895 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandicus]

Frostbringer wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Frostbringer wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

...

B. Agnostism and Athiesm are very different things. One cannot be both at the same time. Agnostism accepts a lack of knowledge (A-without, gnostic-knowledge), and is meant to imply one simply doesn't know if there is a god or not, or if there is, any details about said god or gods or deification or what have you. Athiesm simply rejects the concept of god entirely, with certainty (A-without, thiest-belief in god), and implies one has a dogma of the rejection of the existence of god, not that one simply doesn't know. People like to lump them together nowdays, but there is no such thing as an "agnostic athiest".

...

The sentence in bold is not true. Agnostic = without knowledge whether or not god exists (everyone is agnostic unless proof exists and is known to them). Atheist = without belief in a deity. So a person can be both agnostic AND atheistic at the same time: doesn't know, but doesn't believe either.

/facepalm

That's not the definition of agnostic. That is perhaps the most gross overgeneralization of a term yet in this thread. Not everyone is an agnostic, not even close.

Strictly speaking there is overlap for atheism and agnosticism due to dispute over what exactly atheism constitutes. But you're totally misunderstanding the word agnosticism there.

Let's consult a dictionary, shall we? http://dictionary.re...browse/agnostic
It says: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
While my "definition" was not exactly accurate, it illustrated my point well enough.

Your definition was entirely inaccurate for agnosticism in that you applied the term to all human beings, which makes it a terrible illustration of the point. Poor argumentation usually harms the validity of a point(regardless of accuracy) for viewers. 


Your point that it is possible to be agnostic and atheist at the same time under certain definitions is correct. Still, its Correct Answer, Incorrect methods of reaching it.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

People say Morrigan voices an atheist view because she says she doesn't believe in the Maker or a higher power; people have said they chose for their Warden to be atheist because the option was available to say they didn't believe in the Maker, and to dismiss the idea that Andraste was divine.

You seem to be trying to impose your own speculations about Morrigan as fact, in contradiction to what she explicitly says about her views, and your attempts to invalidate the choices people made for atheist Wardens doesn't change the fact that they chose such a line because they wanted to express an atheist viewpoint.

I'm trying to impose what the writer views as fact. No atheists in Thedas. Word of god. My speculations as to the exact meaning of Morrigan's statements are merely speculations, but they are one way to explain her statements. The writer already told you directly that you are misunderstanding what she said.

The man claimed atheism didn't exist and that the Cousland Warden couldn't express the view, but he was proven wrong about an Origin he wrote over six years ago. Gaider's quote addressed that he made the mistake.

Gaider's quote also said that you don't understand what Morrigan is really saying when you claim her statements are atheistic. That means your interpretation of Morrigan's statements is wrong. Period. I propose an alternative interpretation that fits a non-atheistic viewpoint, although there are a lot of ways for what she said to be non-atheistic.

Also, you're misrepresenting the Cousland case. Cousland is never given the opportunity to state that he believes in no gods. He is merely able to doubt the existence of the Maker.

[LobselVith8]

 As Xilizhra pointed out, we know that the writer was wrong:

Xilizhra wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Are you guys still trying to tell David Gaider that he doesn't know his own characters and universe as well as you do? How many months/years has this been going on?

Actually, yes.

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, there was indeed the occasional dialogue option to express it-- 
something you guys obviously remember better than we do (writing 
something over six years will definitely do that, let me tell you). I 
don't know if we would consider that "supported" as I defined above, but
you're correct that it definitely pops up.

It seems to be the "writing something over six years" thing.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 septembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[based]

semi-serious question:

what is it with pc gamer wrpg nerds and their perennial preoccupation with everything being atheistic and science-y? no, really. is Gabe Newell an atheist or something?

[Vandicus]

based wrote...

semi-serious question:

what is it with pc gamer wrpg nerds and their perennial preoccupation with everything being atheistic and science-y? no, really. is Gabe Newell an atheist or something?

Believe it has to do with the demographic. Atheism is more prevalent among left-wing thought, and people of the younger generations tend to be left-wing(I use the term left and right wing in the US sense, it varies internationally). Thus the demographic of internet gamers tends to have a disproprotionately high amount of atheists compared to the general population. For example if approximately 11% of Americans are atheists, and 21% of Democrats are atheists, since younger generations tend to belong to the Democrat group, the percentage of atheists on the internet will be somewhere in between those two numbers rather than matching the country wide average.

Modifié par Vandicus, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[cindercatz]

based wrote...

semi-serious question:

what is it with pc gamer wrpg nerds and their perennial preoccupation with everything being atheistic and science-y? no, really. is Gabe Newell an atheist or something?

I don't think it's that everything needs anything to do with science in DA, it's just that some PCs, by will of their players, were meant to be atheists.. which of course says nothing about Morrigan, since her headspace is largely unknown to us at a certain level.

So therefore David Gaider's statement that there are no atheists in Thedas must be categorically wrong if some PCs are, but his statement that Morrigan's lines are not meant to be atheistic is also most likely true.

[IanPolaris]

Frostbringer wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

...

B. Agnostism and Athiesm are very different things. One cannot be both at the same time. Agnostism accepts a lack of knowledge (A-without, gnostic-knowledge), and is meant to imply one simply doesn't know if there is a god or not, or if there is, any details about said god or gods or deification or what have you. Athiesm simply rejects the concept of god entirely, with certainty (A-without, thiest-belief in god), and implies one has a dogma of the rejection of the existence of god, not that one simply doesn't know. People like to lump them together nowdays, but there is no such thing as an "agnostic athiest".

...

The sentence in bold is not true. Agnostic = without knowledge whether or not god exists (everyone is agnostic unless proof exists and is known to them). Atheist = without belief in a deity. So a person can be both agnostic AND atheistic at the same time: doesn't know, but doesn't believe either.

Indeed, such an atheist is often called a "weak" atheist or a 'positivist' atheist.  Such an athiest doesn't deny that a diefic being might not be possible but until they have reason to believe in one, they won't for the same reason we don't believe in Inivisible Pink Unicorns. 

An atheist is one who does not believe in dieties.  There are multiple flavors of this.

-Polaris

[Iosev]

I just think that it is silly trying to apply the idea of atheism into a fantasy setting. The various ideas of athiesm, agnosticism, theology, and so on, are inexorably tied to the real world and its history, which is why several people in here have tried altering or cherry picking definitions of "Gods" and "Atheism" to make them fit, or not fit, into the Dragon Age setting.

In many fantasy games, most of the things that various types of athiests would not normally believe in, exist. From magic, to werewolves, to vampires, to yes, even gods, all feature heavily in fantasy settings. Furthermore, not only is Thedas filled with various fantastical phenomena, it is also inspired by an era where much of the populace believed them to be real (except in Thedas, they often are real).

Ultimately I think that its best to not specifically incorporate real-life terms into the game, and just stick with people occasionally expressing disbelief or uncertainty in the maker, without trying to attach a specific worldview to it.

Modifié par arcelonious, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[IanPolaris]

Vandicus wrote...

Gaider's quote also said that you don't understand what Morrigan is really saying when you claim her statements are atheistic. That means your interpretation of Morrigan's statements is wrong. Period. I propose an alternative interpretation that fits a non-atheistic viewpoint, although there are a lot of ways for what she said to be non-atheistic.

Yes Gaider did say that.  However, if you look at common atheist/postivist arguments against the existance of god and against the teleological argument for god (which is what Lelianna was stating) and look at Morrigan's covo line, they are the same almost word for word.  I can't read Morrigan's mind so I can't say what she thinks, but she certainly SOUNDS like an atheist multiple times and she uses the same arguments as one.

Frankly this is a case of who do I believe:  DG or my lying ears?

Also, you're misrepresenting the Cousland case. Cousland is never given the opportunity to state that he believes in no gods. He is merely able to doubt the existence of the Maker.

False.  I've played the HN background multiple times.  You are given the opportunity to expressly deny the belief in higher powers including the Maker.  Even DG admitted that he flat out forgot about this.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

Gaider's quote also said that you don't understand what Morrigan is really saying when you claim her statements are atheistic. That means your interpretation of Morrigan's statements is wrong. Period. I propose an alternative interpretation that fits a non-atheistic viewpoint, although there are a lot of ways for what she said to be non-atheistic.

Yes Gaider did say that.  However, if you look at common atheist/postivist arguments against the existance of god and against the teleological argument for god (which is what Lelianna was stating) and look at Morrigan's covo line, they are the same almost word for word.  I can't read Morrigan's mind so I can't say what she thinks, but she certainly SOUNDS like an atheist multiple times and she uses the same arguments as one.

Frankly this is a case of who do I believe:  DG or my lying ears?

Also, you're misrepresenting the Cousland case. Cousland is never given the opportunity to state that he believes in no gods. He is merely able to doubt the existence of the Maker.

False.  I've played the HN background multiple times.  You are given the opportunity to expressly deny the belief in higher powers including the Maker.  Even DG admitted that he flat out forgot about this.

-Polaris

The first goes back to the point of contention we had about what is an atheist in a fantasy setting/what is a god in a fantasy setting. I maintain that the writer's statement makes sense and in no way contradicts your understanding of them if gods are considered existant and common knowledge in Thedas(I pick the Old Gods as the most likely example, though Flemeth and other local beings could also qualify).

Its been a long while since I played human noble but I thought they were only talking about the Maker. Does the text dialogue of the PC explicitly include all higher powers?

[Adrian68b]

Science is basically fact-based thinking. Facts (reliable objective data/measurements) are at the origin of every theory. So, no facts no theory is the rule of thumb in science. An atheist in scientifical sense favor fact-based explanations about the world instead of beliefs. A scientist has no beliefs, not only about God, creation but even about tested knowledge (relativity, for instance). I could use the statement "I believe" in conversation but for me it only means "highly probable". Such an atheist could not possibly believe that God exists or doesn't exist because he does not believe in anything. It maybe sound harsh or even insane but it works very well.
So, if you ask me "Does God exists ?", I will only say something like "I don't know but it is not important for me" because I am able to use other explanations for universe, life based on facts.
But if you ask me "do you BELIEVE in any of the gods from major religions" my answer will be a quick "NO, I don't believe in anything. But I have enough data that suggest that the main statements of these religions are not accurate". I, for instance could not consider both as plausible:
(1) a good amount of measurements about Earth rock formations being older than 3.5 billions years
(2) a statement from a holly book about Earth being created some 7000 years ago.

That being the case, I will chose (1) as more plausibe, and act upon it.

So, being an atheist in a scientifical sense has nothing to do with beliefs.

[cindercatz]

short edit: Science taken to that end makes you a skeptic, not an atheist.

IanPolaris wrote...

Frostbringer wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

...

B. Agnostism and Athiesm are very different things. One cannot be both at the same time. Agnostism accepts a lack of knowledge (A-without, gnostic-knowledge), and is meant to imply one simply doesn't know if there is a god or not, or if there is, any details about said god or gods or deification or what have you. Athiesm simply rejects the concept of god entirely, with certainty (A-without, thiest-belief in god), and implies one has a dogma of the rejection of the existence of god, not that one simply doesn't know. People like to lump them together nowdays, but there is no such thing as an "agnostic athiest".

...

The sentence in bold is not true. Agnostic = without knowledge whether or not god exists (everyone is agnostic unless proof exists and is known to them). Atheist = without belief in a deity. So a person can be both agnostic AND atheistic at the same time: doesn't know, but doesn't believe either.

Indeed, such an atheist is often called a "weak" atheist or a 'positivist' atheist.  Such an athiest doesn't deny that a diefic being might not be possible but until they have reason to believe in one, they won't for the same reason we don't believe in Inivisible Pink Unicorns. 

An atheist is one who does not believe in dieties.  There are multiple flavors of this.

-Polaris

*"you" in the following used as a general term, not a personal address

Like I said, people like it to call it that, I think because atheism has become a social marker that some feel identifies them with free thinkers. But what you're describing ("I'll believe it when I see it, but until then it doesn't exist") is the definition of a lazy skeptic. A true athiest leaves no room for interpretation. They reject the very idea of god. If you don't fit that description, then you might call yourself an athiest in the social sense, but you're actually engaging in a very different intellectual exercise.

As a real world example, take Bill Maher. I love the guy, and he's a very pronounced public atheist, but his actual stance leaves room for his own personal error. He might be proven wrong someday when he dies, or whenever, so therefore he's not a true atheist. A true intellectual would have a very difficult time being a true atheist, because it requires adhering to an unprovable dogma. Nobody uses the word "skeptic" in regards god outside science talk, and most people don't even know what agnostic really means, so atheist has become the popular catch all. Simply not believing one way or another is not rejection on principle, however, therefore not atheistic.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[IanPolaris]

cindercatz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Frostbringer wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

...

B. Agnostism and Athiesm are very different things. One cannot be both at the same time. Agnostism accepts a lack of knowledge (A-without, gnostic-knowledge), and is meant to imply one simply doesn't know if there is a god or not, or if there is, any details about said god or gods or deification or what have you. Athiesm simply rejects the concept of god entirely, with certainty (A-without, thiest-belief in god), and implies one has a dogma of the rejection of the existence of god, not that one simply doesn't know. People like to lump them together nowdays, but there is no such thing as an "agnostic athiest".

...

The sentence in bold is not true. Agnostic = without knowledge whether or not god exists (everyone is agnostic unless proof exists and is known to them). Atheist = without belief in a deity. So a person can be both agnostic AND atheistic at the same time: doesn't know, but doesn't believe either.

Indeed, such an atheist is often called a "weak" atheist or a 'positivist' atheist.  Such an athiest doesn't deny that a diefic being might not be possible but until they have reason to believe in one, they won't for the same reason we don't believe in Inivisible Pink Unicorns. 

An atheist is one who does not believe in dieties.  There are multiple flavors of this.

-Polaris

*"you" in the following used as a general term, not a personal address

Like I said, people like it to call it that, I think because atheism has become a social marker that some feel identifies them with free thinkers. But what you're describing ("I'll believe it when I see it, but until then it doesn't exist") is the definition of a lazy skeptic. A true athiest leaves no room for interpretation. They reject the very idea of god. If you don't fit that description, then you might call yourself an athiest in the social sense, but you're actually engaging in a very different intellectual exercise.

As a real world example, take Bill Maher. I love the guy, and he's a very pronounced public atheist, but his actual stance leaves room for his own personal error. He might be proven wrong someday when he dies, or whenever, so therefore he's not a true atheist. A true intellectual would have a very difficult time being a true atheist, because it requires adhering to an unprovable dogma. Nobody uses the word "skeptic" in regards god outside science talk, and most people don't even know what agnostic really means, so atheist has become the popular catch all. Simply not believing one way or another is not rejection on principle, however, therefore not atheistic.

You are incorrect.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is as close to an official as anything in english gets),  an atheist is defined as follows:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny

• To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
• Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
• To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
• To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

You will see that I am correct according to the most official and respected source for english language defintiions.  Atheism does include a lack of believe in god or gods.

-Polaris

[cindercatz]

IanPolaris wrote...

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.


[*]

[*]-Polaris

[*]Just pointing out something here. "Disbelief" and "Denial" are what I've been describing. A simple lack of belief is not Denial. Denial is rejection. All of those definitions are different from what many in this thread are describing as atheism.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 septembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[Vandicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Frostbringer wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

...

B. Agnostism and Athiesm are very different things. One cannot be both at the same time. Agnostism accepts a lack of knowledge (A-without, gnostic-knowledge), and is meant to imply one simply doesn't know if there is a god or not, or if there is, any details about said god or gods or deification or what have you. Athiesm simply rejects the concept of god entirely, with certainty (A-without, thiest-belief in god), and implies one has a dogma of the rejection of the existence of god, not that one simply doesn't know. People like to lump them together nowdays, but there is no such thing as an "agnostic athiest".

...

The sentence in bold is not true. Agnostic = without knowledge whether or not god exists (everyone is agnostic unless proof exists and is known to them). Atheist = without belief in a deity. So a person can be both agnostic AND atheistic at the same time: doesn't know, but doesn't believe either.

Indeed, such an atheist is often called a "weak" atheist or a 'positivist' atheist.  Such an athiest doesn't deny that a diefic being might not be possible but until they have reason to believe in one, they won't for the same reason we don't believe in Inivisible Pink Unicorns. 

An atheist is one who does not believe in dieties.  There are multiple flavors of this.

-Polaris

*"you" in the following used as a general term, not a personal address

Like I said, people like it to call it that, I think because atheism has become a social marker that some feel identifies them with free thinkers. But what you're describing ("I'll believe it when I see it, but until then it doesn't exist") is the definition of a lazy skeptic. A true athiest leaves no room for interpretation. They reject the very idea of god. If you don't fit that description, then you might call yourself an athiest in the social sense, but you're actually engaging in a very different intellectual exercise.

As a real world example, take Bill Maher. I love the guy, and he's a very pronounced public atheist, but his actual stance leaves room for his own personal error. He might be proven wrong someday when he dies, or whenever, so therefore he's not a true atheist. A true intellectual would have a very difficult time being a true atheist, because it requires adhering to an unprovable dogma. Nobody uses the word "skeptic" in regards god outside science talk, and most people don't even know what agnostic really means, so atheist has become the popular catch all. Simply not believing one way or another is not rejection on principle, however, therefore not atheistic.

You are incorrect.  According to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is as close to an official as anything in english gets),  an atheist is defined as follows:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
deny

• To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
• Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
• To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
• To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

You will see that I am correct according to the most official and respected source for english language defintiions.  Atheism does include a lack of believe in god or gods.

-Polaris

[*]Lack of belief does not equal disbelief. Two different things. Atheists do possess lack of belief in gods, but that by itself does not make a person an atheist. (no idea why this is bullet pointed, I can't fix the format)

[Adrian68b]

This is how any scientist thinks. You could ask around. Anything about God has no connection with science, because God's existence is not (yet) researchable. Maybe some day. Call me if you like skeptic, or atheist. All I can say about established religions: there is enough data available to consider some of their core statements inaccurate.

But as far as this forum is concerned, my statement and the one of Morrigan are similar. So, according to Oxford dictionary, Morrigan is skeptic. Or atheist. So what?

There is no such thing as Oxford dictionary, or even Oxford in Dragon Age. Maybe the local word for a statement like Morrigan's is "frog" (I am just joking).
More, except the highly unlikely case about Morrigan explicitely worshipping some god, there is no visible in-game consequence. Even if Morrigan became herself a god in DA3 or DA4.

Modifié par Adrian68b, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:08 .

[LobselVith8]

based wrote...

semi-serious question:

what is it with pc gamer wrpg nerds and their perennial preoccupation with everything being atheistic and science-y? no, really. is Gabe Newell an atheist or something?

For Dragon Age, it mostly has to due with how some fans find the Chantry of Andraste to be a repugnant and monstrous religion. Not everyone has the same opinion, of course. I don't like the Andrastian Chantry; I don't find it entertaining to play as a protagonist who is religiously Andrastian. That doesn't mean I always play as atheists, simply that I hate this particular fictional religion. In Skyrim, I play as an assassin of Sithis, and as a Tribunal mage; two Dunmer who follow a particular religion. In Dragon Age, I simply don't want to be forced to follow the Andrastian Chantry. In Origins, my Surana Warden expressed disbelief in the Maker and in Andraste as a divine person. I didn't see why my apostate Hawke had to be railroaded into a religious Andrastian when I'm supposed to shape who the protagonist is.

[IanPolaris]

cindercatz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.




[*]



[*]-Polaris

• Just pointing out something here. "Disbelief" and "Denial" are what I've been describing. A simple lack of belief is not Denial. Denial is rejection. All of those definitions are different from what many in this thread are describing as atheism.

No.  The OED dictionary clearly includes the lack of believe.  Otherwise there would be no catagory at all for people that do not believe becuase they aren't agnostic either (because THAT requires a positive believe that the existance of god or gods is unknown and unknowable).

No, read the logic part of that definition. 

Thiest:  One who believes in higher dieties/powers.

Athiest:  ~Theist. 

Atheist is the logical opposite of theist as the definition I quoted clearly states.  This includes all those who don't actually believe in god or goes.  [IE the set of people who are not theists.]  This includes those who disbelieve.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  If you read the first line, the definition of atheist specifically includes (from the OED) the disbelief in a god or gods.  What you are getting hung up on is denial.  You don't have to deny to be an athiest according to the OED.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:04 .

[cindercatz]

The difference, when you look at the numbered definitions even there, is an active disbelief, which is denial. Passive disbelief does, or objective skepticism, does not make you an athiest. The problem is that a lot of atheists don't admit a bias, and a lot of skeptics remain so purely because active reason prevents them from accepting a bias as belief. Therefore a skeptic believes nothing until proven. An atheist believes nothing in principle, reason being that while skepticism is a part of scientific method, atheism is an active denial of the church (originally).

Skepticism is objective rationality. Atheism is dogma.

Adrian68b wrote...

This is how any scientist thinks. You could ask around. Anything about God has no connection with science, because God's existence is not (yet) researchable. Maybe some day. Call me if you like skeptic, or atheist. All I can say about established religions: there is enough data available to consider some of their core statements inaccurate.

But as far as this forum is concerned, my statement and the one of Morrigan is similar. So, according to Oxford dictionary, Morrigan is skeptic. Or atheist. So what?

And I agree with your statement that a lot of dogmatic assertions (of history, metaphysics, etc.) are as close to provably false as we can get, but that doesn't make me an athiest either.

What's different about your statement from Morrigan's is that Morrigan, while she plainly disagrees with the Chantry and how they describe the world beyond plain sight, does not outright deny the existence of anything one might call god, nor does she at all act irreligious, only sacreligiious. Morrigan knows things to be true we don't yet have any information of, and she's actively seeking further revelation. She's not renouncing and rejecting the very idea of god. She's seeking her own answers.. and then attempting to put that knowledge to use.

So she's a skeptic, but she's also very well informed beyond her peers (like a mystery religion adherent would claim) and is actively attempting to discover more and to put it to use, therefore her belief system is in flux.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[LobselVith8]

arcelonious wrote...

I just think that it is silly trying to apply the idea of atheism into a fantasy setting. The various ideas of athiesm, agnosticism, theology, and so on, are inexorably tied to the real world and its history, which is why several people in here have tried altering or cherry picking definitions of "Gods" and "Atheism" to make them fit, or not fit, into the Dragon Age setting.

Believing that the Maker doesn't exist is tied to Thedas; it fits into the Dragon Age setting. My Surana Warden didn't believe in the Maker. Why would he follow a religion that destroyed his homeland and oppressed him in a Circle Tower?

arcelonious wrote...

In many fantasy games, most of the things that various types of athiests would not normally believe in, exist. From magic, to werewolves, to vampires, to yes, even gods, all feature heavily in fantasy settings. Furthermore, not only is Thedas filled with various fantastical phenomena, it is also inspired by an era where much of the populace believed them to be real (except in Thedas, they often are real).

Ultimately I think that its best to not specifically incorporate real-life terms into the game, and just stick with people occasionally expressing disbelief or uncertainty in the maker, without trying to attach a specific worldview to it.

Morrigan disputes this kind of thinking in her conversation with Leliana. As she said: 


Leliana: But this can't all be an accident. Spirits, magic, all these wondrous things around us both dark and light. You know these things exist.

Morrigan: The fact of their existence does not presuppose an intelligent design by some absentee father-figure.


It means faith isn't mandatory.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:14 .

[Adrian68b]

"This is how any scientist thinks. You could ask around. Anything about God has no connection with science"

What I just stated is that being a scientist is not the same being an atheist. That being the case, the word atheist would have been replaced by scientist. All I said that I used scientific thinking to analyze facts about major religion. Morrigan's statement is a scientifical skepticism. But there was another dialogue with Leliana where she stated explicitely that she doesn't believe in any High power being (or something similar)
Yet, of no consequence concerning DA3.

[Calians]

LobselVith8 wrote...

based wrote...

semi-serious question:

what is it with pc gamer wrpg nerds and their perennial preoccupation with everything being atheistic and science-y? no, really. is Gabe Newell an atheist or something?

For Dragon Age, it mostly has to due with how some fans find the Chantry of Andraste to be a repugnant and monstrous religion. Not everyone has the same opinion, of course. I don't like the Andrastian Chantry; I don't find it entertaining to play as a protagonist who is religiously Andrastian. That doesn't mean I always play as atheists, simply that I hate this particular fictional religion. In Skyrim, I play as an assassin of Sithis, and as a Tribunal mage; two Dunmer who follow a particular religion. In Dragon Age, I simply don't want to be forced to follow the Andrastian Chantry. In Origins, my Surana Warden expressed disbelief in the Maker and in Andraste as a divine person. I didn't see why my apostate Hawke had to be railroaded into a religious Andrastian when I'm supposed to shape who the protagonist is.

So self-entitled. Last time I checked it wasn't you making the game. Don't like what they did? Don't buy DA3 when it comes out, it's not that hard. Continue to complain about this won't do anything.

[cindercatz]

Adrian68b wrote...

"This is how any scientist thinks. You could ask around. Anything about God has no connection with science"

What I just stated is that being a scientist is not the same being an atheist. That being the case, the word atheist would have been replaced by scientist. All I said that I used scientific thinking to analyze facts about major religion. Morrigan's statement is a scientifical skepticism. But there was another dialogue with Leliana where she stated explicitely that she doesn't believe in any High power being (or something similar)
Yet, of no consequence concerning DA3.

Yep, she's a skeptic. I was just pointing out the difference that represents to her mindset from atheism. I kind of went a bit long around the point up there.

Calians wrote...

So self-entitled. Last time I checked it wasn't you making the game. Don't like what they did? Don't buy DA3 when it comes out, it's not that hard. Continue to complain about this won't do anything.

We don't actually know that our PC's religion is locked in stone one way or another, though. Just because they rise in the national imperial church doesn't mean they're a personal adherent to Andrastianism or the Chantry. We have no way of knowing at this point, so any lamentation of this is premature.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 septembre 2012 - 05:24 .

[Dubozz]

Are you guys crazy, its 30 pages already. I wish your energy could go to some "story and characters","combat" or at least "mustasch" threads. Just saying.