398 réponses à ce sujet

[Curlain]

Bigoted people and zealots come from all walks of life, and it is a fanatical devotion to a ideology that could be anything, secular, religious, atheistic etc, and it is rather narrow minded to state these are evils that only occur in religious groups. You find these traits in all human ideologies, and devotion to religion is far from the only cause throughout history for bloodshed, racial hatred without any religious influence has been as great a cause of bloodshed, or for revenge over the ancient wrongs of another group (major justification for Alexander's invasion of Persian lands, to avenge the Persian attacks on Greece) and without taking away from events such as crusades or jihads through history, fanatical non-religious ideologies have also produced massive death tolls and oppression through history, Atheistic communist ideologies saw the death of over 20 million people in Soviet Russia during Stalin's period in power (not to mention the high extent of torture and persecution carried out) together with the all groups not agreeing in any way with the Soviet view of Communism being outlawed and persecuted (this including all kinds of ideological groups including Menshevik alternative Communist group through to the Orthodox Russian church), similar evens happened in China under Mao and in Cambodia where Pol Pot Communist group attempted to kill all intellectuals throughout his country. Fascist ideologies like ****sm are also based largely on a perverse view on natural selection (with the ****s even producing education films to be shown to the German people in their cinemas) that were used to justify the Aryan race as the true master race, and that Slavic, Romani and Jewish races were complete inferiority (and sub-human) to justify the invasions of these people's lands and the horrific crimes committed against these peoples.



So yes, religions of various sorts have been perverted and used to justify terrible actions through history, but so has every other ideology that humanity has come up with, and yes there are bigots and racists who are religious, but there are equally those who are not. No one viewpoint has a manopoly on having bigoted a**s in their ranks I'm afraid

[Tirigon]

Well, you are right, but I thought that was obvious. I sometimes forget that it´s not common knowledge what f*cking dumbasses fascists, racists and Stalinists are. Sorry.

[Addai]

Tirigon wrote...

draxynnus wrote...

As an agnostic myself, that statement just made me cringe. Most people I know who are religious are no more (or less) intrinsically intelligent or bigotted then those who aren't. Yes, there are a few bad apples and yes, the scum has a tendency to float to the top, but isn't that true in pretty much any group of people?

Well, if they are NOT bigotted then they are not truly religious, probably. A firm faith DEMANDS intolerance towards others and a lack of thinking.
Take the Catholic church as example: They regard their fate as the only true faith ( that is, if you accept other religions you are unfaithful) and think the Pope was highest authority in religious matters (so having an opinion that differs from his is forbidden = no own thinking allowed).

An irony... your views seem to me to be quite bigoted.  Nevertheless, sad to see a dicussion of a video game devolve into an anti-religious discussion.

As for the templars, the game presents you with those who are sympathetic and those less so.  That's how I prefer to take it.  Some of them are so honorable that even my characters who didn't like the chantry had to respect them.  Ser Bryant in Lothering, for instance.  It also gives you numerous opportunities to see that many of them had no choice in becoming templars and that it can be a quite lonely and unsatisfying existence.

[Tirigon]

Addai67 wrote...

An irony... your views seem to me to be quite bigoted.  Nevertheless, sad to see a dicussion of a video game devolve into an anti-religious discussion.

How so, if I may ask?

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 janvier 2010 - 04:47 .

[I Valente I]

Tirigon wrote...

Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own.

this is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on the internet.

Modifié par I Valente I, 18 janvier 2010 - 05:29 .

[Tirigon]

I Valente I wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own.

this is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on the internet.

Yours beats it for sure. :P:P:P

Care to say Why? Why is my experience with religious people stupid? I think the people who gave it to me are stupid.

[Tirigon]

Caladhiel wrote...

Why? Because throwing everyone into one pot is always stupid. 

Sadly, no.
In my experience most humans lack personality and individuality, so you can as well throw them in one pot.

[Xandurpein]

Tirigon wrote...

Caladhiel wrote...

Why? Because throwing everyone into one pot is always stupid. 

Sadly, no.
In my experience most humans lack personality and individuality, so you can as well throw them in one pot.

In my experience all human beings are unique and individual, if you care to look that is.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

In my experience all human beings are unique and individual, if you care to look that is.

Then I´d love to live where you live, the people there seem to be more interesting and likable.

[Xandurpein]

Tirigon wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

In my experience all human beings are unique and individual, if you care to look that is.

Then I´d love to live where you live, the people there seem to be more interesting and likable.

It's just planet Earth like the rest of us I'm afraid. I just think that realizing the uniqueness in others is a matter of looking for it.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...


It's just planet Earth like the rest of us I'm afraid. I just think that realizing the uniqueness in others is a matter of looking for it.

Oh that´s surely true. But I know plenty of people in whom you wouldn´t find uniqueness if you´d cut them open and look inside (metaphorically speaking).

[Xandurpein]

@Tirigon

"You are all individuals!"
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"I'm not..."

(Life of Brian - awesome movie)

Modifié par Xandurpein, 18 janvier 2010 - 07:27 .

[Lord Phoebus]

I think the quality of follower depends on the tenets religion to some degree. The RCC made it illegal for people to own a bible and study their own faith, they had to rely on the official version from the church. When you tell poeple who are kept ingorant for purposes of maintaining control, that killing X is the will of the God and they will go to Heaven when they die. It's pretty easy to get an army. This was to a large degree why the Roman Empire embraced Christianity; it's easier to convince people who believe a glorious afterlife will follow to fight and die than it was to convince followers of the Roman state religion or atheists. It's also important to realize that the Church in in medieval Europe was the vesitigial corpse of the Roman Empire; it had armies, it had land, it had wealth and it had a vested interest in maintaining those resources (The reason that preists can't marry is so that church property can't be inherited by their offspring).



I've read the holy books of many religions and there is wisdom there, even if I found no truth. I don't have a problem with personal religion, if there is a belief that gives you comfort and clarity in this world more power to you. I do have a problem with organized religion, religion should be a personal; between you, your scripture and your god. Once you let your religion be dictated by an intermediary, you are no longer following the scripture, but following the intermediary. Unlike deities, people are fallible (sorry Pope). I also have a problem with dogma, and a large group of people with the same dogmatic creed is always dangerous, as you can't reason with dogma by its very nature.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

@Tirigon

"You are all individuals!"
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"I'm not..."

(Life of Brian - awesome movie)

I see I need to watch it again. I´m ashamed to have forgotten such nice lines.

[mrofni]

Tirigon wrote...

Besides, most terrible things in human history would not have happened without religion.  So this sort of proves my point: Without religion the world would definitely be off better.

I would argue differently. There have been plenty of horrific actions in the history of the world without having anything to do with religion. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, were all leaders that commited great atrocities against their own people. This wasn't done for religious reasons, it was done for control.

There is also an inherit contradiction of their own religion when people do such crimes for their religion. I mean really. The majority of religions have their own beliefs that killing, stealing, lying, and just general cruelty is wrong. In fact, most religions even have sections preaching that persecuting other religions is wrong as well. Lets look at 3 of the most prominent religions in the world. Christianity, Buddism, and Islam. Their prophets, Jesus, Buddah, and Muhammad, all taught others to be good people. To judge others by how good of a person they are, not by any religion, race, or even sex.

With so many other instances of atrocities and the inherit contradiction of their own religion for those who do commit atrocities, I would say that religion has nothing to do with it. That religion is simply a means to their end. I would go so far to argue that those terrible deeds would have still happened if religion simply didn't exist. Those same terrible people might not have commited the same atrocity, but they would have commited another all the same. Those people never turned evil because of the religion. They would have been just as evil without it, and they would have tried to do something without it as well.

The entire argument that religion is the cause of all that evil is kind of ridiculous. It is like blaming guns for all the violence in cities. IT was equally violent before guns. A gun is simply a tool. It can be used for good or evil. Religion is exactly the same way. People can use it to become good people, or they could use it to persecute.

[Tirigon]

Funnily enough, you are right about most religions forbidding violence. Sadly, however, this does not prevent people like the inquisitors and crusaders in the past, or the islamist terrorists today, from killing innocents "in the name of god".



However, religion is not innocent: Your comparison of religion with guns fails insofar, as the gun makes killing easier and quicker. Religion justifies it. Without religion, most crimes would have been impossible for lack of acceptance in the population.



Take the hate for jews in the medieval as example: The REAL reason to mistreat and frequently rob or kill them was envy for their riches. But not even the vilest dictator allows oppressing people for being richer. Oppressing or killing them because they are "Jesus-murderers" however was ok. Even Hitler used this as justification and "proof" for his crimes against jews, and that was why many christians didn´t oppose.

[RangerSG]

Tirigon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

wwwwowwww
Organized religions, wether in a fantasy setting or in real life seem
to have one constant. Controlling people via fear of the unknown.

Pfft. You fear organized religion because of the power it has, because of it's influence. But that influence is the product of the numbers of it's followers. The by-produict of it's size and importance in everyday life.

If insted of the church you had the "international atheist society" with just as much power, would you speak so loudly againt it? No, you wouldn't.

Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own. So there is reason to fear and hate religions, but no reasons to fear atheists.
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

That's a bigoted statement. Thank you for making it clear that atheists can be just as narrow-minded as you think religious people are. You don't know enough people to say "usually" about either one. I've had my fair share of bigoted atheists who think that any expression of faith in their presence is a personal attack.

[KnightofPhoenix]

robertthebard wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Althernai wrote...

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.

That was over a thousand years ago. There is no way it would even have been a factor if it had not become one of the cornerstones of the Chantry's worldview.

The fact it happened thousands of years ago doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. So it should always be a factor to keep in mind.

@ Tirigon. I would love to tell you how wrong you are, but it's off-topic and I don't want to derail the thread more than it has already been derailed.

People have also freely elected men into office that the world views as irredeemably evil, so perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to vote? 

I never said that. But all constitutional republics or democracies today have consitutional arrangements to make sure that the people cannot simply reverse the system when they feel like it, presicely because we know what would happen if they have that power.
Any succesful democracy or Republic has this factor in mind. That mob rule is dangerous.

Likewise, we must also keep in mind that Mages in power is also potentially dangerous.
I am not defending the system. But to simply dismiss the Tevinter experience as "a very old thing that won't happen again" is imprudent.

And it's extremily rare for a group of people to be able to police themselvs effectively and objectively.
One solution is to lead a gradually inclusionary system, where the mages are absorbed into society. In such a way that being a mage no longer consitutes a unique group or class, if you will.

[karma_killer09]

why does everything have to be about religion or no religion or blah blah blah, cant people just talk about a game and remember this is a fantasy game so it really doesn't matter what your beliefs are

[mrofni]

Tirigon wrote...

Funnily enough, you are right about most religions forbidding violence. Sadly, however, this does not prevent people like the inquisitors and crusaders in the past, or the islamist terrorists today, from killing innocents "in the name of god".

However, religion is not innocent: Your comparison of religion with guns fails insofar, as the gun makes killing easier and quicker. Religion justifies it. Without religion, most crimes would have been impossible for lack of acceptance in the population.

Take the hate for jews in the medieval as example: The REAL reason to mistreat and frequently rob or kill them was envy for their riches. But not even the vilest dictator allows oppressing people for being richer. Oppressing or killing them because they are "Jesus-murderers" however was ok. Even Hitler used this as justification and "proof" for his crimes against jews, and that was why many christians didn´t oppose.

However, if you say that there is no religion, then those Christians wouldn't be Christians, they would be something else. Who's to say that he still wouldn't have convinced them anyway? It isn't unreasonable that he wouldn't have just found another means to achieve his plans. The idea of "no religion" doesn't prevent those same crimes to happen for the real reasons you mentioned. In fact, you implied that them being Christians would actually make them less likely to commit such atrocities under normal situations.

Also, with guns making killing easier, that doesn't mean more deaths will happen. When someone decides to use a gun, you have to assume it was intended to kill. So, under that presumption, that person would have killed the person anyway. Good has come from guns as well. If the idea was death, guns actually quicken death, making it a less torturing experience. From a humanitarian view, a fast death is better then a slow painful death.

Modifié par mrofni, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:40 .

[Tirigon]

RangerSG wrote...

That's a bigoted statement. Thank you for making it clear that atheists can be just as narrow-minded as you think religious people are. You don't know enough people to say "usually" about either one. I've had my fair share of bigoted atheists who think that any expression of faith in their presence is a personal attack.

Well I know a lot of people. I guess it´s enough to say "usually". I think it´s bigoted that you think you can decide how many people I know if you don´t even know ME.
And you might read that I have written:

Tirigon wrote...
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

So thanks for showing that I was right, at least if you are religious. You cant even read my post completely.

And no, I don´t see any expression of faith as personal attack. But I DO see it as attack if some ****** claims his God to be the only true one.

Btw: Christians are Atheists in regard to almost every god ever worshipped - Atheists are only one God faster.

[RangerSG]

Tirigon wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

That's a bigoted statement. Thank you for making it clear that atheists can be just as narrow-minded as you think religious people are. You don't know enough people to say "usually" about either one. I've had my fair share of bigoted atheists who think that any expression of faith in their presence is a personal attack.

Well I know a lot of people. I guess it´s enough to say "usually". I think it´s bigoted that you think you can decide how many people I know if you don´t even know ME.
And you might read that I have written:

Tirigon wrote...
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

So thanks for showing that I was right, at least if you are religious. You cant even read my post completely.

And no, I don´t see any expression of faith as personal attack. But I DO see it as attack if some ****** claims his God to be the only true one.

Btw: Christians are Atheists in regard to almost every god ever worshipped - Atheists are only one God faster.

I know that by using "Usually" you make comments by definition about people you don't even know.

If you had said, "In my experience" that would be offensive and annoying, but not bigoted.

By saying "usually" you automatically go into the realm of people you do not know: hence 'bigoted.'

Words matter.

[Tirigon]

mrofni wrote...

However, if you say that there is no religion, then those Christians wouldn't be Christians, they would be something else. Who's to say that he still wouldn't have convinced them anyway? It isn't unreasonable that he wouldn't have just found another means to achieve his plans. The idea of "no religion" doesn't prevent those same crimes to happen for the real reasons you mentioned. In fact, you implied that them being Christians would actually make them less likely to commit such atrocities under normal situations.

The problem is the institutionalising of religion. I am aware that there is much wisdom, and definitely no cruelty, in what Jesus said, though I personally don´t like it very much. I see him as a great philosopher, however, who was - in many regards - a few thousand years ahead of his time.

But what the church made out of this was mainly a justification for inquisition, crusades, colonialism etc. Even as early as in the 5th century a.D. the Church started killing "heretics" and destroying bible versions that didn´t fit to their official version.
Imo you can say:
Faith = good or bad depending on the individual
Religion = A way to control and oppress people and to excuse crimes, therefore bad

[mrofni]

I wouldn't say that. I mean, religion is to teach others about the good things they have learned from these great individuals. People using religion to try to control and oppress people is just another example of bad people using a tool for their own reasons. A religion in and of itself has no reason to control or oppress its people, it's the people behind it that has a reason. Religion itself is just an organization trying to teach others how to be a good person, often using teachings of individuals.