107 réponses à ce sujet

[NickolasDS]

Mr. Beaver wrote...

I'm quite an avid atheist, and no I didn't get disturbed. Except when EDI gave some bible references (I won't give spoilers when) I found it kinda stupid I don't believe it fit the whole situation.

I concur. That was a moment worth rolling eyes, for me. It actually seems way off, considering how EDI shouldn't have an opinion on morality, yet chooses to quote something with diversity on the subject? Interesting.

Modifié par NickolasDS, 29 janvier 2010 - 11:33 .

[Lightice_av]

Dethateer wrote...

Just_mike wrote...
"Like giving nuclear weapons to cave men".

Welcome to the world of today.

I would say that the philosophical identity of at least parts of our species is still way ahead of the levels of our technology. Look up "Transhumanism", some day.

We've been doing surprisingly well with nukes by this point, by the way. It's a small wonder that there hasn't been even one instance of nuclear terrorism in the past decades.

[Dethateer]

Just because we haven't used the nukes yet doesn't mean we should be allowed to play with them.

[Orfinn]

Im atheist. But for me too, it dosent bother me as long as religion aint smashed into your teeth both in-game and in real life.

[Lightice_av]

Dethateer wrote...

Just because we haven't used the nukes yet doesn't mean we should be allowed to play with them.

The cat is out of the bag; the only thing that we can do is to make sure that a discovery is used for best possible ends, as it is impossible to prevent the discovery itself, or forget it after it's been made. The attempts to suppress the development of science and technology invariably lead to a situation where the only ones developing them are the most ruthless, unethical parties in existence. As long as the scientific process is as open and widely recognised as possible, it's possible to assess and minimize the threats it poses, while reaping the maximum benefits. If it's driven to secrecy and crime, the results won't be pretty.

I don't like nukes either, but I prefer to see them in hands that accept and understand that their use is futile, as opposed to ones insane enough to actually think of them as viable weapons.

[SorrowAndJoy7]

RogueAI wrote...

"The light. they always said there would be...light"

Pretty much Bioware telling you about their views on religion from Mass Effect 1. Sleeping with aliens, working with Cerberus, and cheating on your love interest goes against most religions. Therefore, you can make the assumption that Shephard doesn't believe in a god, because he is a god.

o.O, I am agnostic but i'd just like to point out I don't think any of this game tells you what bioware believes. First of all Bioware isn't a single person, there are likely many beliefs among their many employees... if you don't think they have christians or many other religions on their staff, i'd tend to think you were wrong.

Just to keep it in check, the girl was dying, usually when people talk abotu there being a light it's when they actually died and were brought back to life. You don't have to sleep with aliens, you can make your character very anti-cerberus only wanting to save people and using cerberus as a means, and you don't have to cheat on your love interests... you don't even have to have a love interests. o_O I don't see how you can assume shepard believes anything. Fact is all shepard's are different, while my shepard may want to **** around and live like a hedonist, many will not. I'm pretty indifferent to religion but lets not try to pigeon hole a game about choices into one set of beliefs for the main character, that is flat out moronic.

[Chalta]

Dethateer wrote...
Just because we haven't used the nukes yet doesn't mean we should be allowed to play with them.

Lightice_av wrote...
We've been doing surprisingly well with nukes by this point, by the way...

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't quite what Einstein intended when he penned his famous formula.

That's why I find this concept of the importance of the pace and conscience of scientific progress interesting.  As we've seen historically, even pure and innocently motivated scientific progress can be abused or weaponized.  That's why I find the comparison to nuclear weapons to be so compelling.   Or to extend to Mass Effect's universe perhaps the genophage would be a corollary?

Oversimplifying the morality choices, we see utilitarian philosophies pitted against more absolutist philosophies time and time again in Mass Effect.  Does the good of the many outweigh any other considerations?  Is it ever okay to do [action x]?  What if the galaxy was at stake?

I think that Mordin's concept of a race's "philosophical identity" could be compared to  a societal conscience.  

We see such concepts again and again in cautionary science fiction: in Mordin's comments, Star Trek's Prime Directive, etc.

Rather than a nuclear wasteland (Fallout, There Will Come Soft Rains), Mass Effect somewhat takes the Star Trek approach where a spontaneous discovery slingshots humanity ahead such that all of humanity works together in a technological semi-utopia, galvanized by a common threat or purpose.

One can hope.  Minus the reapers and frequent threats of galactic destruction of course.

Modifié par Chalta, 30 janvier 2010 - 12:29 .

[SorrowAndJoy7]

Also, just wanted to point out, the force almost was a religion in star wars. Avoiding the dark side and all that jazz. It's easy to draw religious parallels, which is why they wouldn't need to put in a belief system in the series, the force was the belief system.

[Chalta]

SorrowAndJoy7 wrote...

Also, just wanted to point out, the force almost was a religion in star wars. Avoiding the dark side and all that jazz. It's easy to draw religious parallels, which is why they wouldn't need to put in a belief system in the series, the force was the belief system.

There's another interesting point, with the most recent incarnations of the SW movies including midichlorians as the biological component to the Force's spiritual and metaphysical component.

[NickolasDS]

SorrowAndJoy7 wrote...

Also, just wanted to point out, the force almost was a religion in star wars. Avoiding the dark side and all that jazz. It's easy to draw religious parallels, which is why they wouldn't need to put in a belief system in the series, the force was the belief system.

The force was just hitting on the idea of yin and yang, that's all. No god was ever placed, nor was any idea of how everything came to be. So I'd say Star Wars was religion-free.

I can understand the point you're trying to make, but the dark/good side of "the force" is just a way of understanding everything around us, not how it was created. I'd say that any true religion has some idea behind creation.

[The Demonologist]

NickolasDS wrote...

Mr. Beaver wrote...

I'm quite an avid atheist, and no I didn't get disturbed. Except when EDI gave some bible references (I won't give spoilers when) I found it kinda stupid I don't believe it fit the whole situation.

I concur. That was a moment worth rolling eyes, for me. It actually seems way off, considering how EDI shouldn't have an opinion on morality, yet chooses to quote something with diversity on the subject? Interesting.

Was this when she suggested that name for a certain someone?

Like he said, I thought -that- was a fitting analogy. I don't remember any other references, nor eye rolling moments with EDI.

[NickolasDS]

To be honest, I don't remember what exactly the purpose was. I just remember EDI quoting something from the bible and that was it. It was when Legion was around. I don't want say more without spoiling anything.

[Elios]

NickolasDS wrote...

I don't see the human race believing at such a high majority when we reach such technology. The more that science grows, the more people start to realize things that change ideas and ways of thinking. If we take Star Wars as an example, I don't ever recall hearing anything about religion or gods. I don't think I've seen enough outside content, on Star Wars, to know (comics, video games etc.). I'd say that was a smart move on George's part. I just think that there would be less talk of gods and creators at such a peak of exploration.

*cough*Jedi*cough*
yes Jedi is a religion in the Starwars universe or did you forget all the "May the Force be with you." stuff

[NickolasDS]

Tis be true, a religion can be near anything. I'll give ya that. It's nothing compared to the religions I'm talking about though.



A little thought. It would be really awesome if Bioware would give a character who doesn't believe in god, just to balance the fact that Ash did. That would be cool.

[Akiada]

Dethateer wrote...



Maybe, but he's got history on his back. To a primitive culture, advanced technology is akin to magic. If, in the ancient times a simple lighter would have instantly elevated one to the rank of demigod...

Right, but all this time has only done away with a majority of minor superstitions. The march of science has not unseated any major religion - even if we've traded swords for guns, horses for cars, even though we race through the sky and foot on the moon itself.



People find religion comforting. Whether it's true, or just that - comfort - is likely to never be found out. Thus it's rather unlikely religion will ever vanish.

[Alessaunder]

Well, there was a lot of sci-fi sense of wonder in ME1, vastness of scale, epic storytelling. Which, in itself, borders on the metaphysical at times. Other than that, I haven't noticed that much in the way of religion/philosophy in the series, but I can't wait to get to the dialogue you're referring to!



Agnostic, if it makes any difference, but interested in religious themes.

[NickolasDS]

Chocolatyshatnr wrote...

This is the way I feel. As I said in the other thread, as Ashley put it, how can you look at the galaxy/universe and not believe in SOMETHING?

I won't believe in something until I have proof of it. Period. Did the council trust me about the reapers? Not until Sovereign showed up right at their door step. Case & point. I admire the council for being ignorant, just so ya know.

Modifié par NickolasDS, 30 janvier 2010 - 04:14 .

[Lightice_av]

And some skeptics are just so blind to think that every single person who has ever claimed to have had a paranormal experience are flat out liars, easily fooled and eager to grasp at straws(which is what the skeptics do), medicated/needs medication, or are suffering "adverse effects" of their present enviroment which alters their perception in a way cause them to hallucinate either visually or auditory.

Feel free to prove otherwise. People can experience all sorts of things, including paranormal phenomena. The thing is, the human mind is a delusion machine; it seeks patterns everywhere, regardless of whether there is any. That's why you can see pictures in clouds and stars, or craters on Mars. Just because you have a genuine, sincere experience of something paranormal or religious, it doesn't prove anything about its objective existence.



Sceptics do not "grasp at straws". We point out that you need evidence to back up a claim. No-one has succeeded in proving a religion in any way, and if somebody did, it would cease to be a religion, and become science.

[NickolasDS]

Lightice_av wrote...
the human mind is a delusion machine

Exactly. We're constantly trying to relate things in order to simplify our actions. It won't work because life is a constant survival. We have to learn to accept the facts.

Geez. Now the reapers sound even more powerful.

[Dethateer]

Claims are empty. You need evidence to prove something exists. Case in point: there's a bat stuck to my window with bubblegum.

[Lightice_av]

Unless you can see it, feel it, taste it, hear it, it doesn't exist and everybody else that claims otherwise are looking for fame, insane/medicated/need to be medicated, or are suffering from the enviroment. No matter how credible said persons are.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Why do you repeat those claims about insanity or medication, by the way? A perfectly normal, sane individual is capable of misinterpreting various signals for supernatural event, and on average nearly every person in existence experiences hallucinations at least once in their lives.



I have "heard voices" once, and as a child I found some inanimate objects either friendly or threatening. These are not evidence of any supernatural intervention, but about my brain working just as it should be, but overanalyzing the signals it receives.

[Twitchmonkey]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

You're trying to make an argument but you can't even quote the right person?

Spoken like a true skeptic. Unless you can see it, feel it, taste it, hear it, it doesn't exist and everybody else that claims otherwise are looking for fame, insane/medicated/need to be medicated, or are suffering from the enviroment. No matter how credible said persons are.

No, unless you can measure it in some way, there is no reason to believe it does exist, that doesn't mean there is certainty that it does not. That is the atheist view on a god, some people refer to it as agnosticism, but agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not of belief. There are few truly gnostic atheists, and those that are usually aren't practicing good skepticism.

Believing something because someone important says it is true is an easy way to let yourself become a brainwashed tool of their ideology. I love how BW has been handling religion. Certainly there are some that believe in some form of spirituality, but there is no proof of anything supernatural, and that is how it should stay. Religion is fine as a belief, I just don't need my games preaching at me.