162 réponses à ce sujet

[RangerSG]

jln.francisco wrote...

So Francisco's response was ad hominem and oversimplified. I'm well aware of the evils people have done in the name of faith--any faith. But most people who line up that argument aren't willing to admit that organized atheism in a century and a half killed more in ITS name than anything else.

'Organized atheism.'

HA!

Get a load of this guy! Apparently Mao and Stalin did everything in the name of atheism. Of course! Pee Zee must be raising the next generation of genocidal maniacs. No wonder he has us all where scarlet As. It's the new swastika! It all makes sense now!

btw, you may want to look up ad hom. That ain't, buddy. Not by a long shot.

Francisco,

Is or is not Atheism a CENTRAL tenant of Marxist philosophy?

Now I realise in the politically correct world we're not supposed to discuss the philosophical underpinings of ideas and their logical consequences. But ideas do have consequences. Historically attempts to sweep aside religion in the name of 'tolerance' have ended with just the kind of terror they purport to be fighting. From Paris to Pol Pot. You assume that's not 'organized?' On what grounds? You assume those consequences won't repeat themselves? Well, what's the definition of insanity and tell me how it wasn't doing the same thing over again.

So sorry to poke the zeitgeist of the Ivory Tower Inteligentsia in the eye and say they've allowed ideology to cloud facts. But they have. The problem isn't religion or the lack of it. We aren't going to 'evolve' better humans by 'leaving those ideas behind.' We never have before.

And I do know the definition of ad hom. You resorted to a personal attack. Multiple times. That's ad hom. Have a nice day.

[kurtsquirt]

Down with the chantry and their capatalism, If morrigan/Flemmeth don't sort them out i'd love to.

[SirOccam]

I hope the Chantry is never portrayed as simply as "evil."

I was brought up Christian, and have only really embraced atheism over the past few years, so you might expect I am eager to jump on the anti-religion train (though I was never a "gung-ho" Christian back then and am not a "gung-ho" atheist now), but I think it should be as complex an issue in-game as it is in real life.

As harmful as one might think organized religion is, the fact remains that religious groups do a lot of good, charitable work. I am NOT saying that religion is required to be charitable, but it obviously helps nudge some people in that direction. This is why my character agreed to help Brother Burkel in Orzammar. My Warden wasn't a fan of the Chantry (especially concerning their views on mages), but he hated seeing what Orzammar was doing to its casteless, and when Burkel mentioned that his Chantry could provide shelter for widows and orphans or provide work for the casteless, that sealed the deal. It was more of a practical thing.

I hope considerations like that come up in DA2. Lots and lots of religious people are sincere and earnest in their pursuit of their religion's more benevolent aspects, but fundamentalists and other bad apples twist and pervert it. I'd like the ability to go after those people without attacking the entirety of the establishment.

[SirOccam]

jln.francisco wrote...

I hope considerations like that come up in DA2. Lots and lots of religious people are sincere and earnest in their pursuit of their religion's more benevolent aspects, but fundamentalists and other bad apples twist and pervert it. I'd like the ability to go after those people without attacking the entirety of the establishment.

While I agree with most of what you've said, this is likely impossible even in a fantasy settings. It's a lot like the situation with Cauthrien before the Landsmeet. You haven't done anything wrong and neither has she. But you have been placed in situations where what you value most is in serious jeapordy of being destroyed wholly and utterly. In that case there was a way to talk your way out of it without killing someone who is largely innocent. But the game never touches on the fallout of what happens next. If you kill Loghain what happens to Cautherien? She certainly loved him as much as Anora did, would she slip into depression? What about the men under her command?

It would be nice to be able to only target the bad guys but that isn't always clear and the good guys are often hopelessly misguided. It's a ****ed up situation and I'm glad Bioware seems to understand it better then some other fantasy settings I've seen.

I don't mean it has to work out perfectly, or that the bad guys have to stick out like a sore thumb, but I'd just like for there to be a chance to delve into that complexity a little, instead of having to think the Chantry as a whole is either good or evil.

I do wonder about Ser Cauthrien too, and she was one of my favorite characters because of exactly that. I certainly don't think she's evil, and while one could argue that she shouldn't have followed Loghain's order to retreat or whatever, to me she's still a very sympathetic character.

[RangerSG]

jln.francisco wrote...

Is or is not Atheism a CENTRAL tenant of Marxist philosophy?

No. Strike One--Marxist Philosophy depends on sweeping aside Theism. The marxist idea of the Proletariet is stolen from Christian Eschatology.

Historically attempts to sweep aside religion in the name of 'tolerance' have ended with just the kind of terror they purport to be fighting. From Paris to Pol Pot.

I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing right now.--And this proves you have a coherent narrative that deals with the historical particulars? Or rather that you simple look down on those you disagree with? What did the "Age of Reason," Utilitarianism as evidenced in its fascist poltical outworkings, and Marxism from Lenin to Mao to Latin America have in common? 1) A desire to destroy or corrupt established faith to bring their own ideology to power and 2) The unerring ability to murder its own citizenry en masse.

Now, are you going to contend this was merely a series of historical conincidences? I find that a dubious--indeed laughable--argument. Are you going to try to say the philosophies of all these ideologies were somehow corrupted and if we 'just try it again' with say, a so-called progressive ideology, it'll work this time? Then you need a serious historical narrative to show how those instances failed. Otherwise, the obvious conclusion is the attempt to remove religion is in itself an ideology held with religious fervor, and those who attempt to use power to do so historically are also removed from the moorings of morality and public decency that religion provides. The end result is: slaughter, genocide, and wars of mass destruction. The Enlightenment brought the Terror and Napoleon, Utilitarianism brought Hitler, Marxism brought Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Secular humanist philosophy has never submitted an intellectually honest answer for why it should be exempted from the horrors its perpetrated when they seek to foist the evils of individuals on every other group. It's easy to say, "We shouldn't die over religion." But of course, if you don't have things worth dying over, you probably don't have something worth living for either. And to say secular humanism lacks orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the two defining concepts of any religion, is patently false.

And I do know the definition of ad hom. You resorted to a personal attack. Multiple times. That's ad hom. Have a nice day.

No it isn't but tell me, when did I 'resort to a personal attack?'

--mocking your opponents in itself is a personal attack. Self defeating argument for strike 3. Have a nice day. And yes, personal attacks are ad hom. They're not 'all' ad hom is, but they're part of it..

[Urazz]

Grommash94 wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

Exactly. Do you seriously think there would be so many maleficar and blood mages if mages were raised in a more friendly environment? Being nice to mages doesn't mean being unable to train them against demons, ya know.

As for anti-magic tactics should something go wrong--and things will go wrong--a mage can learn the same tactics a templar can in Mana Clash and Mana Drain.  They're perfectly capable of policing their own, just not in the current structure of Chantry oversight.

I don't know. There is nothing on Thedas that can compare to the power of the Circle. What if someone like Uldred came along to try and take control, and managed to convince other greedy mages to assist him/her in said power grab? A mage civil war like that would probably end with Thedas screwed over, as their mages are too busy bickering with themselves while the Qunari invade and take everything.

The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Yeah, but mages are basically treated like bombs about to go off and like second class citizens.  It's no wonder they tend to go want to fight against it no matter how they can.

And yes, there need to be templar to police the mages but I would also have some mages brought in along as well.

[Riona45]

Oblivious wrote...
When exactly was this century in a half? I even have to point this out, many (most) people become Atheists in an attempt to escape being shackled to any organization or religion for any reason, especially because somebody says they should and will suffer if they don't.

Atheism only implies lack of belief in a god--it doesn't imply rebelliousness or a rejection of group participation in general.  That said I concur with the greater point you were trying to make.

PS:  Leliana was not a priestess.  She was really only a lay member of the Chantry, albeit a pious one, and her actual beliefs about the Maker were heterodox.

Modifié par Riona45, 13 août 2010 - 03:32 .

[Riona45]

MDarwin wrote...


Onkel "Adi Hitler" did not gained power because of his religiouse believes.

Just so you know, I never argued for that point.

[MDarwin]

Sternchen wrote...

MDarwin wrote:

"Onkel "Adi Hitler" did not gained power because of his religiouse believes. He "promised and gave them Order, Work and Food on the Table". Which the German had next to none in the "Weihmarer Republik".

Big Buisness supported him too. Krupp and so on, they knew that they play with fire when they supported him.
But making big money, was more important."

*I think we all want believe, if somebody tell us, that all what we want will be true. An that´s why we play this games. We are the heros. Bioware makes it true. In our heads we know, that we never could do this thinks. It would be better, they had played the world war two on computers. I´m german. Sorry for my spelling mistakes.*

I´m looking forward to play DA2. I hope it will be so unique like DAO.

* Yeah when times are dire, persons like Hitler have "easy pickings". Don't worry about spelling, I was born and raised in Germany, but live now in Australia for the last 20 years. My spelling is not good either!

[MDarwin]

Riona45 wrote...

MDarwin wrote...


Onkel "Adi Hitler" did not gained power because of his religiouse believes.

Just so you know, I never argued for that point.

That was not against you or anybody else, just wanted to point out why the Germans, "elected" Hitler. Sorry if you felt "victimised" by me!

[Riona45]

MDarwin wrote...


That was not against you or anybody else, just wanted to point out why the Germans, "elected" Hitler. Sorry if you felt "victimised" by me!

No, I wouldn't go that far.  But I appreciate the clarification.

[Sir JK]

I'm very excited to learn more about the rise to power and how the templars/chantry (and other groups) will interact with the story and Hawke. If indeed one can make an enemy of the chantry I want there to be serious repercussions to that though. Not only in challange (fighting against the largest and most resourceful organisation in the world) but especially if I win.



If I for example crush the templars power, I want to see the number of rouge and criminal mages in the city rise sharply. I want to see how the mages I freed first rejoice and praise my name, then join my future opponents (politically if not by arms) in an attempt to force me to give them more rights and more power. I want to see how people despair and society suffers as one of the pillars of civilisation are wrecked asunder. I want to see how people rise up and decide to burn the circle and kill all the mages, now that the templars are gone, just to be safe. Things like that. Not neccesarily that extreme things (or if they are that extreme, then there should be equally good things happening too) though.



A balance... every action should have a good consequence and a bad consequence. If I make one enemy I make one friend. If I limit someone's power, someone else fills the vacuum. If I hurt one group, I hurt everything that group does.

[captain.subtle]

Aa long as the game is Dark HEROIC fantasy I have no problems.

[jjbens]

Since Flemeth is also going to have and important tie with hawke and his story then hawke will probally go against the chantry because they are hunting flemeth just maybe.

[Archereon]

You know, these chantry debates should really be banned, seeing as they're just a thinly veiled atheism vs theism debate.

[jjbens]

i like the idea of taking down a chantry that brain washed a small village