it themselves. The dwaves and Dalish with their Stone and their Old Gods wouldn't be athiests but would also likely not believe in/worship the Maker.

[Raiil]

I've met plenty of respectful atheists. It's not such a rare thing. It's like meeting liberal Christians; there are plenty of them about, but it's often the narrow-minded ones that are the loudest. The Westboro Baptist Church no more defines the average Christian anymore than Richard Dawkins is the paragon example of all atheists.





Back on topic, there should be more options, particularly because you have three very separate cultures in the game. It's how I feel about mages; while I actually really like the mage origin story, I would have liked a Dalish or an apostate version as well. It may not be and I am respectful of the fact that there are time and money considerations, but that doesn't mean we can't suggest!

[Jawson]

Valentia X wrote...

I've met plenty of respectful atheists. It's not such a rare thing. It's like meeting liberal Christians; there are plenty of them about, but it's often the narrow-minded ones that are the loudest. The Westboro Baptist Church no more defines the average Christian anymore than Richard Dawkins is the paragon example of all atheists.

Well said.

[Herr Uhl]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I bet the elves "respectfully" denied converting to the chant of light belief and look what that got them....the dorf in orzammar that opens a chantry if you help him even causes the chantry to consider another march against the dwarfs..

They threaten a march because the Assembly restricts the new Chantry's rights and their leader is killed. Obviously, this outrages them.

And the Qunari did let the people in their Thedian territories go to the chantry. Why can't we be as respectful as them?

From the wiki: When the qunari invade an area and capture the current citizens, they offer them the opportunity to convert to their philosophy, or be sent to work in prison camps. Any who resists either one are slain without pity, but Thedosian converts to the Qun claim to feel pity towards those who choose not to convert. When the qunari were pushed back by the Exalted Marches, the Chantry was disturbed to discover that a surprisingly large number of members of their faith had quite happily converted to the foreign religion.

From Mary Kirby:

Mary Kirby wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Including the Qunari in Rivain? Do any of the Qunari believe in the Maker or the Elvish gods, besides the Qun?

No.  The qunari themselves find the idea of invisible all-knowing beings who are interested in judging you after you die completely laughable. They tolerate deism in the converted populations in Rivain and Seheron, however, as they view those people as just getting started on the path to enlightened snarkiness.  I mean enlightened self-knowledge.   Sorry.  Surely they will discard that sort of superstition eventually.

They convert them to their philosophy.

Edit: Granted, Rivain isn't Andrastian.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 16 avril 2010 - 08:02 .

[Chuvvy]

Suron wrote...

we'll wait for you to get those VA's together and create this wonderful mod then....or are you one to whine withouth any backbone or purpose other then to find something wrong?

bet that's why you're a "respectful atheist".....had to find something to complain about religion too huh..

we really don't care about your or anyone elses relgious beliefs, even if it's a non-existant belief. 

and do you really think even if the option was there...considering the world this is set in..they would just smile back and say have a nice day?  you can't be that naive

I bet the elves "respectfully" denied converting to the chant of light belief and look what that got them....the dorf in orzammar that opens a chantry if you help him even causes the chantry to consider another march against the dwarfs..

but you go ahead with your "respect" all you think you want.

You got a big stick up your ass, I recommed stroking your neck beard posting anonymously on a blog then masterbating out of anger.

Modifié par Slidell505, 16 avril 2010 - 08:17 .

[Tirigon]

Jawson wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I've met plenty of respectful atheists. It's not such a rare thing. It's like meeting liberal Christians; there are plenty of them about, but it's often the narrow-minded ones that are the loudest. The Westboro Baptist Church no more defines the average Christian anymore than Richard Dawkins is the paragon example of all atheists.

Well said.

I read Dawkins well-known God delusion and I found it very respectful, actually.



Anyways, Jawson, why do I have issues just because I refuse to believe in fairytales?!

[Chuvvy]

Tirigon wrote...

Jawson wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I've met plenty of respectful atheists. It's not such a rare thing. It's like meeting liberal Christians; there are plenty of them about, but it's often the narrow-minded ones that are the loudest. The Westboro Baptist Church no more defines the average Christian anymore than Richard Dawkins is the paragon example of all atheists.

Well said.

I read Dawkins well-known God delusion and I found it very respectful, actually.



Anyways, Jawson, why do I have issues just because I refuse to believe in fairytales?!

Probably had something to do with the scaring children thing.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Jawson wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I agree with you, OP. AND, being a chantry-hater myself, i would like a second, new option on the lines of "**** your Maker, go scare children with that crap, noone else believes it"

Wow, someone has issues...  I personally have never met a respectful atheist in real life.  Case in point.

Valentia X already replied to this and I agree with her (him?) totally. I'd like to add though that you probably HAVE met plenty of respectful atheists, but either in contexts where religion hasn't come up as a subject, or where they've simply stayed silent in some religious context where they thought it would be inapropriate to make a fuss.

I, for example, if I give someone a helping hand, and they thank me saying "god bless you", won't start arguing with them, or pointing out that I don't believe that there exists a god. That would be a bit silly, and would miss the point which was the sentiment behind what was said.

I do get into religious debates, but generally only when I am directly approached and asked about my religious beliefs, or when someone is being very obnoxious and inconsiderate while making religious declarations - in such cases I might challenge them; staying respectful though.

If you want to see examples of respectful atheists, I'd recommend looking up the following names on youtube: theramintrees, qualiasoup, theoretical bull**** and atheistblindchick - those come to mind off the top of my head.

Also, what I've found is that some religious people take offense at any criticism of religion, even when it's polite and respectful. Thus I've even heard Daniel Dennett being described as a "militant atheist" which is kinda like calling Shale an enthusiastic pigeon fancier. 

[Tirigon]

Slidell505 wrote...

Probably had something to do with the scaring children thing.

Well, scaring children is the traditional purpose of fairytales. And I remember when I was a child I was told not to eat all the chocolate when I was alone cause God would see it....

[Raiil]

I am totally a her, unless someone has modded me IRL. XD





As for Dawkins... speaking as someone who doesn't give a flying **** about what religion a person may or may not have (or, more to the point: I don't give a **** what flavour your pie in the sky is), Dawkins strikes me as rude, sensationalist, and aggressive for aggression's sake. I have no great love for organised religion and left the church before I became an adult, but calling all those who have a faith system different from mine stupid and acting as if religion is a pox upon society is something I find abhorrent. He's as obnoxious to me as the Phelps family is.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Suron wrote...

they can't POSSIBLY put in dialogue options for ALL POINTS OF view...

I'm not talking about just any point of view, but a point of view that is very common - that many people hold. The "angry atheist" is a stereotype that many atheists find offensive, so when you've got an option of playing either an ****, or a believer, it kind of rubs me the wrong way.

That's the thing, in a medieval setting, atheism was very rare, let alone polite atheism.
Atheism as a philosophy is very recent. Atheism as a state of being refusing to believe in a higher power (most simple definition), though probably has existed for as long as deism, was still relatively very uncommon.

[Surango]

You can see a lot of the catholic overtones in this game, that's for sure. I'm a Christian, myself, but had to study all sorts of religions in school. And, by the catholic doctrine especially, any who do not believe are branded heathens or heretics depending on their standing points and may be hunted down (like apostates). It's odd that dwarves and elves do not have more options, but I can see it for humans. It's the established religion.

Going against that establishment could be like the crusades or the inquisitions: the exalted marches. Even if you're respectful. My last run was with an elf that didn't care a whit for the maker. I thought from what the priestess at Ostagar said, calling me a heathen, there would be more hostile interactions. I was kind of thinking the Lothering chantry would attack me for this and being a "threat to their safety" or something like that. Would make an interesting add on, like the blood mage one. This is just how I see the chantry.

[Raiil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Suron wrote...

they can't POSSIBLY put in dialogue options for ALL POINTS OF view...

I'm not talking about just any point of view, but a point of view that is very common - that many people hold. The "angry atheist" is a stereotype that many atheists find offensive, so when you've got an option of playing either an ****, or a believer, it kind of rubs me the wrong way.

That's the thing, in a medieval setting, atheism was very rare, let alone polite atheism.
Atheism as a philosophy is very recent. Atheism as a state of being refusing to believe in a higher power (most simple definition), though probably has existed for as long as deism, was still relatively very uncommon.

I wouldn't say it was rare so much as it was something that was never discussed. When religion has a stranglehold on society, anyone with some sense of self-preservation won't openly espouse those sorts of beliefs. And in a society like DA, it would be interesting to have open atheism or heresy. Like I said with my character, she believes in the Maker and Andraste but not necessarily in the setup the Chantry has brought up.

[Herr Uhl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's the thing, in a medieval setting, atheism was very rare, let alone polite atheism.
Atheism as a philosophy is very recent. Atheism as a state of being refusing to believe in a higher power (most simple definition), though probably has existed for as long as deism, was still relatively very uncommon.

Since when is atheism a philosophy? Atheism is simply not believing in any higher power, skepticism is the philosophy that I believe you think of.

We have the Qunari that are atheist, most of Rivain is probably that too. It isn't that uncommon in this setting.

[Addai]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...
Besides, there WERE examples in history too of religious dissent that managed to stay largely respectful, and "modern" in it's outlook. Look at Spinoza, for example - a very thoughtful pantheist at a time whe that was a serious religious no-no. 

Hume and Spinoza qualify as modern.

[Reaverwind]

Caak7i wrote...

I completely agree with you; I hope they improve the dialogue choices.

Agreed. Dialogue was lacking in some areas. When discussing matters of religion, there were few diplomatic non-Andrastrian responses, and certain character dialogues were lacking in the same way - for example, with Wynne, you can play the mindless syncophant or childish lout.

[Tirigon]

Valentia X wrote...

As for Dawkins... speaking as someone who doesn't give a flying **** about what religion a person may or may not have (or, more to the point: I don't give a **** what flavour your pie in the sky is), Dawkins strikes me as rude, sensationalist, and aggressive for aggression's sake. I have no great love for organised religion and left the church before I became an adult, but calling all those who have a faith system different from mine stupid and acting as if religion is a pox upon society is something I find abhorrent. He's as obnoxious to me as the Phelps family is.

Dawkins doesn´t call everyone who is religious stupid, that´s Gilmore (Church of Satan High priest, thus qualified to a more extreme opinion^^).

And about religion being harmful to society, well, it´s unfortunately a fact. Just loo at all the religious conflicts in Israel, fanatical muslim terrorists etc....

And yes, I know these are fundamentalists and not representative for all religious people. Yet, they wouldn´t be a problem if there was no religion.

[Sarah1281]

And yes, I know these are fundamentalists and not representative for all religious people. Yet, they wouldn´t be a problem if there was no religion.

They'd find something else to be fanatical about.

[Riona45]

Suron wrote...

your point?  what part of they can't put in all possible responses didn't you get...there's actual RELEVANT things to worry about the game lacking then catering to a minority.

You're basically just telling him/her to shut up.  That is uncalled for.

However, to the OP--I'd like to point out also that being angry is appropriate if anger is called for, and in this setting I think it often is.  That being said, point taken and it's probably true that a lot of people would be upset if the "agree with religion" responses were idiotic and fanatical.

...Then again, IMO some of said responses DO strike me as idiotic and fanatical.

[Raiil]

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)





You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.

-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)





It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)



To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)







Dawkins is neither kind nor tactful when it comes towards religions and believers. And I find that to be as offensive as those who are religious who use that as an excuse to judge others or call for war. It isn't religion that causes these issues. It's politics using religion as a cover. Even the Crusades were less based in religion as people like to paint it, and more both sides throwing their men at one another before they tore themselves apart.

[Tirigon]

Valentia X wrote...

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

That´s probably referring to this theory of memes being responsible for the spreading of ideas. I don´t know what to think about that idea, but it´s not as such hostile imo.

You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)

Well, you could articulate it more politely. But you can´t really disagree. Evolution is definitely the most likely and believable explanation for the existence of life.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

I would doubt anything coming from a creationist. Creationists usually are "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked", that´s true. Sometimes all of that at once....

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

Well, it´s true.

Dawkins is neither kind nor tactful when it comes towards religions and believers. And I find that to be as offensive as those who are religious who use that as an excuse to judge others or call for war. It isn't religion that causes these issues. It's politics using religion as a cover. Even the Crusades were less based in religion as people like to paint it, and more both sides throwing their men at one another before they tore themselves apart.

So, what you´re saying is that religion isn´t in itself evil, but can be used for evil purposes. Yet it has no positive uses, that means it´s still a useless and dangerous thing.

[Jawson]

Tirigon you have issues with you're anger, and mocking towards those who might believe there is something greater than themselves. Which is over 95% of the world btw. I find most "Atheists" I meet are not true atheists at all, they seem to have no real problem with an idea of a greater power, or a God of sorts, but have major issues with organized religion. I can't blame em there. I once was like you, obnoxious and insulting of others beliefs, and if you asked me I was a proud atheist. I'm still clueless about what's out there really, but Due to certain events in my Rl, I'm pretty sure there are things out there that weren't in my high school science book. Not being a particularly religious person myself, I could give a rats arse what you believe in, just don't sit there and pretend you have all the answers when you don't.