291 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

Cory was going to use the anchor to "ascend" and it just gives access to the Fade in a unique way, the Inquisitor can't do magic without the Fade.

As for Zeus and all, if we say that zeus is an example of a god, then Morrigan would be a goddess, as well as Cory, and any big mage in Thedas' history.

I just upped it to not needing the Fade to differentiate a mortal that is dependent on an exterior force for power from a being that is inherently powerful due to its nature.

If I was just going with my version, I would just say a god is that than in which nothing greater can be conceived, but as this is a fictional fantasy setting, I lowered the bar a lot.

[Eveangaline]

Cory was going to use the anchor to "ascend" and it just gives access to the Fade in a unique way, the Inquisitor can't do magic without the Fade.

As for Zeus and all, if we say that zeus is an example of a god, then Morrigan would be a goddess, as well as Cory, and any big mage in Thedas' history.

I just upped it to not needing the Fade to differentiate a mortal that is dependent on an exterior force for power from a being that is inherently powerful due to its nature.

If I was just going with my version, I would just say a god is that than in which nothing greater can be conceived, but as this is a fictional fantasy setting, I lowered the bar a lot.

 

That seems like it would run into the problem of "greater" being subjective. An omnipotent being that created the universe but was a total jerk wouldn't be a god because anyone not a total jerk would be greater than them.

[Nimrodell]

But why atheism, why not agnosticism? After all we see as protagonists, I think that agnostic point of view is the viable one - the search for truth, the search for evidence and all perspectives. 

[BansheeOwnage]

But why atheism, why not agnosticism? After all we see as protagonists, I think that agnostic point of view is the viable one - the search for truth, the search for evidence and all perspectives. 

Certain definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are practically identical. An example: The Hot Fuzz character Nicolas Angel self-identifies as agnostic and says (and I paraphrase): "I'm open to the idea of a god, just not entirely convinced by it."

 

Now, what I'll say about my atheism, is almost the same: I'll believe in a god once there is sufficient evidence that supports its existence.

 

In other words, open to the idea, not convinced it's true. See what I mean? People tend to have different definitions of "atheist" as well as "god", so it gets hard to talk about.

[Daerog]

That seems like it would run into the problem of "greater" being subjective. An omnipotent being that created the universe but was a total jerk wouldn't be a god because anyone not a total jerk would be greater than them.

"Greater" is not always subjective. So, a true god is one who is not a jerk, sure, but one's view on someone being a jerk is subjective, so one's opinions must be kept aside when speaking on the nature of a god (if that's even possible).

One whose intent is good is greater than one whose intent is ill, whether or not one views the god as a jerk because of the action of that intent. Also, because this god is greater, what defines "good" is also subject to this god, so this god's will/intent is always good. Also, this god would be aware and intelligent.

Certainly, it is not the greatest definition, but it is a fun thought when one elaborates on it.

It also never really says what the nature of god really is, other than saying if one can argue something greater, then the previous idea of god is wrong.

This is assuming god is transcendent and all comes from god... blah, blah, blah, this is moving away from dragon age a bit.

This is not the definition I'd use in Thedas, as I said earlier, just a definition some people use IRL, not a fantasy setting, and I find it a good definition.

I personally just like it philosophically, my own view on God involves my own faith and the revelations that my religion preaches. I'm aware of other definitions/ideas, of course.

[Legion of 1337]

Certain definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are practically identical. An example: The Hot Fuzz character Nicolas Angel self-identifies as agnostic and says (and I paraphrase): "I'm open to the idea of a god, just not entirely convinced by it."

 

Now, what I'll say about my atheism, is almost the same: I'll believe in a god once there is sufficient evidence that supports its existence.

 

In other words, open to the idea, not convinced it's true. See what I mean? People tend to have different definitions of "atheist" as well as "god", so it gets hard to talk about.

Atheism has to do with a belief stance: "I believe there is no God".

Agnosticism is a state of knowledge: "I do not know if there is a God".

 

One can be an atheist without being agnostic: "I know there is no God".

Or you can be both: "I believe there is no God, but I do not know there is no God."

[Medhia_Nox]

@BansheeOwnage:  And what would be "sufficient evidence"? 

 

Saying:  "I will only believe in the thing that created all of reality  when it proves itself to me." seems... hmm... a bit, "self-assured" for a talking monkey.

[Daerog]

Sufficient evidence could probably be divine intervention, be given visions and be spoken to and such. However, that would only work for the individual and people who already believe or are willing to believe or greatly believe in the individual who had the intervention, others will just dismiss the individual as a nut.

 

As for Thedas, Drakon said he had a vision, Hessarian said he had one, and Leliana kind of thinks she may have had a vision. This is just pertaining to The Maker, though, if we are just talking about beings greater than the Fade or material world.

 

If we are talking about beings of the created world... well... the Archdemon seems enough for the Old Gods and Flemeth is enough for the elven gods... if one would accept them as being defined as gods...

 

Still, as to the original question, sure one can role play as an atheist (even if the Maker is confirmed real, doesn't mean the PC knows that), one could roleplay that they believe in the coming of the Ghast Overlord that will rule all of Thedas, or even an Imperial Andrastian who unfortunately lives in southern Thedas.

[BansheeOwnage]

Atheism has to do with a belief stance: "I believe there is no God".

Agnosticism is a state of knowledge: "I do not know if there is a God".

 

One can be an atheist without being agnostic: "I know there is no God".

Or you can be both: "I believe there is no God, but I do not know there is no God."

Isn't it arrogant and unscientific to say "I know there is no god" though? No one knows that, just like no one knows there is one. Atheism tends to use the scientific method of proving things, so I don't think saying that makes sense, internally. Maybe that's why some people think atheism is a belief, because you'd have to go on "faith" to say there absolutely isn't one.

 

There's a huge difference between saying "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god." I thought the latter was the vanilla definition for atheist. No belief.

[BansheeOwnage]

@BansheeOwnage:  And what would be "sufficient evidence"? 

 

Saying:  "I will only believe in the thing that created all of reality  when it proves itself to me." seems... hmm... a bit, "self-assured" for a talking monkey.

To be honest, I have no idea. Preferably, some sort of announcement even that is "broadcast" to the entire world, to avoid the "I'm going crazy and seeing things" bit I happen to think that's actually the opposite of self-assured. It's saying "I can't prove it one way or the other", and there is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know things.

[In Exile]

Isn't it arrogant and unscientific to say "I know there is no god" though? No one knows that, just like no one knows there is one. Atheism tends to use the scientific method of proving things, so I don't think saying that makes sense, internally. Maybe that's why some people think atheism is a belief, because you'd have to go on "faith" to say there absolutely isn't one.

 

There's a huge difference between saying "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god." I thought the latter was the vanilla definition for atheist. No belief.

 

Keep in mind that people equate "know" with some kind of metaphysical certainty (this is what a person of faith might say) but really "know" in the sense of how we know anything IRL is pretty different from that use. I "know" that grass is green, but that's not something I know in the same way a religious person "knows" there is a god. 

[Andraste_Reborn]

I know there is no god in exactly the same way I know there is no Santa Claus, no faries, no teapot orbiting the Earth and no dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. I may not be able to prove that they don't exist - it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative beyond any doubt - but I'm not going to start leaving milk out for any of them without some convincing evidence.

 

As for what would change my mind:

 

1. An unambiguous message from a god or gods that could not come from any other source. If they want me to worship them, they can damn well come down here and tell me and everyone else. (I've suffered auditory hallucinations in the past, so just telling me would not prove anything.)

 

2. Miracles. Proper ones, like amputees getting their limbs back, not ambiguous ones like cancer going into remission or Jesus appearing on toast.

 

3. Accurate, unambiguous prophecies in the sacred text of any religion.

 

4. Similarly, accurate science in the text of any religion that could not have been known by the humans who wrote it. For example: if any book written prior to this century had accurately given the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years, that would have been indicative of supernatural knowledge. Similarly, a supernatural being could have told humans about germ theory or explained that the Earth goes around the sun - but they didn't.

 

5. One religion being more successful than any other. At the moment, there's nothing that tells us whether Thor, or Kuebiko or the Flying Spagetti Monster are more likely to exist than each other. There's no inexplicable tendency for the followers of one religion to have better health or more happiness than any other that can't be explained by demographic factors. No sacred text is notably better at predicting the way the world works than any other. If I was going to back a horse, I would need to know which one.

[Char]

I know there is no god in exactly the same way I know there is no Santa Claus, no faries, no teapot orbiting the Earth and no dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. I may not be able to prove that they don't exist - it's notoriously difficult to prove a negative beyond any doubt - but I'm not going to start leaving milk out for any of them without some convincing evidence.

.

That would be seriously awesome though. (RIP Sagan )

I'm 99.99% certain that there is no God. I can't be 100% because I can't prove that there isn't one, only that as yet there is no evidence to support the existence of one.
If one magically appeared in front of me, I'd accept it's existence- but that still wouldn't make me religious.
I can reliably prove that my postman exists, but I don't worship him (especially not while he continues to deliver mail for occupants who haven't been around in years). Nothing is automatically worthy of worship IMHO.

[KaiserShep]

@BansheeOwnage:  And what would be "sufficient evidence"? 

 

Saying:  "I will only believe in the thing that created all of reality  when it proves itself to me." seems... hmm... a bit, "self-assured" for a talking monkey.

 

An interesting question. I imagine someone in a super white toga riding down on a cloud and instantly manifesting life from thin air with a snap of his or her fingers, and of course taking everyone to see a Uwe Boll movie that actually wins Best Director. Anything less and I'm not convinced.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  And scientifically - grass isn't really green either.  Colors do not exist outside of your brain. 

I

[MrMrPendragon]

Never really thought about Atheism in dragon age games.  I probably won't assign my character a religious perspective anyway. It's not part of my "role playing experience". I just play, give the protag some personality. Or maybe only pick aggressive or flirty dialogues just for the laughs.

 

Although I wonder, if God is real and he supposedly wants to be worshiped and be loved, wouldn't he prefer to be worshiped without him revealing himself? The whole " I will believe once it is proven that God is real" thing doesn't quite stick to me. I mean, if I was God and you believe I existed because I showed myself to you, then your praise means nothing to me, as you're only praising me because I can strike you down at any moment - because you know I'm real. Wouldn't God rather love the person who doesn't know he exists but loves him anyway?

 

Anyway, religion is ultimately based on faith. Bringing evidence into a faith-centered practice will, I guess, eliminate faith and probably the whole concept of religion, turning it into something else entirely.

[kingkonig]

Never really thought about Atheism in dragon age games.  I probably won't assign my character a religious perspective anyway. It's not part of my "role playing experience". I just play, give the protag some personality. Or maybe only pick aggressive or flirty dialogues just for the Anyway, religion is ultimately based on faith anyway. Bringing evidence into a faith-centered practice will, I guess, eliminate faith and probably the whole concept of religion, turning it into something else entirely.

 

Then it turns into a science which people try to study.

[Daerog]

That would be difficult, as science is tied to the universe and its laws, and religion tends to involve stuff that transcends the universe or is in another universe or involves interdimensional aliens or... other stuff depending on the religion... that being said, the stuff that is "outside" the universe/multiverse/omniverse/whatever-material-world is outside the scope of science.

 

Unless one holds the definition of science being a body of knowledge that can be explained and applied, then theology would be a science and then religion is already a science... or at least the theology of it...

 

Also, the "elimination" of faith is not the elimination of religion. If faith is fulfilled, then one is left with knowledge, not the loss of religion.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Daerog:  I would argue that it isn't outside of the universe - but it is outside the limitations of science. 

There are MANY things science cannot possibly study for real:  art, literature, imagination, philosophy, love, music, mind (not the brain).

 

Scientifically minded zealots will argue that they can be (because they can perceive the world in nothing other than their myopic view)... but the "science of..." any of those things is missing the boat.  

Yet, none of them dwell outside of the universe. 

 

Neither, of course, does any existent God.

 

It is important to remember that science is just a study of nature.  It is just a system of categorization - turning it into a lifestyle dogmatizes it in the same way religion is and is best avoided. 

[The Baconer]

Although I wonder, if God is real and he supposedly wants to be worshiped and be loved, wouldn't he prefer to be worshiped without him revealing himself? The whole " I will believe once it is proven that God is real" thing doesn't quite stick to me. I mean, if I was God and you believe I existed because I showed myself to you, then your praise means nothing to me, as you're only praising me because I can strike you down at any moment - because you know I'm real. Wouldn't God rather love the person who doesn't know he exists but loves him anyway?

 

If I were God, the fawning of ants wouldn't matter any more or less than their scorn, genuine or not.

[In Exile]

If I were God, the fawning of ants wouldn't matter any more or less than their scorn, genuine or not.

If I made some ants in my image, I suppose I'd meant some fawning. Haven't you ever played Black & White or Populus (I think that was the name)?

[Commander Rpg]

Although I wonder, if God is real and he supposedly wants to be worshiped and be loved, wouldn't he prefer to be worshiped without him revealing himself?

https://www.biblegat...0&version=RSVCE

 

¹⁹ On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” ²⁰ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ²¹ Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ²² And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

²⁴ Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵ So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

²⁶ Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” ²⁷ Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” ²⁸ Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” ²⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

[The Baconer]

If I made some ants in my image, I suppose I'd meant some fawning. Haven't you ever played Black & White or Populus (I think that was the name)?

 

As the progenitor of everything? Creator of the infinite realities and unrealities? A congregation of humans would be no more significant than a herd of goats, or a field of roses, or a collection of any other flora and fauna that exist out in the cosmos.

[Nimrodell]

Certain definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" are practically identical. An example: The Hot Fuzz character Nicolas Angel self-identifies as agnostic and says (and I paraphrase): "I'm open to the idea of a god, just not entirely convinced by it."

 

Now, what I'll say about my atheism, is almost the same: I'll believe in a god once there is sufficient evidence that supports its existence.

 

In other words, open to the idea, not convinced it's true. See what I mean? People tend to have different definitions of "atheist" as well as "god", so it gets hard to talk about.

 

Ah but they are not the same things - as an agnostic you claim that you don't have the knowledge whether god or gods' exist, while as an atheist you don't have the belief - as an agnostic you can still believe there is a higher power or purpose, while as an atheist you simply don't believe in those things. Those terms are not synonyms . 

[Nimrodell]

Forgot to mention, there can be agnostic atheism, which I experienced during my youth (grew-up in communist regime) but even then hard-line atheism was not the same thing as agnosticism or agnostic atheism. Agnostic simply claims - there can be a higher power but so far, I didn't find evidence or sufficient knowledge to support the claim of its existence. That's why I claim that agnosticism is the viable option for DA . My protagonists are not blind believers, man of faith, but they don't deny the possible existence - they simply just don't have sufficient knowledge .