895 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...


So all First Enchanters are gods then?

-Polaris

I don't recall the First Enchanters being immortal, able to grant requests of absurd power, or being telepathic. Please show me where I missed that. If they can do that they're most definitely gods. 

[Ryzaki]

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[Emzamination]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

You do realize the old gods had actual temples, worshippers, blood sacrifices, ect... You have played legacy, yes?

Andrastians don't worship the Old Gods. Just because the Magisters worshipped them doesn't mean they were actually gods. The codex on the Old Gods makes it clear that Andrastians don't view them that way.

The old god religion is far older than the Andrastian religion.The tevinters were worshipping old gods when Andraste was still in shackles.

[IanPolaris]

Emzamination wrote...

High dragons are not in the same category as the Old gods.The high Dragon in the sacred Ashes quest can be killed by Anyone and remain dead but the archdemon must be killed in a specific manner by a specific being because it is an immortal entitey that can keep rebirthing itself over and over.That goes beyond basic Immortality. By your logic rats can be gods.

That is so not my point.  My POINT was that you pointed to evidence of priesthood, rituals,ect that said that the old gods were 'gods'.  My point is that isn't evidence at all.  It showed people treated them as divinities but it doesn't actually show divinity.

My point is that divinity is something GRANTED by others through exaltation, reverence, and worship.  If a person doesn't view any being as worthy of divinity, then they aren't, ergo that person is an atheist.  I don't care what laundry list of powers such a being might have, if an atheist doesn't regard them as a divinity, they aren't form the PoV of the athiest.  Being divine is not an absolute trait. It's one granted by a belief system by the worshipers of that divinity.  Nothing more.

-Polaris

[Vandicus]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...


[/quote]

No it's not except MAYBE in the most technical terms.  Agnostics punt.

-Polaris[/quote]

Did you mean this as a dispute with my statement? Agnostics do not need a god to explain things, yes or no?

The previous poster defined atheism as "not needing a god to explain things". I said that was incorrect because agnostics do not need a god to explain things and yet are not atheists. Are you saying they do need a god to explain things?


If yes, then my usage was correct. If no, then explain in what way Agnostics need a god to explain things.

[slimgrin]

terdferguson123 wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is plainly an annoying Militant Atheist who has devoted his entire life to an ironic quest to show that those with faith have no good reasons, all the while he cannot prove his own point that without a shadow of a doubt, god doesn't exist.

I very much dislike RIchard Dawkins and think that his strange way of going about "Science" is incredibly unscientific.

It's one thing to not be religious, it's an entire new category of stupid to spend your entire life finger pointing at religious people for basing their opinions on an unprovable concept while you do it yourself. Truly, is there any way to know if they are actually delusional? Statistically, they have the odds against them, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong.

WTF...lol. Yes, you know better than him, a lifelong and very influential scientist. Keep telling yourself that. Wasn't this supposed to be about the game's lore?

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


So all First Enchanters are gods then?

-Polaris

I don't recall the First Enchanters being immortal, able to grant requests of absurd power, or being telepathic. Please show me where I missed that. If they can do that they're most definitely gods. 

Magic enables you to read minds.  Magic can grant requires of "absurd powers".  Blood magic can extend your life indefinately...at least for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

So yeah you missed a few things.

-Polaris

[Adrian68b]

I stated that agnostics do not need a god to explain things. Do you dispute this statement? If not, then my description of agnostics is correct.

I was't talking about agnostics. Only about atheists. The statement "agnostics do not need a god to explain things" is atheistic. Agnostics do not believe in gods, but do not have an alternative way to explain the world. It is like: "I cannot believe in God"
An atheist does not need a belief in some god because he has an alternative way to understand the world. He is not saying: "I don't belive in God", but "the universe began with the BIg Bang". There is no reference to God in his statement.

I also disliked The god delusion. Dawkins is too militant for my taste. But The selfish gene is good. I can suggest instead Carl Sagan: "Varieties of Scientific Experience" for instance.

And I am really sorry if I was ofending you. It wasn't my intention.

Modifié par Adrian68b, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:12 .

[Vandicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

[terdferguson123]

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

"Sorry, but no. Atheism means that you do not need any god in order to explain things. Is really this simple." 


Plain and simple, you don't know what atheism is. Regardless of what some other person may have argued atheism is, that's not what the definition is. Simple statement that one does not need a god to explain things does not constitute atheism. Agnostics do not need gods to explain things, yet they are not atheists. Agnostics are not automatically atheists.

You are also misusing the term agnostic which literally means "not knowing". An agnostic is one that BELIEVES that proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. It's more than not knowing that god or God exists, an Agnostic believes one can NOT know this.

-Polaris

This is incorrect, Agnostics do not believe that the proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. They do however believe that as to our current knowledge, it cannot be proven. The key words here are current knowledge, implying that in the future with more science and understanding of the topic, this may be answered.

[Ryzaki]

Vandicus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

Well depending on what definiton you use Flemeth might as easily fall under it as the Old Gods.

[Emzamination]

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

The tainted blood of the grey warden gives him a link to the Archdemon so when he stabs it, the archdemon soul is drawn to his and both are destroyed.

Even the greek gods such as Pan could be killed. As for immortality and youthfulness...I believe those are two different things...The shop keeper in the black emporium Dlc is defined as being immortal in the codex but he continues to Age and he can be killed.

[Calians]

slimgrin wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is plainly an annoying Militant Atheist who has devoted his entire life to an ironic quest to show that those with faith have no good reasons, all the while he cannot prove his own point that without a shadow of a doubt, god doesn't exist.

I very much dislike RIchard Dawkins and think that his strange way of going about "Science" is incredibly unscientific.

It's one thing to not be religious, it's an entire new category of stupid to spend your entire life finger pointing at religious people for basing their opinions on an unprovable concept while you do it yourself. Truly, is there any way to know if they are actually delusional? Statistically, they have the odds against them, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong.

WTF...lol. Yes, you know better than him, a lifelong and very influential scientist. Keep telling yourself that. Wasn't this supposed to be about the game's lore?

So influential that he was never mentioned in any of my science classes. But yes this thread was derailed a bit.

[Shadow Fox]

Vandicus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

*cough* Greek myths*cough*

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


So all First Enchanters are gods then?

-Polaris

I don't recall the First Enchanters being immortal, able to grant requests of absurd power, or being telepathic. Please show me where I missed that. If they can do that they're most definitely gods. 

Magic enables you to read minds.  Magic can grant requires of "absurd powers".  Blood magic can extend your life indefinately...at least for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

So yeah you missed a few things.

-Polaris

Mind reading is not equal to telepathy. Nor is any act performed by mortal mages with the exception of entry into the Black City comparable to the powers of the Old Gods. Blood magic in theory could allow one to become a god, assuming that blood magic can indeed break all rules of magic(as has been implied). Mortals becoming gods HAPPENS in fantasy settings.

However, your statement on First Enchanters being considered gods by my standards are incorrect. No first enchanter is a telepath, or immortal, or capable of similar feats.

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

Yet the Old Gods aren't universally embraced as gods or deities; the fact that some scholars examine their abilities and feats, and merely see them as "ancient dragons" means the "same standards" don't apply here.

[terdferguson123]

slimgrin wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is plainly an annoying Militant Atheist who has devoted his entire life to an ironic quest to show that those with faith have no good reasons, all the while he cannot prove his own point that without a shadow of a doubt, god doesn't exist.

I very much dislike RIchard Dawkins and think that his strange way of going about "Science" is incredibly unscientific.

It's one thing to not be religious, it's an entire new category of stupid to spend your entire life finger pointing at religious people for basing their opinions on an unprovable concept while you do it yourself. Truly, is there any way to know if they are actually delusional? Statistically, they have the odds against them, but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong.

WTF...lol. Yes, you know better than him, a lifelong and very influential scientist. Keep telling yourself that. Wasn't this supposed to be about the game's lore?

Give me a reason as to why I am wrong other than the fact that he is a lifelong scientist. That's like saying that a person can't have a valid opinion unless they have produced a book on the topic in question.

The point here is that Richard Dawkins does in fact spend a great majority of his time insulting religious people for the very same flaw in his own argument (basing your opinion on the afterlife on an unprovable concept).

Lastly, I am only discussing Dawkins becuase another poster brought him up as a means to show me the terms Atheist and Agnostic which is very much the topic in question in this thread.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[Vandicus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

Well depending on what definiton you use Flemeth might as easily fall under it as the Old Gods.

Actually I do define her as a god, though not of the religion leading sort. 
Similar in nature to the Greek's water nymphs or to deities in settings that don't govern a particular function.


My metric for deity hood is fairly simple and fairly common. Are they comparable to common use deities in fantasy settings? If yes, then they are a god. 

[Ryzaki]

Emzamination wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how is must be killed in a specific way immortality?

Isn't immortality you know...NOT being able to be killed? Period?

Or are we referring to the never age version of immortality? 

The tainted blood of the grey warden gives him a link to the Archdemon so when he stabs it, the archdemon soul is drawn to his and both are destroyed.

Even the greek gods such as Pan could be killed. As for immortality and youthfulness...I believe those are two different things...The shop keeper in the black emporium Dlc is defined as being immortal in the codex but he continues to Age and he can be killed.

Which means he's killed.

See..ugh english I'm not even going to try and make sense of it.

Still using those standards of power and immortality (despite being able to die..) plenty of beings could be seen as god like. Like Flemeth and depending on if she ages or not Morrigan.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[IanPolaris]

terdferguson123 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

"Sorry, but no. Atheism means that you do not need any god in order to explain things. Is really this simple." 


Plain and simple, you don't know what atheism is. Regardless of what some other person may have argued atheism is, that's not what the definition is. Simple statement that one does not need a god to explain things does not constitute atheism. Agnostics do not need gods to explain things, yet they are not atheists. Agnostics are not automatically atheists.

You are also misusing the term agnostic which literally means "not knowing". An agnostic is one that BELIEVES that proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. It's more than not knowing that god or God exists, an Agnostic believes one can NOT know this.

-Polaris

This is incorrect, Agnostics do not believe that the proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. They do however believe that as to our current knowledge, it cannot be proven. The key words here are current knowledge, implying that in the future with more science and understanding of the topic, this may be answered.

Um that is actually disputed.  There are 'strong" or fundamental Agnostics that DO believe that proof of divinity is fundamentally impossibel.  Then there are 'weak' or pragmantic Agnostics who believe proof of divinity is impossible at this time.

To be equally fair, there is also doctrinaire or "strong" atheism that asserts as a fact there is no divinity of any sort.  Then there is 'weak' or 'positivist' atheism that holds that since there is no falsifiable evidence of divinity, we must assume that there isn't any (i.e. no pink unicorns).

-Polaris

[Emzamination]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

High dragons are not in the same category as the Old gods.The high Dragon in the sacred Ashes quest can be killed by Anyone and remain dead but the archdemon must be killed in a specific manner by a specific being because it is an immortal entitey that can keep rebirthing itself over and over.That goes beyond basic Immortality. By your logic rats can be gods.

That is so not my point.  My POINT was that you pointed to evidence of priesthood, rituals,ect that said that the old gods were 'gods'.  My point is that isn't evidence at all.  It showed people treated them as divinities but it doesn't actually show divinity.

My point is that divinity is something GRANTED by others through exaltation, reverence, and worship.  If a person doesn't view any being as worthy of divinity, then they aren't, ergo that person is an atheist.  I don't care what laundry list of powers such a being might have, if an atheist doesn't regard them as a divinity, they aren't form the PoV of the athiest.  Being divine is not an absolute trait. It's one granted by a belief system by the worshipers of that divinity.  Nothing more.

-Polaris

Priest, worshippers, prayer and blood sacrifices of thanks giving dedicated to an Immortal Entity...Sounds like a God to me.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Immortality is a funny thing. I don't believe a specific form of immortality is necessary to apply the title of deity in fantasy settings, as deities are frequently killed in fantasy settings. It can be simple agelessness to complete invincibility. As Thedas is a fantasy setting, I believe it makes sense to apply the same standards as all other fantasy settings.

Yet the Old Gods aren't universally embraced as gods or deities; the fact that some scholars examine their abilities and feats, and merely see them as "ancient dragons" means the "same standards" don't apply here.

Those scholars are clearly limited in their knowledge of the Old Gods. They probably didn't believe in the Blight or Archdemons as well, much like Loghain. Until recently, dragons were believed to be extinct. Morrigan is better informed than they are. 

"
Scholars assume that the Old Gods must indeed have been real at one point, but most agree that they were likely actual dragons--ancient high dragons of a magnitude not known today, and impressive enough to frighten ancient peoples into worshipping them. Some even claim that these dragons slumber as a form of hibernation, not as a result of the Maker's wrath. "

Characters can think incorrect thoughts and be misinformed about events in the world(separation of in character knowledge and out of character knowledge), funny how that works.

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


So all First Enchanters are gods then?

-Polaris

I don't recall the First Enchanters being immortal, able to grant requests of absurd power, or being telepathic. Please show me where I missed that. If they can do that they're most definitely gods. 

Magic enables you to read minds.  Magic can grant requires of "absurd powers".  Blood magic can extend your life indefinately...at least for hundreds and hundreds of years. 

So yeah you missed a few things.

-Polaris

Mind reading is not equal to telepathy. Nor is any act performed by mortal mages with the exception of entry into the Black City comparable to the powers of the Old Gods. Blood magic in theory could allow one to become a god, assuming that blood magic can indeed break all rules of magic(as has been implied). Mortals becoming gods HAPPENS in fantasy settings.

However, your statement on First Enchanters being considered gods by my standards are incorrect. No first enchanter is a telepath, or immortal, or capable of similar feats.

Mind Reading IS Telepathy.  By definition in fact,  Magic can (and does) permit mental communication and control, ergo telepathy.  Magic (at least blood magic) IS capable of extending life indefinately, especially if you don't mind being tainted.    Besides, there is no laundry list of powers that makes a being divine.  That is a status granted by the worshiop of others to those others.  Nothing more and nothing less.

-Polaris

[terdferguson123]

IanPolaris wrote...

terdferguson123 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"So all agnostics are atheists? How enlightening.
You are misunderstanding and misuseing the term atheist."

I could only suggest some reading. For instance "The Selfish Gene" and "The God Delusion" from Richard Dawkins.

"Sorry, but no. Atheism means that you do not need any god in order to explain things. Is really this simple." 


Plain and simple, you don't know what atheism is. Regardless of what some other person may have argued atheism is, that's not what the definition is. Simple statement that one does not need a god to explain things does not constitute atheism. Agnostics do not need gods to explain things, yet they are not atheists. Agnostics are not automatically atheists.

You are also misusing the term agnostic which literally means "not knowing". An agnostic is one that BELIEVES that proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. It's more than not knowing that god or God exists, an Agnostic believes one can NOT know this.

-Polaris

This is incorrect, Agnostics do not believe that the proof of divinity is fundamentally impossible. They do however believe that as to our current knowledge, it cannot be proven. The key words here are current knowledge, implying that in the future with more science and understanding of the topic, this may be answered.

Um that is actually disputed.  There are 'strong" or fundamental Agnostics that DO believe that proof of divinity is fundamentally impossibel.  Then there are 'weak' or pragmantic Agnostics who believe proof of divinity is impossible at this time.

To be equally fair, there is also doctrinaire or "strong" atheism that asserts as a fact there is no divinity of any sort.  Then there is 'weak' or 'positivist' atheism that holds that since there is no falsifiable evidence of divinity, we must assume that there isn't any (i.e. no pink unicorns).

-Polaris

Well, simply by looking at the defintion:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

Disputed or not, this is the current accepted and frankly the most logical description. The reason why saying that proof of divinity is impossible is illogical is because we have no grounds to make that decision on. If we had some kind of alternate universe where the same thing happened, and we knew of this, then we would be able to say that it may be unknowable. But we don't, and becuase of that we must always consider the possibility that the answer does exist and that we simply just don't know it yet. It's a fickle concept, but hopefully that clarifies a bit.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[IanPolaris]

No one is questioning that the old gods are real. It's pretty clear that they are. That doesn't make them divinities. Certainly most of the people of modern thedas do NOT regard them as divine beings (but do admit...those that know of them....that they are immensely powerful and immortal).

-Polaris