314 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

*facepalm*

 

The scientific method is by far the most unbiased and human-idiocy proof tool conceived because regardless of what human A thinks, reality will make experiment X give result Y every time and support human B's theory if such theory actually describes why phenomena X is explained by Y.

 

Reality is as it is regardless of human interpretation, it is precisely because the scientific method is a rigorous empirical observation reflecting the physical laws imposed by reality that makes it inherently superior to religion as a source of knowledge.

xampl

 

Point, missed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. 

[KaiserShep]

One interesting tidbit that I finally found out was that if you side with the Templars, you can find out in a war table operation that Arl Gallagher Wulff, that ornery guy from Origins who lost his sons in the Blight (who you can win support from at the Landsmeet), was involved with the Venatori to some capacity, albeit with good intentions. Apparently, you can have him executed. 

[Blood Mage Reaver]

Point, missed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. 

You can be a fool who demands the horse be thirsty but he saw the dead who drank from the pool and knows from evidence it's poisonous.

 

Case in point you can repeat the BS that the scientific method is corrupted like religion all you want because the technological marvels it unleashed and the aspects of nature it uncovered will still be there to spit on your face.

 

When you actually learn how the scientific method works to remove doubt and human error from the acceptance of any thesis, you can talk about it's differences to religion which is a belief system and not a knowledge building tool.

 

Until then I am Solas trying to talk to a templar fanatic why the Fade is different from what the Chantry says.

[Almostfaceman]

You can be a fool who demands the horse be thirsty but he saw the dead who drank from the pool and knows from evidence it's poisonous.

 

Case in point you can repeat the BS that the scientific method is corrupted like religion all you want because the technological marvels it unleashed and the aspects of nature it uncovered will still be there to spit on your face.

 

When you actually learn how the scientific method works to remove doubt and human error from the acceptance of any thesis, you can talk about it's differences to religion which is a belief system and not a knowledge building tool.

 

Until then I am Solas trying to talk to a templar fanatic why the Fade is different from what the Chantry says.

 

Now now, I've been insulted twice just trying to make a point. First you facepalmed me now you're calling me a fool. Such behavior!

 

 

All rather emotional, irrational, and non-scientific. 

 

Both science and religion feed humanity and meet different needs. Both are subject to the flaws of humanity. Religion feeds the spirit, teaches morals, helps bring communities together to help the poor and needy. People abuse it for personal gain and to gain power over others, among other things. Science is a tool for analyzing what's around us, discovering how it's built... using the properties of our universe to manipulate it to our advantage, or avoid abusing it. It can also be used to build nuclear weapons, experiment on live human subjects, use animals for testing or be abused by politicians that have motives contrary to the common good. 

 

Here horsey, have drink. 

 

[The Baconer]

Except Barris never actually does anything if you conscript.

 

Thanks to the Keep, he can... retroactively. 

[sylvanaerie]

One interesting tidbit that I finally found out was that if you side with the Templars, you can find out in a war table operation that Arl Gallagher Wulff, that ornery guy from Origins who lost his sons in the Blight (who you can win support from at the Landsmeet), was involved with the Venatori to some capacity, albeit with good intentions. Apparently, you can have him executed. 

 

Just a little trivia niblet.  Arl Wulff is voiced by the same actor who did Teagan.

[Blood Mage Reaver]

Now now, I've been insulted twice just trying to make a point. First you facepalmed me now you're calling me a fool. Such behavior!



All rather emotional, irrational, and non-scientific.

Both science and religion feed humanity and meet different needs. Both are subject to the flaws of humanity. Religion feeds the spirit, teaches morals, helps bring communities together to help the poor and needy. People abuse it for personal gain and to gain power over others, among other things. Science is a tool for analyzing what's around us, discovering how it's built... using the properties of our universe to manipulate it to our advantage, or avoid abusing it. It can also be used to build nuclear weapons, experiment on live human subjects, use animals for testing or be abused by politicians that have motives contrary to the common good.

Here horsey, have drink.

Calls a human being a horse but feels insulted when outed for such foolishness.

You dear sir is quite the embodiment of hypocrisy, I am not drinking whatever contaminated your brain in the first place.

Religion is not responsible for teaching morals, open-minded parents and school teachers can do just fine without it.

If wasn't for science sustaining gender equality and homoaffective equality, the kind of religious morals followed by America today would be to forbid contraceptives and jail homosexuals.

Science is the driving force behind progressive human morals over the last centuries and charity is a beautiful human action which needs no religion to take place.

Take a non-believer Inquisitor for example, he or she can realize numerous acts of charity throughout the game while most of the Chantry lets the world fall apart focusing on it's own political bickering. He or she doesn't do it for divine salvation but because it's the right thing to do, such people exist in the real world too.

When it comes down to criticising Science, people like you always bring the arguments that it was used to create WMDs or employed in unethical experimentation but you always forget that nuclear power and radiotherapy saved far more lives than Fat Man and Little Boy have taken or that forced human experimentation was always denounced by the scientific community as pointlessly costly without any observable benefits.

Nuclear weapons are tools build for dissuading aggression between countries, they serve the same purpose revolvers and shotguns do to keep undesired neighbours away from your lawn without having to actually shoot them.

By contrast Islamic fundamentalists with AK-47s murdered more people in Darfur than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and religious intolerance towards Jews by German Christians combined with simple pesticides made them pale by comparison.

It is religious intolerance towards mages which enabled templars to overstep their boundaries and abuse them to the point of rebellion, a rebellion which was answered by a genocidal war started by the templars denouncing the Chantry in favor of their own interpretation of the Chant of Light.

Case in point, it was always some belief without evidence like religion or a personality cult which used scientific discoveries for perverted ends like mass killings of human beings but never the other way around.

Take Mengele for example, he butchered thousands of twins trying to conceive the means of multiplying the children of a mythically conceived Aryan master race.

However, since no such race existed and he rejected many scientific proven theories that discredited the beliefs of Nazi mythology, he accomplished nothing because the scientific method does not budge to twisted human beings who try to proof absurd beliefs against the evidence of reality.

By contrast, no matter how many official clerics denounce ISIL as heretic it keeps getting more followers because the Quran being written some 1300 years ago leave a lot of interpretation open for wanna be slavers and rapists.

In a nutshell, the Chant of Light can be interpreted by any people to suit their views and interests but whenever someone tries to use magic that has been discredited by scientific principles the Fade ignores their tries or outright blows them to pieces.

And for all accounts, trying to attack my emotional maturity instead of my arguments while using common meme gifs from the internet only makes your arguments weaker.

Try to stay on topic, mages are given far more build up than templars because BioWare not so subtly prefers them for their canon rather than making both Paths equally explored.

[Ashagar]

I'd hate to say it but speaking as a student of history it would likely to be more correct to say that in more modern times forced experimentation were and are always denounced...  Lets leave it at that as somethings are best left in the dustbin of history to be forgotten. Also I'd say philosophy is the driving force of moral change and questioning not science which by itself is quite amoral being simply a tool.

 

 

As for back to the topic I honestly don't think the developers had any preference beyond that the Templars were given a more subtle lead up to their path and the mages were given the more overt and open build up. I think was more playing to different play styles as the Templar path is more indirect requiring playing attention to little details, conversations and behaviors and generally required more of a inquisitorial outlook while the mage path is direct and open ideal for those who want a direct path.

[Heimdall]

Religion is not responsible for teaching morals, open-minded parents and school teachers can do just fine without it.

If wasn't for science sustaining gender equality and homoaffective equality, the kind of religious morals followed by America today would be to forbid contraceptives and jail homosexuals.

Science is the driving force behind progressive human morals over the last centuries and charity is a beautiful human action which needs no religion to take place.

...

When it comes down to criticising Science, people like you always bring the arguments that it was used to create WMDs or employed in unethical experimentation but you always forget that nuclear power and radiotherapy saved far more lives than Fat Man and Little Boy have taken or that forced human experimentation was always denounced by the scientific community as pointlessly costly without any observable benefits.

Case in point, it was always some belief without evidence like religion or a personality cult which used scientific discoveries for perverted ends like mass killings of human beings but never the other way around.

Take Mengele for example, he butchered thousands of twins trying to conceive the means of multiplying the children of a mythically conceived Aryan master race.

...

Okay, the one problem I'm going to bring up your post is that science is not an ideology, it is a methodology. Science is as moral or immoral as the ideology that drives the scientist.

[Steelcan]

Calls a human being a horse but feels insulted when outed for such foolishness.

You dear sir is quite the embodiment of hypocrisy, I am not drinking whatever contaminated your brain in the first place.

Religion is not responsible for teaching morals, open-minded parents and school teachers can do just fine without it.

If wasn't for science sustaining gender equality and homoaffective equality, the kind of religious morals followed by America today would be to forbid contraceptives and jail homosexuals.

Science is the driving force behind progressive human morals over the last centuries and charity is a beautiful human action which needs no religion to take place.

Take a non-believer Inquisitor for example, he or she can realize numerous acts of charity throughout the game while most of the Chantry lets the world fall apart focusing on it's own political bickering. He or she doesn't do it for divine salvation but because it's the right thing to do, such people exist in the real world too.

When it comes down to criticising Science, people like you always bring the arguments that it was used to create WMDs or employed in unethical experimentation but you always forget that nuclear power and radiotherapy saved far more lives than Fat Man and Little Boy have taken or that forced human experimentation was always denounced by the scientific community as pointlessly costly without any observable benefits.

Nuclear weapons are tools build for dissuading aggression between countries, they serve the same purpose revolvers and shotguns do to keep undesired neighbours away from your law without having to actually shoot them.

By contrast Islamic fundamentalists with AK-47s murdered more people in Darfur than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and religious intolerance towards Jews by German Christians combined with simple pesticides made them pale by comparison.

It is religious intolerance towards mages which enabled templars to overstep their boundaries and abuse them to the point of rebellion, a rebellion which was answered by a genocidal war started by the templars denouncing the Chantry in favor of their own interpretation of the Chant of Light.

Case in point, it was always some belief without evidence like religion or a personality cult which used scientific discoveries for perverted ends like mass killings of human beings but never the other way around.

Take Mengele for example, he butchered thousands of twins trying to conceive the means of multiplying the children of a mythically conceived Aryan master race.

However, since no such race existed and he rejected many scientific proven theories that discredited the beliefs of Nazi mythology, he accomplished nothing because the scientific method does not budge to twisted human beings who try to proof absurd beliefs against the evidence of reality.

By contrast, no matter how many official clerics denounce ISIL as heretic it keeps getting more followers because the Quran being written some 1300 years ago leave a lot of interpretation open for wanna be slavers and rapists.

In a nutshell, the Chant of Light can be interpreted by any people to suit their views and interests but whenever someone tries to use magic that has been discredited by scientific principles the Fade ignores their tries or outright blows them to pieces.

And for all accounts, trying to attack my emotional maturity instead of my arguments while using common meme gifs from the internet only makes your arguments weaker.

Try to stay on topic, mages are given far more build up than templars because BioWare not so subtly prefers them for their canon rather than making both Paths equally explored.

3edgy5me tbh

[Blood Mage Reaver]

Okay, the one problem I'm going to bring up your post is that science is not an ideology, it is a methodology. Science is as moral or immoral as the ideology that drives the scientist.

A point I wholeheartedly agree on, science is used to uncover and explain reality rather than support any particular human viewpoint, hence it's purity versus things without proof that can have twisted interpretations to justify abuses and atrocities.

Being a tool, science doesn't call for better human rights and environmental protection, however, it is thanks to discoveries made through science that progressive thinking and morals accepting diversity were supported against the dogmas of religion.

What I want to make clear is that science was never used to cause wars or enable discrimination because empirical evidence discredited and discouraged such behaviours.

It was always some form of belief without proof, be it religion, a cult of personality or fanatical patriotism that originated conflicts and used scientific discoveries for perverted purposes and not the other way around.

I've already said that science gives results when the hypothesis holds true regardless if the scientist's other beliefs are supported by empirical evidence or not.

Pakistan, despite having a legislation partially based on a book without any empirical evidence to support it's claims, developed a nuclear weapons program because it followed scientifically proven principles which enabled such endeavour.

But did Science motivated the Pakistani to pursue such controverted and dangerous technology? The answear is no.

It was regional rivalry with India, which can be traced back to religious differences between Muslims and Hindus, that motivated Muslim and/or patriotic Pakistani scientists to create the bomb with funds from a dictatorial government.

When push comes to shove it is religion or other ideology of dogma which turns scientific discoveries towards immoral purposes but never did once science prompted human beings to hate or kill each other.

Because religion lays is the realm of individual interpretation, it's meaning can be twisted and changed to favor the views of the ones preaching it and there is no way to challenge the validity of said views through religion itself because it's not based on evidence.

In contrast, if a dictator or priest affirms that the Earth is flat and the Sun circulates it, anyone with a telescope and a pencil can prove them wrong because reality doesn't care for what any tyrant says and science only reflects what's empirical.

[Steelcan]

A point I wholeheartedly agree on, science is used to uncover and explain reality rather than support any particular human viewpoint, hence it's purity versus things without proof that can have twisted interpretations to justify abuses and atrocities.
Being a tool, science doesn't call for better human rights and environmental protection, however, it is thanks to discoveries made through science that progressive thinking and morals accepting diversity were supported against the dogmas of religion.
What I want to make clear is that science was never used to cause wars or enable discrimination because empirical evidence discredited and discouraged such behaviours.
It was always some form of belief without proof, be it religion, a cult of personality or fanatical patriotism that originated conflicts and used scientific discoveries for perverted purposes and not the other way around.
I've already said that science gives results when the hypothesis holds true regardless if the scientist's other beliefs are supported by empirical evidence or not.
Pakistan, despite having a legislation partially based on a book without any empirical evidence to support it's claims, developed a nuclear weapons program because it followed scientifically proven principles which enabled such endeavour.
But did Science motivated the Pakistani to pursue such controverted and dangerous technology? The answear is no.
It was regional rivalry with India, which can be traced back to religious differences between Muslims and Hindus, that motivated Muslim and/or patriotic Pakistani scientists to create the bomb with funds from a dictatorial government.
When push comes to shove it is religion or other ideology of dogma which turns scientific discoveries towards immoral purposes but never did once science prompted human beings to hate or kill each other.
Because religion lays is the realm of individual interpretation, it's meaning can be twisted and changed to favor the views of the ones preaching it and there is no way to challenge the validity of said views through religion itself because it's not based on evidence.
In contrast, if a dictator or priest affirms that the Earth is flat and the Sun circulates it, anyone with a telescope and a pencil can prove them wrong because reality doesn't care for what any tyrant says and science only reflects what's empirical.

I'm just going to go ahead and hazard a guess that you don't actually have any understanding of history.

The idea that "science never started a war" is just downright false. Scientific progress has brought us the wonders of racially based discrimination, eugenics, social Darwinism, and so on.

I get the feeling you just have a dislike of organized religion and are spouting off whatever talking points you've seen mentioned with it.

[Aren]

 

 

Until then I am Solas trying to talk to a templar fanatic why the Fade is different from what the Chantry says.

Except that the fade is shaped to be what someone believe it is.

[Heimdall]

A point I wholeheartedly agree on, science is used to uncover and explain reality rather than support any particular human viewpoint, hence it's purity versus things without proof that can have twisted interpretations to justify abuses and atrocities.

Being a tool, science doesn't call for better human rights and environmental protection, however, it is thanks to discoveries made through science that progressive thinking and morals accepting diversity were supported against the dogmas of religion.

What I want to make clear is that science was never used to cause wars or enable discrimination because empirical evidence discredited and discouraged such behaviours.

It was always some form of belief without proof, be it religion, a cult of personality or fanatical patriotism that originated conflicts and used scientific discoveries for perverted purposes and not the other way around.

I've already said that science gives results when the hypothesis holds true regardless if the scientist's other beliefs are supported by empirical evidence or not.

Pakistan, despite having a legislation partially based on a book without any empirical evidence to support it's claims, developed a nuclear weapons program because it followed scientifically proven principles which enabled such endeavour.

But did Science motivated the Pakistani to pursue such controverted and dangerous technology? The answear is no.

It was regional rivalry with India, which can be traced back to religious differences between Muslims and Hindus, that motivated Muslim and/or patriotic Pakistani scientists to create the bomb with funds from a dictatorial government.

When push comes to shove it is religion or other ideology of dogma which turns scientific discoveries towards immoral purposes but never did once science prompted human beings to hate or kill each other.

Because religion lays is the realm of individual interpretation, it's meaning can be twisted and changed to favor the views of the ones preaching it and there is no way to challenge the validity of said views through religion itself because it's not based on evidence.

In contrast, if a dictator or priest affirms that the Earth is flat and the Sun circulates it, anyone with a telescope and a pencil can prove them wrong because reality doesn't care for what any tyrant says and science only reflects what's empirical.

You're still pushing for the position of science as a positive moral force even as you admit it can be bent to immoral ends.

The truth is that scientific theories have inspired and been employed to justify many atrocities and those that would use them positively are just as prone to twisting and ignoring theories that are inconvenient to their ideology.

And you continue to deploy science as some kind of alternative or oppositional force to religion. I agree with Steelcan on this one, it seems to reflect your personal prejudice toward organized religion more than anything else.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Except Barris never actually does anything if you conscript.

 

Fairly certain that is false, you can still get the Barris wartable missions and you can still promote him if the templars are conscripted.

[TobiTobsen]

Fairly certain that is false, you can still get the Barris wartable missions and you can still promote him if the templars are conscripted.

 

Only if you're lucky, since the conscripted templar missions are sadly bugged beyond hell and back.

[Almostfaceman]

Calls a human being a horse but feels insulted when outed for such foolishness.
 

 

It's a saying. Nobody saying that is calling someone a horse. 

 

[Blood Mage Reaver]

I'm just going to go ahead and hazard a guess that you don't actually have any understanding of history.

The idea that "science never started a war" is just downright false. Scientific progress has brought us the wonders of racially based discrimination, eugenics, social Darwinism, and so on.

I get the feeling you just have a dislike of organized religion and are spouting off whatever talking points you've seen mentioned with it.

Poor guess, every theory used to justify atrocities failed to pass the scientific method exactly because they were absurds that didn't reflect reality.

The problem is not religion in itself, the problem is belief without proof and blind obedience to authority and dogma.

Social Darwinism was a political theory which advocated for the removal of unfit or undesirable individuals from the gene pool as a measure of improving society through eugeny of future generations.

Not only it had no empirical basis, the cornerstone of the scientific method, to support it's supposed gains but the Nazis who implemented it arbitrarily choose which traits they considered superior which contradicts the very core of Darwinist Evolution that proposes the evolution of species happen by natural environmental pressure rather than arbitrary intelligent design.

Not only Nazi SD didn't accept the core of Darwin's theory that nature decides which trait offers more success in the gene pool but they jailed and butchered all scientist who disagreed with their narrative and burned all books which proposed more viable alternatives.

Whenever fanatics try to force their views against reality, they never find scientific proof to support their claims, they just murder or silence dissenters because reality will not conform to their desires.

By contrast, when the Bible or the Quran were written slavery was widely practiced and accepted amongst their respective societies and thus both books endorse it as something natural.

Hence, even though modern religious scholars denounce and condemn the practice the words are still there for fundamentalists like the ISIL or the Taliban to justify their atrocities.

It's not just religion which does that, communist China and the URSS worshipped no gods but preached adamantly that collective farming was the most productive way to feed a nation. They starved to death over 90 million people but never dared to question the wisdom of Mao and Stalin.

Philosophy is itself a science in which humans debate which values and standards are most ideal for a just and fair society, philosophers sustain their arguments not on dogmas from a single unquestionable source but from historical evidence and empirical observation of which practices and motivations bring most confort and security towards all human beings.

Even religious philosophers try to adapt their texts to the reality around them and the time they live in because they accept some of what their faith teaches no longer applies at face value now that evidence contradicts it.

The worst of humanity only surfaces when indoctrinated masses try to force their absurd beliefs against reality regardless if they believe in a god or not.

This is what is wrong with the templars, while some of them were open minded and desired to protect the innocent from magic abuse, the leadership indoctrinated the majority into the fanatic belief that their duty was to put down mages like animals because Andraste said magic must serve man.

Champions Of The Just shows exactly what the templar leadership does to dissenters amongst their ranks, they are round up in an isolated place and slaughtered by indoctrinated fanatics.

At least the leadership of the mages tried to be reasonable with a democratic vote and the College of Enchanters was at peace with oppositors at least until the templars gratuitously rejected the reformist efforts from the Chantry and launched a genocidal war against them.

[Heimdall]

The problem is not religion in itself, the problem is belief without proof and blind obedience to authority and dogma.

Considering faith is pretty important to religion, I'm a little skeptical hat you're being genuine when you say the problem is not religion, but I will agree that thoughtless belief is the problem. That's why I tend to favor that Protestant virtue of reading the sacred text for oneself rather than just listening to a teacher.

Not only it had no empirical basis, the cornerstone of the scientific method, to support it's supposed gains but the Nazis who implemented it arbitrarily choose which traits they considered superior which contradicts the very core of Darwinist Evolution that proposes the evolution of species happen by natural environmental pressure rather than arbitrary intelligent design.

Not only Nazi SD didn't accept the core of Darwin's theory that nature decides which trait offers more success in the gene pool but they jailed and butchered all scientist who disagreed with their narrative and burned all books which proposed more viable alternatives.

Nazis weren't the only ones with a eugenics program. The US had one before the Nazis did and most nations in Europe did too. Darwin's theory established that natural pressures selected for adapted traits. Eugenics posits that, with Darwin's understanding, humanity could direct its own evolution through selective breeding. And in that regard, it's totally in keeping with his theory, eugenics can accomplish that in theory. The only arbitrary part was how they chose what traits were desirable and which were not.

Philosophy is itself a science in which humans debate which values and standards are most ideal for a just and fair society, philosophers sustain their arguments not on dogmas from a single unquestionable source but from historical evidence and empirical observation of which practices and motivations bring most confort and security towards all human beings.

My experience with philosophy is that it's more a form of secularized religion than an empirical science, but I could be wrong.

Even religious philosophers try to adapt their texts to the reality around them and the time they live in because they accept some of what their faith teaches no longer applies at face value now that evidence contradicts it.

They do, though personally I wouldn't draw so much distinction between secular and religious philosophers, they borrow from one another. Modern interpretations of Christianity owe quite a lot to Plato. Theologians develop complex interpretive theories about their faith, how to live up to it, to address the ordering of society, the origin of moral authority, and how they apply to new situations. They've done this from the beginning, religions are constantly evolving whether the casual adherent understands that or not.

My only other comment is that dogma isn't always top down. Take the Flagellants for example, a populous religious movement that saw long trains of people beating thenselves along the countryside as a form of penance as the Black Death ravaged Europe, they actually assaulted bishops, churches, and other sources of religious authority. Then there were the mobs that massacred Jews in direct defiance of a Papal Bull ordering the people not to attack the Jews and that they were not to blame for the plague.

My point being that people don't need authority figures to be bigoted and dogmatic, sometimes all you need is peer pressure. Were the Templars all brainwashed or were they simply carrying the same fear of mages that is common among the general population?

[Steelcan]

Poor guess, every theory used to justify atrocities failed to pass the scientific method exactly because they were absurds that didn't reflect reality.
The problem is not religion in itself, the problem is belief without proof and blind obedience to authority and dogma.
Social Darwinism was a political theory which advocated for the removal of unfit or undesirable individuals from the gene pool as a measure of improving society through eugeny of future generations.
Not only it had no empirical basis, the cornerstone of the scientific method, to support it's supposed gains but the Nazis who implemented it arbitrarily choose which traits they considered superior which contradicts the very core of Darwinist Evolution that proposes the evolution of species happen by natural environmental pressure rather than arbitrary intelligent design.
Not only Nazi SD didn't accept the core of Darwin's theory that nature decides which trait offers more success in the gene pool but they jailed and butchered all scientist who disagreed with their narrative and burned all books which proposed more viable alternatives.
Whenever fanatics try to force their views against reality, they never find scientific proof to support their claims, they just murder or silence dissenters because reality will not conform to their desires.
By contrast, when the Bible or the Quran were written slavery was widely practiced and accepted amongst their respective societies and thus both books endorse it as something natural.
Hence, even though modern religious scholars denounce and condemn the practice the words are still there for fundamentalists like the ISIL or the Taliban to justify their atrocities.
It's not just religion which does that, communist China and the URSS worshipped no gods but preached adamantly that collective farming was the most productive way to feed a nation. They starved to death over 90 million people but never dared to question the wisdom of Mao and Stalin.
Philosophy is itself a science in which humans debate which values and standards are most ideal for a just and fair society, philosophers sustain their arguments not on dogmas from a single unquestionable source but from historical evidence and empirical observation of which practices and motivations bring most confort and security towards all human beings.
Even religious philosophers try to adapt their texts to the reality around them and the time they live in because they accept some of what their faith teaches no longer applies at face value now that evidence contradicts it.
The worst of humanity only surfaces when indoctrinated masses try to force their absurd beliefs against reality regardless if they believe in a god or not.
This is what is wrong with the templars, while some of them were open minded and desired to protect the innocent from magic abuse, the leadership indoctrinated the majority into the fanatic belief that their duty was to put down mages like animals because Andraste said magic must serve man.
Champions Of The Just shows exactly what the templar leadership does to dissenters amongst their ranks, they are round up in an isolated place and slaughtered by indoctrinated fanatics.
At least the leadership of the mages tried to be reasonable with a democratic vote and the College of Enchanters was at peace with oppositors at least until the templars gratuitously rejected the reformist efforts from the Chantry and launched a genocidal war against them.

you really need to work out your own issues with authority. I'll respond more fully when I get to my laptop.

[Chiramu]

In terms of gameplay the Templars means an easier time as well. No more Red Lyrium abominations D:!

[Blood Mage Reaver]

you really need to work out your own issues with authority. I'll respond more fully when I get to my laptop.

For your own sake don't, seriously don't waste your time with this pointless discussion.

 

I never meant to insult anyone's faith and may have done so in the heat of the moment so spare yourself the time and effort to drag on an argument which has long lost it's original point.

[Steelcan]

For your own sake don't, seriously don't waste your time with this pointless discussion.

 

I never meant to insult anyone's faith and may have done so in the heat of the moment so spare yourself the time and effort to drag on an argument which has long lost it's original point.

fine

[sniper_arrow]

For your own sake don't, seriously don't waste your time with this pointless discussion.

 

I never meant to insult anyone's faith and may have done so in the heat of the moment so spare yourself the time and effort to drag on an argument which has long lost it's original point.

 

For which you did a good job of.

[fhs33721]

In terms of gameplay the Templars means an easier time as well. No more Red Lyrium abominations D:!

Just in main missions unfortunately as they still appear in sidecontent.