49 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

AlexXIV wrote...
Ok I may make enemies but the Islam was actually created out of political reasons. Mohammed was more of a trader and politician and he copied many parts of it from the jew/christs. Just as the non-jews (and later christians) copied from the jews when it turned out their polytheism was a stupid idea in general. Religion has always been a means to keep people in check, to make sure they follow rules out of fear of an omnipotent force that would reward the faithful and punish the unbelievers. It's just a sort of enforcement of law and order really.

Mhh. I would not participate in what may be deemed offensive by those who follow this religion.

From what, do you claim that? Have you also read the Koran before to claim such a thing ? Or have you just seen a program tv ? No, because I hear a lot of  people who don't like religions who say stuff like that without having even read a single line in bible, or others things, even studied the religions.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 octobre 2011 - 09:24 .

[Sylvianus]

stephen_dedalus wrote...
snip

?

That is not because some political organizations or even religious use religion as a political pretext that the definition is changed.

Religions, beliefs represented by fallible and mortal men, or structures or organizations, can do politics, but their nature is not changed because of that

Yes religion can be dealt with politics, no one denies it. You take the titles at random, but you do not know what is the content. Titles do not mean what they say truly.. This is a quick summary of what is discussed, the real definition is in their book. We do not look at tiltles to have a thought about a complicate thing.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 octobre 2011 - 09:47 .

[AlexXIV]

Sylvianus wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Ok I may make enemies but the Islam was actually created out of political reasons. Mohammed was more of a trader and politician and he copied many parts of it from the jew/christs. Just as the non-jews (and later christians) copied from the jews when it turned out their polytheism was a stupid idea in general. Religion has always been a means to keep people in check, to make sure they follow rules out of fear of an omnipotent force that would reward the faithful and punish the unbelievers. It's just a sort of enforcement of law and order really.

Mhh. I would not participate in what may be deemed offensive by those who follow this religion.

From what, do you claim that? Have you also read the Koran before to claim such a thing ? Or have you just seen a program tv ? No, because I hear a lot of  people who don't like religions who say stuff like that without having even read a single line in bible, or others things, even studied the religions.

No I have not read the Koran, I have read parts of the bible though. It doesn't matter. How is anything written in there supposed to convince me? I'd have to believe in the existance of a god or spirits or angels or something to believe that either of the 'holy books' are the product of anything else than a man's brain. Or men's brains, whatever. It doesn't matter what is written in there. Fact is, polytheism was a wide spread religious system, for ... I don't know, ten, hundretthousands of years?

In human history monotheism is relatively new because religion evolves like everything else in human culture. Point is that more and more people stopped believing in old faiths because, simply, they got too smart, and in old relgions things did make less sense to them. So it was an actual need to come up with something new. Arabians always had contact with jews and jewish culture. It's a geographical fact. It's no coincidence that all 3 monotheistic religions spawned from around the same spot. Either I have to believe that god lives in or around Israel and only 'speaks' to people there and only ... until like 1500 years ago, or ... I use common sense and assume the obvious.

You can compare it to our modern time. Less and less people in our culture are religious, simply because things that were more believable 2000 years ago, simply, are not today. I am sorry if I insult anyone's faith, but I am sort of a free spirit type. I choose what I believe and what not, and mostly it has to make alot of sense before I believe even half of it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 octobre 2011 - 09:49 .

[stephen_dedalus]

Sylvianus wrote...



Yes religion can be dealt with politics, no one denies it. You take the titles at random, but you do not know what is the content. Titles do not mean what they say truly.. This is a quick summary of what is discussed, the real definition is in their book. We do not look at tiltles to have a thought about a complicate thing.

That was a list of suggested readings for you, not an attempt to refute your position with a list of titles.

[Sylvianus]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Ok I may make enemies but the Islam was actually created out of political reasons. Mohammed was more of a trader and politician and he copied many parts of it from the jew/christs. Just as the non-jews (and later christians) copied from the jews when it turned out their polytheism was a stupid idea in general. Religion has always been a means to keep people in check, to make sure they follow rules out of fear of an omnipotent force that would reward the faithful and punish the unbelievers. It's just a sort of enforcement of law and order really.

Mhh. I would not participate in what may be deemed offensive by those who follow this religion.

From what, do you claim that? Have you also read the Koran before to claim such a thing ? Or have you just seen a program tv ? No, because I hear a lot of  people who don't like religions who say stuff like that without having even read a single line in bible, or others things, even studied the religions.

No I have not read the Koran, I have read parts of the bible though. It doesn't matter. How is anything written in there supposed to convince me? I'd have to believe in the existance of a god or spirits or angels or something to believe that either of the 'holy books' are the product of anything else than a man's brain. Or men's brains, whatever. It doesn't matter what is written in there. Fact is, polytheism was a wide spread religious system, for ... I don't know, ten, hundretthousands of years?

In human history monotheism is relatively new because religion evolves like everything else in human culture. Point is that more and more people stopped believing in old faiths because, simply, they got too smart, and in old relgions things did make less sense to them. So it was an actual need to come up with something new. Arabians always had contact with jews and jewish culture. It's a geographical fact. It's no coincidence that all 3 monotheistic religions spawned from around the same spot. Either I have to believe that god lives in or around Israel and only 'speaks' to people there and only ... until like 1500 years ago, or ... I use common sense and assume the obvious.

You can compare it to our modern time. Less and less people in our culture are religious, simply because things that were more believable 2000 years ago, simply, are not today. I am sorry if I insult anyone's faith, but I am sort of a free spirit type. I choose what I believe and what not, and mostly it has to make alot of sense before I believe even half of it.

 Less and less people, but it's still amazing that in 2011 there are still billions of Christians and Muslims. South America, North america, Africa, Australia, Europe, Arab countries, etc..

We are at the modern times, and there are still many believers. So religion it's about to control people to keep tem in check. But why according to you people aren't able to realize today what's going on ? They aren't enough smart ? 

Why philosophers, writers,  scientists, teachers, doctors, engineers, academics brilliant, Nobel laureates in mathematics believe in God ? They couldn't realize that religion is a trap despite their intelligence ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:03 .

[stephen_dedalus]

Sylvianus wrote...



Why philosophers, writers,  scientists, teachers, doctors, engineers, academics brilliant, Nobel laureates in mathematics believe in God ? They couldn't realize that religion is a trap despite their intelligence ?

Intelligence can be compartmentalized.  Brilliance in one field or academic discipline does not necessarily translate into a comprehensive intelligence. 

[AlexXIV]

Sylvianus wrote...
 Less and less people, but it's still amazing that in 2011 there are still billions of Christians and Muslims. South America, North america, Africa, Australia, Europe, Arab countries, etc..

We are at the modern times, and there are still many believers. So religion it's about to control people to keep tem in check. But why according to you people aren't able to realize today what's going on ? They aren't enough smart ? 

Why philosophers, writers,  scientists, teachers, doctors, engineers, academics brilliant, Nobel laureates in mathematics believe in God ? They couldn't realize that religion is a trap despite their intelligence ?

Because we are not all-knowing yet. Religion fills the holes that science cannot fill, not yet. There are many questions open that neither science nor religion can answer. But religion can just say 'a wizard did it'. Try that as a serious scientist, I doubt you get taken serious after. Maybe it won't change within the next 50 or 100 years. But some time, maybe in 1000, people may look upon monotheism just like we today look on polytheism.

Religion needs no proof, just people who believe in things without any sort of proof. Science needs proof.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:10 .

[Sylvianus]

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...



Why philosophers, writers,  scientists, teachers, doctors, engineers, academics brilliant, Nobel laureates in mathematics believe in God ? They couldn't realize that religion is a trap despite their intelligence ?

Intelligence can be compartmentalized.  Brilliance in one field or academic discipline does not necessarily translate into a comprehensive intelligence. 

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

[stephen_dedalus]

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals who have achieved brilliance in a specific field should also be too intelligent to be fooled by the systems of control that underwrite the structure of religion as a social force.

Modifié par stephen_dedalus, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:21 .

[Vlad_Dracul]

Qun is an ideology, similar like combination of fascism (Everything in the Qun, nothing against Qun, nothing beyond Qun.) and absolute theocracy (other opinions are against demands of the Qun - herecy).
Maybe a little communism as well, after what I know from Mark of the Assassin.

[AlexXIV]

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals who have achieved brilliance in a specific field should also be too intelligent to be fooled by the systems of control that underwrite the structure of religion as a social force.

Also it is said that people believe what they want to believe. So whether they are smart enough or not, they may just feel better believing in it. And it's not a bad thing if it makes people feel better and act better in a morale sense.

[jamesp81]

Gervaise wrote...

The Qunari are frequently referred to as following a religion by other people in Thedas but this may simply be because there does not seem to be any concept of a philosophical tradition separate from religion.  However, in terms of what it most closely resembles, I would have said that was Communism.   There is no deity, a distain for capitalism, a collective purpose, assigned roles with children being identified for a particular purpose and then trained in it, Gulags for dissident members of their community and a thought police to track these down both inside and outside the lands they occupy.   They are willing to spread their influence either by direct confrontation or covert methods.   You could say it is Communism taken to extremes in that the individual has no place in the society, just part of a whole, even to the extent that you do not have a name, merely a title that indicates your purpose and sex is purely done to produce the next generation as part of a planned breeding program.   Affection between individuals exists but there are no family units.     The sleeper cells and the panic and suspicion this might engender if it were known reminds me more of the "Reds under the Beds" type of thinking during the Cold War.   

I realise that David Gaider may have said certain things with regard to the Qunari but even he admitted that in referencing Islam he was referring more to the confrontational aspects between two cultures than the actual religious dogma.    However, the gulf between Christianity and Islam is not as great a people might think, which is why at various times during their history together, the ruling power has been able to tolerate members of the alternative religion.  However, the gulf between either of those religions and communism was so great that the religion tended to be severely repressed or outright outlawed by the latter and religious adherants in capitalist cultures who seemed to be advocating a more equal society were viewed with great suspicion as being closet communists.  

It seems to me a similar situation exists Thedas.  If you are against the Qunari, this does not make you a religious zealot, merely someone who champions the cause of freedom and individual expression, even if you are a devout Andrastrian.

I think you're right, put simply.

[Sylvianus]

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals are not susceptible to the lapses in reason necessary for religious faith.

I spoke also of philosophers and writers who were/are Christians, and like everything to be logical, and born of reason etc. Why do they except with religion? The question is very interesting. And I do not believe at all that the answer is: They lack / they don't have a comprehensive intelligence. Make no sense at all. And what I suggested, was be careful,  it's not easy as you think.

All these  people aren't easy to be controlled by the " systems " . It's obvious. There are other reasons more complicate that this nonsense. They want to believe, indeed.

The United States contains more than 300 million people. It is a country with a very high level of education, the most modern, and the country is over 70% Christian. I do not count the other religions in this country. So I do not think we can say that all these people lack comprehensive intelligence, except those who don't believe in god.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:33 .

[jamesp81]

dsl08002 wrote...

Depends how you look at it, it promises things such as unity and understanding,
but why would the qun dictate to destroy everyone who tries to leave it or don´t accept it.

Because for all their sanctimonius talk of moral superiority, they aren't really any different than anyone else.  The templars kill mages that don't accept the rule of the Circle, the nobility in Orlais kills and imprisons commoners who don't toe the line, the Qunari kill anyone who disagrees with their worldview.

[stephen_dedalus]

Sylvianus wrote...

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals are not susceptible to the lapses in reason necessary for religious faith.

I spoke also of philosophers and writers who were/are Christians, and like everything to be logical, and born of reason etc. Why do they except with religion? The question is very interesting. And I do not believe at all that the answer is: They lack / they don't have a comprehensive intelligence. Make no sense at all. And what I suggested, was be careful,  it's not easy as you think.

All these  people aren't easy to be controlled by the " systems " . It's obvious. There are other reasons more complicate that this nonsense. They want to believe, indeed.

The United States contains more than 300 million people. It is a country with a very high level of education, the most modern, and the country is over 70% Christian. I do not count the other religions in this country. So I do not think we can say that all these people lack comprehensive intelligence, except those who don't believe in god.

Let's agree to disagree.

[AlexXIV]

Sylvianus wrote...

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals are not susceptible to the lapses in reason necessary for religious faith.

I spoke also of philosophers and writers who were/are Christians, and like everything to be logical, and born of reason etc. Why do they except with religion? The question is very interesting. And I do not believe at all that the answer is: They lack / they don't have a comprehensive intelligence. Make no sense at all. And what I suggested, was be careful,  it's not easy as you think.

All these  people aren't easy to be controlled by the " systems " . It's obvious. There are other reasons more complicate that this nonsense.

The United States contains more than 300 million people. It is a country with a very high level of education, the most modern, and the country is over 70% Christian. I do not count the other religions in this country. So I do not think we can say that all these people lack comprehensive intelligence, except those who don't believe in god.

Well the alternative to the belief that you enter a new life after death is that death is the end. Which means that everything you were, everybody was, turns to dust, literally. This only means life has no higher meaning, no deeper sense. It is just a chain of random events. It is no wonder that people, especially those who achieved many things in life, don't want to believe that. They rather believe that somehow all their knowledge, experience, etc. serves a higher good, or is continued. I mean it is kind of sad to think that all we are ends with our deaths. Hell even I believe that death is not the end. Not because I am religious, because it is too sad to believe that every thought thought, every word spoken and every deed done was for naught.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:38 .

[Sylvianus]

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Let's agree to disagree.

Yes. Sorry, You go too far in your reasoning, and your opinion seems too formed on prejudice. I prefer the debates at the university, more subtle and on reflection.

But It was interesting that said.

[Sylvianus]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

stephen_dedalus wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Comprehensive intelligence, what is it ?

It is the faculty you implicitly invoke when suggesting that scientists, authors, Nobel laureates, and other intellectuals are not susceptible to the lapses in reason necessary for religious faith.

I spoke also of philosophers and writers who were/are Christians, and like everything to be logical, and born of reason etc. Why do they except with religion? The question is very interesting. And I do not believe at all that the answer is: They lack / they don't have a comprehensive intelligence. Make no sense at all. And what I suggested, was be careful,  it's not easy as you think.

All these  people aren't easy to be controlled by the " systems " . It's obvious. There are other reasons more complicate that this nonsense.

The United States contains more than 300 million people. It is a country with a very high level of education, the most modern, and the country is over 70% Christian. I do not count the other religions in this country. So I do not think we can say that all these people lack comprehensive intelligence, except those who don't believe in god.

Well the alternative to the belief that you enter a new life after death is that death is the end. Which means that everything you were, everybody was, turns to dust, literally. This only means life has no higher meaning, no deeper sense. It is just a chain of random events. It is no wonder that people, especially those who achieved many things in life, don't want to believe that. They rather believe that somehow all their knowledge, experience, etc. serves a higher good, or is continued. I mean it is kind of sad to think that all we are ends with our deaths. Hell even I believe that death is not the end. Not because I am religious, because it is too sad to believe that every thought thought, every word spoken and every deed done was for naught.

Very true. I agree about this reason. There are others as well. That's why I do not think religion will disappear in 10--50 years, maybe replaced by others in 1000 years.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 octobre 2011 - 10:44 .

[Zanallen]

I see the Qun as a mix of political ideology and societal philosophy. Like if someone mixed fascism with Confucianism or added a bit of communism to the concept of Bushido. I don't think of the Qun as a religion because, despite having priests, it doesn't really deal with the metaphysical. Even Sten and his sword. I see it as Sten being a warrior. That is his place in the world. Without his sword, he cannot be a warrior. He no longer has his place in society. He is nothing without it.

[Johnsen1972]

I also think it's a mix of both.
 DA2: Fenris speaks Qun!

Modifié par Johnsen1972, 16 octobre 2011 - 11:06 .

[Sylvianus]

Nevermind.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 octobre 2011 - 01:24 .

[blothulfur]

To my admittedly biased viewpoint the Qun espouses utilitarianism at its heart.

[GodWood]

XxDeonxX wrote...
I always saw The Qun to be about as much of a religion as Buddism.. That is to say no, its not really a religion more a philosophy but still regarded as a religion by some.

Buddism is a religion. Only hipster Buddhists will say otherwise.

The Qun however is not.

[Satyricon331]

blothulfur wrote...
To my admittedly biased viewpoint the Qun espouses utilitarianism at its heart.

Now there's an interesting claim.  It's possible but my impression is that if they became convinced there was a tradeoff between their society's welfare/well-being (which iirc they see as a living entity) and the utility of all or even just most individuals in society (a tradeoff us westerners have a hard time even conceptualizing, since we think of society as more a collection of individuals), they'd prioritize the society even though it doesn't actually experience utility (it might be "living," as they say, but it's not conscious).  

I would say that tradeoff is enough to defeat the idea altogether, except it depends on how seriously they take the society-is-an-entity idea.  If it's just a metaphor for how society operates then the tradeoff would be incoherent since it's creating a "tradeoff" between something and itself (b/w a collection of people and... that collection of people).  If they really believe it then although society's well-being would depend on the individuals' well-being, in principle the two things would be different.

Plus, I don't think the Qunari would approve of a Qunari who had took advantage of an opportunity to breach her/his duty under the Qun without anyone finding out, where the person did so in such a way that s/he experienced more utility than the breach cost.  (I edited this mangled sentece... *sigh*.)

~~~~~
As to whether it's a religion or not, I think it's probably similar to Confucianism in that it's a theory of society that relies on mystical theories of causation.  So whether it's a religion depends on how much emphasis the practitioner places on the mysticism.  (Although in DA it's probably tricky to define mysticism since there is a spirit realm and there are non-material causal mechanisms!)

Modifié par Satyricon331, 17 octobre 2011 - 08:22 .

[Selene Moonsong]

Real world Religion and Politics are not open for discussion in these forums.

Closing as off-topic.