300 réponses à ce sujet

[SeptimusMagistos]

esper wrote...

If your catholic friend just died, the most polite thing to do would be to say 'They are with (their) god', beginning to discuss wherever that god does or does not exist in the middle of the grieving would be jerkish.

No, that's ridiculous. The most polite thing would be to give a religion-neutral statement of grief.

Seriously, why can't Hawke just grieve for his mother and get a much-needed hug from Merrill without suddenly and inexplicably postulating the existence of an afterlife?

[Zobo]

Maddok900 wrote...

Zobo wrote...

Maddok900 wrote...

As an atheist, I like playing faithful characters in role playing games. Even when I have the option to state my belief, I usually choose to align myself with a religion.

Well I can't shoot fireballs or cut monsters in half with my giant axe in real life, so why not try something different about philosophy too? I'm bored with my real self, playing me all day everyday, when I have the chance to be something marginally different why not take it? Playing a character who believes in the maker and prays to him makes me feel like acting, choosing a role to play and trying to stay faithful to my role, which is quite fun in a video game or tabletop frp.

Roleplaying as an idealized version of yourself vs. roleplaying as some other person you've invented is a rather popular topic on this forums, also it goes far beyond the faith aspect of a character, also there is no universal answer to it: some people prefer the first way of roleplaying, some people prefer the second, some like both. I personally subscribe to the first recipe.

I understand, though I find "playing an enhanced version of yourself who can breathe fire" theme very boring actually.

Well, as I see it, I can play a character who is able to breathe fire and who is not like me at all personality-wise in any other genre: FPS, TPS, slasher, platformer, adventure etc. Or I can simply watch a movie. While playing an RPG might as well actually take a benefit of the genre and take it more personal.
But we are getting off-topic with this...

Modifié par Zobo, 21 novembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[Tootles FTW]

I didn't romance Merrill so this particular incident isn't an issue for me personally, but I don't think the instances where Hawke mentions the Maker without specific prompting (i.e. the paraphrases don't lead you to believe you would be declaring your religious beliefs) were necessary to get the point across. You can express grief without going into religion, you can say farewell (Feynriel) without going into religion, and you can murder people without using religious combat shouts (as humorous as that is).

Having a theistic conversation with Sebastian makes sense and I would even enjoy it, but having it randomly pepper dialogue w/o my consent & in a context that does not require it's inclusion is off-putting. If The Powers That Be find it necessary that's fine, it doesn't mentally eject me from the game and really doesn't spoil my experience, I just think the inclusion to make it mandatory in an roleplaying game is unnecessary...at least within the Dragon Age stories we've experienced thus far, anyways. Being a religious person might have a complete bearing on our character in Inquistion and, as I said, so be it if that's the case.

[LobselVith8]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

True. I find the Andrastian religion to be repellant and I don't want my character to have anything to do with it.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it's reasonable to find the Andrastian religion to be repugnant, given what happened to the Dales and the mages. My Surana Warden condemned the Chantry of Andraste marching on the Dales, didn't ascribe to the Andrastian faith, informed Leliana that Andraste was simply an ordinary woman and not a divine figure, and told Justice that he thought that belief in the Maker was a "foolish superstition."

Why couldn't an apostate refuse to believe in an anti-mage religion?

[Swagger7]

You seem to be strictly referring to skepticism as a guiding principle in and of itself, but that's not even a fraction of the story.  Looking at things and questioning them is just how the human mind works.  And not only anyone can do it with anything, but (in a free society especially) that's very often how people arrive at or adopt new ideas, any new ideas, religious belief (or the rejection thereof) included.  So if you can't see the connection between casting a skeptical eye towards one idea or philosophy and fanatically adhering to an alternative (often opposite), then... what can I tell you?

And, once again, skepticism is neither unique to atheism nor an essential component of it.  In fact depending on the wider cultural/ideological  context and the brand of atheism in question, skepticism may not even be present at all, or even actively rejected and discouraged. 

Ah.  Once again the issue of multiple definitions rears its ugly head.  I thouight you were refering to the actual philosophy of skepticism (which is where one requires scientificly sound evidence to justify belief in a claim), rather than merely questioning something when you said that skepticism just as often leads to religious devotion.  I consider myself a skeptic of the first definition and that's how I think of skepticism in general.  Thus, my confusion.

Modifié par Swagger7, 21 novembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[Swagger7]

Maddok900 wrote...

As an atheist, I like playing faithful characters in role playing games. Even when I have the option to state my belief, I usually choose to align myself with a religion.

Well I can't shoot fireballs or cut monsters in half with my giant axe in real life, so why not try something different about philosophy too? I'm bored with my real self, playing me all day everyday, when I have the chance to be something marginally different why not take it? Playing a character who believes in the maker and prays to him makes me feel like acting, choosing a role to play and trying to stay faithful to my role, which is quite fun in a video game or tabletop frp.

I'm the same way with other fictional game religions (the Nine Divines of Skyrim for example), but not Andrasteanism.  Why?  Because the Chantry of Andraste is a fantasy carbon copy of a real religion which I was once a part of.  I take serious issue with the real religion (for reasons I will not go into here, as I don't want to get the thread locked).  Therefore, I have no desire to roleplay as a follower of the fictional counterpart. 

I have no problem with those who wish to roleplay as devout Andrasteans, or who wish to roleplay as ambivalent ones.  The point is, this should be a choice.  A large number of people roleplay as themselves.  Another large group roleplay as fictional characters but still dislike the Chantry as I do.  We should not be forced into either support or opposition on such a weighty issue.  Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that:

David Gaider wrote...

Okay, so. Without going into specifics on the plot of DA3, because I can't do that, I will say the following:

You
aren't going to be forced to serve the Chantry or even think it's a
good thing. You aren't forced to express belief in the Maker. I said
previously we would try to allow options to actively express doubt, if
that's your thing, so long as it works in context. You of course will
also have the option to do the opposite.

Ultimately, the ability
to determine the personality and/or feelings on your own character is
one of the fundamental strengths of an RPG, and one that DA is sticking
with. Yes, it must also work within the context of the setting and the
plot-- you can't do anything-- but that's always been the case
with any game, and in the case of DA3 it is not required that you be
forced into a certain set of beliefs in order to make it work.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14614580/4#14615791

That's good enough for me!

[Blight Nug]

Xilizhra wrote...

Scientific evidence is not reserved for atheists
only. Religious people also apply the scientific method, but sometimes with
different initial assumptions. Atheistic initial assumptions are not more
scientific by definition.

There are no "atheistic initial assumptions." What we start off with is nothing, and then we try to learn through observation what things are. The religious side, far too often, simply starts with assumptions that are impossible to prove.

Atheists don't start off with nothing. Nothing
begets anything.


I'll show you an atheistic assumption. There is no
intelligent designer of the universe, thus all complexity and functionality we
observe must be caused by blind natural forces alone. This assertion is impossible to
prove, but is the foundation of how materialist atheists build their
understanding of the origin of the universe and complexity in life on earth.


I find the burden of proof argument to be an poor
one. The line of logic favors assertion that makes the universe more
"empty". For example, "I don't believe our senses and cognitive
abilities are reliable, it is your burden to prove to me that we actually can
know truth. The most logical assertion is that we know nothing and can know
nothing" This goes back to your statement of atheists start with nothing. If you actually did, you would conclude in nothing as well.

Zobo wrote...
You are trying to demonstrate that theism and atheism are equally scientific, but that is a fallacy and not true at all. The burden of proof lies on those assuming something does exist, there are no proof of god available thus according to scientific principle of Occam's razor the whole question of god has nothing to do with science. That may change should someone find a proof in the future, until then - no.

I believe there is good reason to believe in the
existence of god, and more so than disbelief in god.

You may or may not have heard
of the reasons that religious people have to offer, and you may or may not
agree. But we do believe reason and rationality is on our side. I'll leave it
at that. IF anyone wishes to go further on this topic, I'm sure Google can find
them something. I actually believe atheism and theism are equally a-scientific,
because the scientific method is but a tool that favors neither worldview. 



Religion is not reserved for
conservative old white folks that get emotionally worked up easily.
There are scientists, engineers, lawyers and philosophers among our ranks. Both
atheists and theists come in many flavors, and both sides have logical and
clear thinking individuals with good arguments for their belief. Obviously one
of us has to be wrong, but I resent the tactics of claiming "science"
or logic belongs to one side and not the other. 

None of this stupid debate would have happened on BSN, if the first few athesits didn't say things that imply religious people IRL lack evidence and rational thinking. This could have been a friendly and fun thread if we kept to the DA universe. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

@OP

No.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 21 novembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[Swagger7]

Blight Nug wrote...


I'll show you an atheistic assumption. There is no
intelligent designer of the universe, thus all complexity and functionality we
observe must be caused by blind natural forces alone. This assertion is impossible to
prove, but is the foundation of how materialist atheists build their
understanding of the origin of the universe and complexity in life on earth.

Not believing in an intelligent designer and actively believing there isn't one are two very different things.  Very few scientifically minded atheists would make the assertion that "There is no
intelligent designer of the universe".  You are setting up a straw man, albeit probably unintentionally.  The statement should read something like this:  "There is little to no credible evidence for the existance of a designer, thus I feel belief in one is not justified." That is far more representative of the position that an atheist such as myself holds, and is a conclusion based on inquiry rather than an assumption. 

Note that I have no interest in arguing with you over which is ultimately correct, theism or atheism.  I do not prosteletize.  I merely wish to correct an error which you (and many others) seem to have in your understanding of what atheism is and what it isn't.

None of this stupid debate would have happened on BSN, if the first few
athesits didn't say things that imply religious people IRL lack evidence
and rational thinking. This could have been a friendly and fun thread
if we kept to the DA universe. 

IIRC those atheists were doing what I am doing here and trying to clear up misunderstandings about where atheism comes from expressed by those arguing against the existance of atheism in Thedas.  No matter.  In a thread like this debate is going to happen no matter what.

Modifié par Swagger7, 21 novembre 2012 - 10:54 .

[Zobo]

Blight Nug wrote...

I actually believe atheism and theism are equally a-scientific,
because the scientific method is but a tool that favors neither worldview.

Yup, scientific method ignores the god issue for there is no proof. Exactly. That is the same reason why I ignore faith as well. And that makes me an atheist by definition. Scientific method = ignore the unprovable.

Blight Nug wrote...

I'll show you an atheistic assumption. There is no
intelligent designer of the universe, thus all complexity and functionality we
observe must be caused by blind natural forces alone. This assertion is impossible to
prove, but is the foundation of how materialist atheists build their
understanding of the origin of the universe and complexity in life on earth.

All wrong. There is no pre-assumption that there is no intelligent designer.
Also for the question of complexity in life on earth the answer is evolution and newer has it been build on pre-assumptions of that there is no god. It has been build on evidence such as fossil records, genetic code, anatomical studies, observations etc. Charles Darwin was a believer, he didn't construct the famous evolution theory because of loosing his faith, he actually lost his faith as a result of his evolution theory. Can you see the major difference here? Also there are so many things proving evolution even The Catholic Church actually had to accept it.

Blight Nug wrote...

Religion is not reserved for
conservative old white folks that get emotionally worked up easily.
There are scientists, engineers, lawyers and philosophers among our ranks.

Yet let's be truthful with the statistics.

"Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
Leading Scientists Still Reject God
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God."

You still have some scientists, but not all that much really. Religion is on it's decline right now.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Zobo wrote...

Blight Nug wrote...

I actually believe atheism and theism are equally a-scientific,
because the scientific method is but a tool that favors neither worldview.

Yup, scientific method ignores the god issue for there is no proof. Exactly. That is the same reason why I ignore faith as well. And that makes me an atheist by definition. Scientific method = ignore the unprovable.

Blight Nug wrote...

I'll show you an atheistic assumption. There is no
intelligent designer of the universe, thus all complexity and functionality we
observe must be caused by blind natural forces alone. This assertion is impossible to
prove, but is the foundation of how materialist atheists build their
understanding of the origin of the universe and complexity in life on earth.

All wrong. There is no pre-assumption that there is no intelligent designer.
Also for the question of complexity in life on earth the answer is evolution and newer has it been build on pre-assumptions of that there is no god. It has been build on evidence such as fossil records, genetic code, anatomical studies, observations etc. Charles Darwin was a believer, he didn't construct the famous evolution theory because of loosing his faith, he actually lost his faith as a result of his evolution theory. Can you see the major difference here? Also there are so many things proving evolution even The Catholic Church actually had to accept it.

Blight Nug wrote...

Religion is not reserved for
conservative old white folks that get emotionally worked up easily.
There are scientists, engineers, lawyers and philosophers among our ranks.

Yet let's be truthful with the statistics.

"Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
Leading Scientists Still Reject God
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God."

You still have some scientists, but not all that much really. Religion is on it's decline right now.

Zobo, Zobo, Zobo...

So much to say, so little time, and with the Damoclean sword of Thread Closing ever present...

Just for the record, according to worldwide surveys, right now, Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the planet, with an annual increase of 8% per year; and if your personal calculator has a compound function, you can quickly figure out how quickly the entire world could be "converted..." (Hint it is far sooner than you might think).

You remind me of a professor from Berkley who cried out in pained amazement when Ronald Reagan was elected, "But nobody I know voted for him!" (Second hint, do not presume that what is firmly believed today in the academic community will still be believed in fifty years...)

Anyways, getting back to DA related; one of the main differences between our world and Thedas is that they have frequent, recurring, and observable demonstrations of the "supernatural." Yet, as I have maintained from the beginning, there are various explanations of that "supernatural" phenomenon. Each "explanation" has "evidence" to support their claims (and Zobo, you seem to keep confusing "evidence" with "proof" they are not the same thing and it confuses issues when you use them interchangeably. Very little has been "proven" in science - hypothesis may be widely accepted, have massive amounts of evidence to support them, but are not "proven" because paradigms undergo constant revision; see "Kuhn").

Which explanation is the "true" one has not and probably never will be revealed by the DA "creators." Therefore within the world, as it has been presented, some humans might well be critical of some of the Chantry's claims (as many people have already pointed out) but I seriously doubt that any would fit our real world definition of an "atheist" which relies on a strict materialism as its fundamental axiom.

[Xilizhra]

I'll show you an atheistic assumption. There is no
intelligent designer of the universe, thus all complexity and functionality we
observe must be caused by blind natural forces alone. This assertion is impossible to
prove, but is the foundation of how materialist atheists build their
understanding of the origin of the universe and complexity in life on earth.

No it's not. You've completely made that up. That's a probable conclusion, not an initial assumption. Moreover, it's not something that's proven because proving a negative is impossible. We do not, however, see any proof for an intelligent designer.

I find the burden of proof argument to be an poor
one. The line of logic favors assertion that makes the universe more
"empty". For example, "I don't believe our senses and cognitive
abilities are reliable, it is your burden to prove to me that we actually can
know truth. The most logical assertion is that we know nothing and can know
nothing" This goes back to your statement of atheists start with nothing. If you actually did, you would conclude in nothing as well.

You had to use your own cognitive abilities to come to that conclusion, so to follow that train of thought, that conclusion itself is unreliable. This is an infinite loop that most people ignore because it gets in the way without producing anything.

Religion is not reserved for
conservative old white folks that get emotionally worked up easily.
There are scientists, engineers, lawyers and philosophers among our ranks. Both
atheists and theists come in many flavors, and both sides have logical and
clear thinking individuals with good arguments for their belief. Obviously one
of us has to be wrong, but I resent the tactics of claiming "science"
or logic belongs to one side and not the other.

Actually, both of us could be wrong. Or, perhaps, both of us could be right in ways as well. It's not either/or, given the infinite number of possibilities behind the truth of the universe, most of which would be too alien for us to comprehend right now.

None of this stupid debate would have happened on BSN, if the first few athesits didn't say things that imply religious people IRL lack evidence and rational thinking. This could have been a friendly and fun thread if we kept to the DA universe.

I do not believe you've sufficiently proved the existence of any evidence.

Just for the record, according to worldwide surveys, right now, Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the planet, with an annual increase of 8% per year; and if your personal calculator has a compound function, you can quickly figure out how quickly the entire world could be "converted..." (Hint it is far sooner than you might think).

I'm going to need a source on that, because I was under the impression that Islam held that card. Either way, you think to convert the whole planet? Good luck on that. I'm also wondering where this growth is happening, and what this has to do with the specific data regarding scientists.

Which explanation is the "true" one has not and probably never will be revealed by the DA "creators." Therefore within the world, as it has been presented, some humans might well be critical of some of the Chantry's claims (as many people have already pointed out) but I seriously doubt that any would fit our real world definition of an "atheist" which relies on a strict materialism as its fundamental axiom.

All they have to do is not believe in the Maker or any other higher power.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Xilizhra wrote...

SNIP

Just for the record, according to worldwide surveys, right now, Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the planet, with an annual increase of 8% per year; and if your personal calculator has a compound function, you can quickly figure out how quickly the entire world could be "converted..." (Hint it is far sooner than you might think).

I'm going to need a source on that, because I was under the impression that Islam held that card. Either way, you think to convert the whole planet? Good luck on that. I'm also wondering where this growth is happening, and what this has to do with the specific data regarding scientists.

All they have to do is not believe in the Maker or any other higher power.

Two things quickly; first, I said nothing about "converting the whole planet." I merely mentioned a statistic about the growth of Christianity. Undoubtedly, much of that growth is the result of larger family sizes in third world nations (where most of the growth is occuring - though it seems to also be spreading like wildfire in China).

Secondly, it is a basic, sociological observation that growing populations displace stagnant, or declining ones. Populations in all Western, secularized nations are declining at what some are calling an "alarming" rate. Western Europe, Japan and other secular nations are all at sub-zero replacement rates. The United States population is growing only because of immigration. The only sub-groups in America whose population is growing are Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and the like.

These replacement populations do not accept secularism, materialism or even "atheism" as a part of their cultural heritage - most are outwardly antagonistic towards these explanations.

Tentative conclusion; with changing population dynamics, the values, beliefs and priorities of nations will also change. Eventually, these new cultural values will obtain positions in schools, universities, and other academic institutions.

It looks as if religious people are not the ones who are going to have to do some converting...

And in regards to "not believe in the Maker or any higher power." The Dalish, Qunari and Dwarfs all reject the concept of the Maker - so that is already in game. However, would you consider demons, spirits, Old Gods, etc. to be "higher powers?" I think that to understand your position here, we need to clarify our terms again.

[Xilizhra]

These replacement populations do not accept secularism, materialism or even "atheism" as a part of their cultural heritage - most are outwardly antagonistic towards these explanations.

So were the current groups, once. Moreover, "secularism" isn't about being atheistic oneself, but about not letting religion dominate governmental affairs. Given the slow but steady liberalization of many religious organizations around the world, I believe we're headed in the right direction there. In any case, the educated have always had lower birthrates; that's never stopped the growth of knowledge before.

And in regards to "not believe in the Maker or any higher power." The
Dalish, Qunari and Dwarfs all reject the concept of the Maker - so that
is already in game. However, would you consider demons, spirits, Old
Gods, etc. to be "higher powers?" I think that to understand your
position here, we need to clarify our terms again.

Not inherently, no.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 novembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Xilizhra wrote...

These replacement populations do not accept secularism, materialism or even "atheism" as a part of their cultural heritage - most are outwardly antagonistic towards these explanations.

So were the current groups, once. Moreover, "secularism" isn't about being atheistic oneself, but about not letting religion dominate governmental affairs. Given the slow but steady liberalization of many religious organizations around the world, I believe we're headed in the right direction there.

And in regards to "not believe in the Maker or any higher power." The
Dalish, Qunari and Dwarfs all reject the concept of the Maker - so that
is already in game. However, would you consider demons, spirits, Old
Gods, etc. to be "higher powers?" I think that to understand your
position here, we need to clarify our terms again.

Not inherently, no.

Historically speaking, secularism in Western Europe grew out of the Protestant Reformation and Thirty Years War. Religion was seen as too dangerous to serve as the basis of the civil order. That view then was turned on its head by WW1, II and the horrors under Communism (200 million killed and counting...). Secular ideologies and the death toll they spawned make the religious wars of the 17th century look like school yard brawls.

Also, a reserach study I referenced in an earlier post; people went from a religious worldview, to a secular one, not because they had analysed and weighed the differences, but because the religious worldview was no longer accepted in their new social circles.

However, with secular cultures declining in population, and religious cultures increasing, the social pressure is now working for "the other side." Tentative conclusion; as the population pendulum swings, secularism will lose its appeal for the same sociological dynamics that once affected religious people.

And the same population dynamic affects all the "mainstream" religious organizations, worldwide. The more "liberal" such an organization becomes, the faster it loses membership. It is only the most conservative of religious people; i.,e., those who really do "believe" in whatever their religion teaches, who will not accomodate to secularism and materialism. After all, they have had four hundred years of seeing what secularism does to society...

The reason I asked about "higher powers" in Thedas has to do with a recurring thorn throughout this thread; is the "magic" in Thedas actually "supernatural" in nature?" As one member posted, are spirits/demons just an exotic form of life, to be classifed like any other species? Or are they actually of a completely different order of being?

We do seem to have two distinct worlds- one that operates just like ours on a material level (people are born, grow up, grow old, die, people need to farm, materials can be fashioned into tools, etc.) and another realm where non-corporial beings exist. It certainly looks as if Kant's noumenal has invaded the phenomenal of Thedas...

[Xilizhra]

Historically speaking, secularism in Western Europe grew out of the Protestant Reformation and Thirty Years War. Religion was seen as too dangerous to serve as the basis of the civil order. That view then was turned on its head by WW1, II and the horrors under Communism (200 million killed and counting...). Secular ideologies and the death toll they spawned make the religious wars of the 17th century look like school yard brawls.

No they don't. Not only were many of those not wholly secular, higher death tolls were solely due to higher technology.

Also, a reserach study I referenced in an earlier post; people went from a religious worldview, to a secular one, not because they had analysed and weighed the differences, but because the religious worldview was no longer accepted in their new social circles.

Allow me to apply extreme skepticism to this.

And the same population dynamic affects all the "mainstream" religious organizations, worldwide. The more "liberal" such an organization becomes, the faster it loses membership. It is only the most conservative of religious people; i.,e., those who really do "believe" in whatever their religion teaches, who will not accomodate to secularism and materialism. After all, they have had four hundred years of seeing what secularism does to society...

On the whole, it's done far, far more good than harm. There have been secular ideologies that have been harmful, but they have not been rationalist; they were just different forms of cults that used the state as an object of worship. Religious pluralism, education and rationalism are all extremely, unequivocally good for society.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Xilizhra wrote...

Historically speaking, secularism in Western Europe grew out of the Protestant Reformation and Thirty Years War. Religion was seen as too dangerous to serve as the basis of the civil order. That view then was turned on its head by WW1, II and the horrors under Communism (200 million killed and counting...). Secular ideologies and the death toll they spawned make the religious wars of the 17th century look like school yard brawls.

No they don't. Not only were many of those not wholly secular, higher death tolls were solely due to higher technology.

Also, a reserach study I referenced in an earlier post; people went from a religious worldview, to a secular one, not because they had analysed and weighed the differences, but because the religious worldview was no longer accepted in their new social circles.

Allow me to apply extreme skepticism to this.

And the same population dynamic affects all the "mainstream" religious organizations, worldwide. The more "liberal" such an organization becomes, the faster it loses membership. It is only the most conservative of religious people; i.,e., those who really do "believe" in whatever their religion teaches, who will not accomodate to secularism and materialism. After all, they have had four hundred years of seeing what secularism does to society...

On the whole, it's done far, far more good than harm. There have been secular ideologies that have been harmful, but they have not been rationalist; they were just different forms of cults that used the state as an object of worship. Religious pluralism, education and rationalism are all extremely, unequivocally good for society.

Gonna let you have the last word on this one since to discuss it in detail would certainly bring down the wrath of the Mods for going off-topic. Of course you are right to be skeptical about any claim on the Internet but that reference to how people go from a religious to a secular worldview is right out of my doctoral dissertation in the sociology of religion (and if I hadn't promised you the last word, I would dig it out give you the actual studies).

[Silfren]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

SNIP

Just for the record, according to worldwide surveys, right now, Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the planet, with an annual increase of 8% per year; and if your personal calculator has a compound function, you can quickly figure out how quickly the entire world could be "converted..." (Hint it is far sooner than you might think).

I'm going to need a source on that, because I was under the impression that Islam held that card. Either way, you think to convert the whole planet? Good luck on that. I'm also wondering where this growth is happening, and what this has to do with the specific data regarding scientists.

All they have to do is not believe in the Maker or any other higher power.

Two things quickly; first, I said nothing about "converting the whole planet." I merely mentioned a statistic about the growth of Christianity. Undoubtedly, much of that growth is the result of larger family sizes in third world nations (where most of the growth is occuring - though it seems to also be spreading like wildfire in China).

Yes, you actually DID say somethying about converting the whole planet.  Go re-read the bit of your statement that was quoted.  I underlined it for ya.  Also, you ignored the request for a source.  That's a pretty big claim to make without backing it up.  Like the other person, I've read stats that give the honor to Islam, and others that give it to Paganism.  

Secondly, it is a basic, sociological observation that growing populations displace stagnant, or declining ones. Populations in all Western, secularized nations are declining at what some are calling an "alarming" rate. Western Europe, Japan and other secular nations are all at sub-zero replacement rates. The United States population is growing only because of immigration. The only sub-groups in America whose population is growing are Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and the like.

You got a source for the claim that certain populations within Western, secular nations are declining?  And I'd like one that does NOT come from a religious organization, if you please.  Because I've heard this rhetoric about non-replacement population problems before, and they always have come from people and organizations relying on scare tactics to promote an agenda.

Modifié par Silfren, 22 novembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[Silfren]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Gonna let you have the last word on this one since to discuss it in detail would certainly bring down the wrath of the Mods for going off-topic. Of course you are right to be skeptical about any claim on the Internet but that reference to how people go from a religious to a secular worldview is right out of my doctoral dissertation in the sociology of religion (and if I hadn't promised you the last word, I would dig it out give you the actual studies).

"I was totally gonna give you a source to back up my claim, but I promised you I'd shut up.  Too bad!"

How convenient.

[Zobo]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Just for the record, according to worldwide surveys, right now, Christianity is the fastest growing religion on the planet, with an annual increase of 8% per year; and if your personal calculator has a compound function, you can quickly figure out how quickly the entire world could be "converted..." (Hint it is far sooner than you might think).

Well, as you have also mentioned after writing this, Christianity hight grows rates are due to uneducated backwater countries, while it declines in the civilized world. So nothing to be proud about. I mean I'm not surprised Christianity have solid positions in Africa where people to this day believe in witches and carry out witch-trials. I wish I were joking here, but that's their harsh reality. Not all that difficult to brainwash convert people of that kind.

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Secondly, it is a basic, sociological observation that growing populations displace stagnant, or declining ones. Populations in all Western, secularized nations are declining at what some are calling an "alarming" rate. Western Europe, Japan and other secular nations are all at sub-zero replacement rates. The United States population is growing only because of immigration. The only sub-groups in America whose population is growing are Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and the like.

These replacement populations do not accept secularism, materialism or even "atheism" as a part of their cultural heritage - most are outwardly antagonistic towards these explanations.

Transhumanism will save us .

[Blight Nug]

Swagger7 wrote...
Not believing in an intelligent designer and actively believing there isn't one are two very different things.  Very few scientifically minded atheists would make the assertion that "There is noIntelligent designer of the universe".  You are setting up a straw man, albeit probably unintentionally.  The statement should read something like this:  "There is little to no credible evidence for the existence of a designer, thus I feel belief in one is not justified." That is far more representative of the position that an atheist such as myself holds, and is a conclusion based on inquiry rather than an assumption.  
Note that I have no interest in arguing with you over which is ultimately correct, theism or atheism.  I do not prosteletize.  I merely wish to correct an error which you (and many others) seem to have in your understanding of what atheism is and what it isn't.

Zobo wrote...All wrong. There is no pre-assumption that there is no intelligent designer.Also for the question of complexity in life on earth the answer is evolution and newer has it been build on pre-assumptions of that there is no god. It has been build on evidence such as fossil records, genetic code, anatomical studies, observations etc. Charles Darwin was a believer, he didn't construct the famous evolution theory because of loosing his faith, he actually lost his faith as a result of his evolution theory. Can you see the major difference here? Also there are so many things proving evolution even The Catholic Church actually had to accept it.

It is an assumption in regards to origin of the universe and evolution. We must assume no powerful intelligent agent ever tampered with what we observed if we want to theorize how natural forces alone have created what we see. These atheistic scientific theories are later used as evidence against belief in a supreme designer because "they explain everything already so there is no need to invoke a god". Each worldview forms a cycle than continues to validate itself. Whether the scientists make a strong claim on the designer or not is irrelevant to the fact that their theories only function assuming there isn't one (that interfered with the world).
I'm not claiming all atheists came to their worldviews with assumptions to start with, I'm saying there are scientific theories that have atheistic assumptions, and set a cycle in motion. 
The theory of evolution is a interpretation of observations that assumes natural laws were the only relevant agents in the origin of biological complexity and variety. Darwin observed that natural laws can change biological life, so he hypothesized that all biological life was created by the changing force of nature alone. This hypothesis includes the assumption that no supreme being interfered, though not a personal assumption at that point. Once the theory became stronger, he recognized the incompatibility of his theory and his religion and concluded his theory was more substantiated. This doesn't change the fact that his theory had a non-biblical assumption that destined it to go against his religious faith. 

IIRC those atheists were doing what I am doing here and trying to clear up misunderstandings about where atheism comes from expressed by those arguing against the existence of atheism in Thedas.  No matter.  In a thread like this debate is going to happen no matter what.

Somebody was already favoring atheism in Thedas said something along the lines of "maybe the people in Thedas have more reasons to believe in theism than we have IRL", so he was clearly implying religious people IRL don't have good reasons for their stance. 

Modifié par Blight Nug, 22 novembre 2012 - 08:41 .

[Wulfram]

I think a few good heresies would be more fun.

How about a nice bit of syncreticism? Only by embracing the Qun can we save the world from sin and earn the Maker's forgiveness!

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 novembre 2012 - 09:40 .

[thats1evildude]

I would prefer the option to affirm my personal belief that Optimus Prime is my saviour.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 22 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

All this discussions usually boils to the same.

Atheists thinking themselves smarter, more educated, more rational, more whatever - thus looking down on religious folk. If not outright saying, they imply the above things in their posts.
Religious folk retaliate and thus spark a flame war.

I've been on hunderds of forums and seen thousands of religious debates. 99 times out of 100 it's the atheist that starts it.

And now, atheists are going to feel insulted and will start formulating a rebuttal/reply, completely ignoring that that same outrage they feel now is what religious folk feel when they are looking down at them and implying their superiority.

See how easy it is? It is for this exact reason I avoid talking about religion at all.
Religion = worldview.
Atheism = worldview.
They run trough every facet of our life. When you attack it, poeple WILL react.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 novembre 2012 - 11:54 .

[AshenShug4r]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

All this discussions usually boils to the same.

Atheists thinking themselves smarter, more educated, more rational, more whatever - thus looking down on religious folk. If not outright saying, they imply the above things in their posts.

Religious folk retaliate and thus spark a flame war.

It seems pretty rampant on both sides.

I've been on hunderds of forums and seen thousands of religious debates. 99 times out of 100 it's the atheist that starts it.

Unsubstantiated claim that means nothing.

And now, atheists are going to feel insulted and will start formulating a rebuttal/reply, completely ignoring that that same outrage they feel now is what religious folk feel when they are looking down at them and implying their superiority.

So you're basically being just as bad as the atheists you are criticizing?

See how easy it is? It is for this exact reason I avoid talking about religion at all.

Except for this post, I take it.