Support NeoGAF

[BigBooper]

That would be dumb. There's like half a dozen physical strong people in the Bible and God would have to be so watered down as to not be relevant as anything more than an insult. How would you expect to fight an omniscient, omnipresent, creator god with a player character?

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

Have you ever met an atheist?

Oh I said something funny? I must be wrong then. Sorry.

 

[R6Rider]

Have you ever met an atheist?

This response proves you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to that topic. You've already started on the misconception that all atheist are grouped into one mindset and all of the same world view. I'd probably just stay out of it.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

This response proves you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to that topic. You've already started on the idea that all atheist are grouped into one mindset and all of the same world view. I'd probably just stay out of it.

I'll talk about what I wish. Thanks though. Your angered response even further proves my point.

 

[R6Rider]

I'll talk about what I wish. Thanks though. Your angered response even further proves my point.

My angered response that derived from merely simple text and words that ended with periods? Now I see why all of your remarks are out of ignorance.

Definitely haven't seen that before. It's funny because you're trying so damn hard, yet still failing at the basic understanding of what the discussion was even about.

So yes, you will "talk about what you wish". You'll simply be wrong.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

My angered response that derived from merely simple text and words that ended with periods? Now I see why all of your remarks are out of ignorance.

Definitely haven't seen that before. It's funny because you're trying so damn hard, yet still failing at the basic understanding of what the discussion was even about.

So yes, you will "talk about what you wish". You'll simply be wrong.

I wasn't even talking to you tough guy. Trying so hard? At what? Triggering a few athiests? That was extremely easy. It always is. I did contribute to the discussion at hand. You simply ignored that part. I won't derail further though.

 

[Dacon]

Almost no one alive believes in Greek or Norse mythology, hence the ease of the term 'mythology'. Large segments of the world believe in Abrahamic religions and take them literally, so no.

This isn't true. There's a population of pagans that still believe in this stuff.

EDIT:

Isn't Yaweh the boss in several JRPGS?

 

[CitizenKratos]

I feel like you are conflating having a position with being able to prove something does or does not exist. Take this imagined dialog about the Loch Ness monster:

Believer: Do you believe the Loch Ness monster exists?
Skeptic: No, the sonar scans taken of the loch and our knowledge of the kinds of creatures that could have survived in it, indicate that the Loch Ness monster is extremely unlikely to have existed. So I am a non-believer.
Believer: But has every part of the loch been scanned simultaneously? And could there not be a gap in our scientific understanding?
Skeptic: No, but the majority of it has. And yes it is possible, if unlikely.
Believer: So you can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist?
Skeptic: I cannot.
Believer: Therefore you can't call yourself a "true" non-believer, since you merely lack belief in the Loch Ness monster but cannot prove that the preposition "the Loch Ness monster exists" is false. The law of the excluded middle tells us that a statement can only be true or false. Since you cannot prove the non truth of the proposition, you do not really have a position.
Skeptic: But I do have a position; I do not think belief in the Loch Ness monster is reasonable, because the evidence does not support that belief.
Believer: So you admit you are a non-believer in the sense that a rock or baby is "non-believer".
Skeptic: I am not claiming merely that I am non-believer, but that I am a non-believer because of the lack of evidence of the existence of the Loch Ness monster. A rock or baby doesn't have a position on these things.
Believer: Ah, but some people claim they are non-believers merely to deflect the burden of proof, while simultaneously making claims about not tolerating believers
Skeptic: The burden is still on these people to defend their claims about toleration. And the burden is still on me to defend my claims about whether it is reasonable to believe in the Loch Ness monster. The fact the "non-believer" classification can be used in faulty arguments does not mean is not useful. Any classification can be used in a faulty argument.

Anyway, the point of this overly long dialogue is that when people talk not believing in something, they are most of the time not attempting to make a rigorous philosophical proof to establish that this thing simply cannot exist as a matter of logic. They are rather making claims about what the evidence supports. The knowledge of the world we can acquire through logic alone is vanishingly small. So I find it perverse to suggest that the concept of (non) belief that exists in politics or science or human affairs generally shouldn't be extended to talk about religion. When the vast majority of people who are not analytic philosophers come to talk about their non-belief, shouldn't we have a way to classify that, and distinguish it from the elaborate claims made about the conceptual impossibility of God?

This response fits perfectly with the clear definition of "agnostic".

• One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
• One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

It does not fit with the definition of atheism as commonly used for hundreds of years. That confusion is on recent popularizers of atheism. An atheist accepts a burden of proof philosophically when he makes a claim about theism as happened here, because he has made a claim about reality. The agnostic has not.

 

[kurisu_1974]

This response fits perfectly with the clear definition of "agnostic".

It does not fit with the definition of atheism as commonly used for hundreds of years. That confusion is on recent popularizers of atheism. An atheist accepts a burden of proof philosophically when he makes a claim about theism as happened here, because he has made a claim about reality. The agnostic has not.

For the umpteenth time, agnosticism and atheism are not opposed to each other, as one is about knowledge and the other about belief. I feel like you are the rock here.

Also since you can't prove a negative (I can't proof the non-existance of either leprechauns, Russell's teapot, or the gods), guess where the burden of proof really lies.

 

[CitizenKratos]

For the umpteenth time, agnosticism and atheism are not opposed to each other, as one is about knowledge and the other about belief. I feel like you are the rock here.

Also since you can't prove a negative (I can't proof the non-existance of either leprechauns, Russell's teapot, or the gods), guess where the burden of proof really lies.

Reread the definition of agnosticism and tell me how it can include true atheism. And you can prove the non existence of many things. You can prove there are no living tyrannosaurus in the USA, you can prove there are no married bachelors. If an atheist finds his belief against God to be un provable then he should adopt a weaker belief like agnosticism.

 

[BreakOut]

Absolutely not.

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

and the prophets are the end bosses or what?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Today’s trailer and subsequent revelation this would be the end of the Norse installments got me wondering where things go next. Is it too far fetched for them to dabble in Abrahamic mythology? Can you imagine that shit? Kratos whooping up on Jesus or Mohammed?

Is Moses part of this? (I'm not religious, but assuming he goes with Jesus).

Kratos and Moses fight and the loser gets drowned by the parted sea.

 

[Gaelyon]

The real question is :

Will we see a Margaret Thatcheric God of War ?

 

[Astral Dog]

No

 

[FireFly]

This response fits perfectly with the clear definition of "agnostic".

• One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
• One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

How do you plan on differentiating between the viewpoints of the below 4 people?

Person A believes it is not possible to know with any certainty whether God exists, so he is a non-believer.
Person B is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists, but the evidence he has seen does not support the existence of God, so he is a non-believer.
Person C is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists, but the evidence he has seen does support the existence of God, so he is a believer
Person D is certain God exists. So he is a believer.

 

[Tommi84]

You want them to be killed? I mean the programmers. Because that's the way for them to be killed.

Let's stick to ancient gods and mythologies. Egiptian gods or japanese ones would be perfectly fine.

 

[NahaNago]

I'm going to say probably no to abrahamic god of war. The biggest issue I see is that you wouldn't have enough big guys to fight honestly. You have one being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and created everything and then you have his servants. The problem with using the abrahamic god is that the Bible is more about man than God.

A better idea would be to use men in the Bible as your opponent. Make some twisted version of Solomon, David, Sampson, Noah, Abraham, Judas, Moses, and Peter. But this would make more sense in a jrpg rather than western rpg.

 

[Poplin]

Has anyone mentioned El Shaddai? Best example I can think of, going hard on abrahamic texts:

 

[kurisu_1974]

Reread the definition of agnosticism and tell me how it can include true atheism. And you can prove the non existence of many things. You can prove there are no living tyrannosaurus in the USA, you can prove there are no married bachelors. If an atheist finds his belief against God to be un provable then he should adopt a weaker belief like agnosticism.

What you call "true atheism" is gnostic atheism. It's not the same as agnostic atheism. I think this is the fourth or fifth time me and other posters explained this to you.

I can not prove there are no living dinosaurs in the USA. I don't believe there are, but I can"t prove it. It is on the people that tell me there are living dinosaurs, to prove this and then I'll believe it.

This is the last time I'll explain the goddamned same thing to you, I feel I'm being low level trolled at this point.

 

[CitizenKratos]

How do you plan on differentiating between the viewpoints of the below 4 people?

Person A believes it is not possible to know with any certainty whether God exists, so he is a non-believer.
Person B is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists, but the evidence he has seen does not support the existence of God, so he is a non-believer.
Person C is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists, but the evidence he has seen does support the existence of God, so he is a believer
Person D is certain God exists. So he is a believer.

Bonus
Person E Has looked into the arguments for and against Gods existence and disbelieves it is possible that god(s) exist(s), so he is a disbeliever.

Person A agnostic
Person B agnostic
Person C theist
Person D theist
Person E atheist

What you call "true atheism" is gnostic atheism. It's not the same as agnostic atheism. I think this is the fourth or fifth time me and other posters explained this to you.

I can not prove there are no living dinosaurs in the USA. I don't believe there are, but I can"t prove it. It is on the people that tell me there are living dinosaurs, to prove this and then I'll believe it.

This is the last time I'll explain the goddamned same thing to you, I feel I'm being low level trolled at this point.

I wasn't talking about agnostic atheism. I was referring to true atheism as defined by the top thinkers on the subject including top atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy. Also the true definition before some morons attempted to change it to something with no burden.

Websters Dictionary 1828​

Atheism​

---

A'THEISM, noun The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

I can easily prove there are no tyrannosaurs in the USA. Don't confuse proof with 100% certainty. 100% certainty may be impossible on either positive proof or negative disproof.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Bonus
Person E Has looked into the arguments for and against Gods existence and disbelieves it is possible that god(s) exist(s), so he is a disbeliever.

Person A agnostic
Person B agnostic
Person C theist
Person D theist
Person E atheist

You're severly simplifying by lumping different groups together.

I wasn't talking about agnostic atheism. I was referring to true atheism as defined by the top thinkers on the subject including top atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy. Also the true definition before some morons attempted to change it to something with no burden.

Only you are talking about this supposed "true atheism", no one else here was, and I don't think you won't find many people subscribing to it either. What is the actual point you're trying to make here anyways?

I can easily prove there are no tyrannosaurs in the USA. Don't confuse proof with 100% certainty. 100% certainty may be impossible on either positive proof or negative disproof.

I guess in theory you could, since we can define what a tyrannosaur is, we know they existed, and we can't observe them in the USA today. That actually makes it a very bad anology with supernatural entities such as gods. The lack of evidence is why it's called faith.

 

[FireFly]

Bonus
Person E Has looked into the arguments for and against Gods existence and disbelieves it is possible that god(s) exist(s), so he is a disbeliever.

Person A agnostic
Person B agnostic
Person C theist
Person D theist
Person E atheist

What's wrong here? Well, to quote you, "It is exactly the fact that this alternate definition of atheism obfuscates many groups into one that is the problem".

Consider the first pair of individuals: The belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists (person A) is very different from the belief that the evidence a person has seen so far does not support belief in God (person B). The latter claim merely requires some kind of evaluation of the evidence seen so far; the former requires an argument about the nature of evidence in general, and a claim about the limitations thereof. Such a claim is arguably much stronger and has a correspondingly higher burden of proof. If I call myself an agnostic, and I do not make clear which of the two viewpoints I espouse, the first question that someone who disagrees with me is likely to ask is "what kind of agnostic are you"? And as you say, we should try to avoid such situations of "making it harder to communicate" by not having clear categories.

Or, in your own words:

"Philosophy represents a more systematic approach. Certainly more credible than popularizers. As soon as you enter the realm of debate you are in fact entering into philosophy and hopefully sound philosophy."

We need a systematic approach that allows us to communicate clearly, not (merely) one that happens to track popular speech.

Now consider the second pair. We will still have the same issue of obfuscation that we were trying avoid, but this time person C – who is not sure whether it is possible to know with certainty whether God exists – is not "making a claim about reality" at all, merely about what is reasonable to believe. Yet this was exactly why, using the text quoted, you rejected atheism as a description of religious belief! Well, you can't have it both ways. Either:

A.) "True" religious claims consist in prepositions about what does or does not exist, and not about what psychological state (beliefs) we should have. In which case person C cannot be called a theist, and we need to invent another term for him or her.
B.) Religious claims can consist in prepositions about what psychological states we should have. In which case this objection to (weak) "atheism" must fall away.

OK, but if we wanted to follow your original advice and not obfuscate many groups into one, how could we do this? Well, one suggestion is to define agnosticism more narrowly as "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". So we drop your second definition. That gives us the following categories:

Person A: Weak Atheist / Agnostic
Person B: Weak Atheist / Non Agnostic
Person C: Weak Theist
Person D: Strong Theist
Person E: Strong Atheist

Now we have a category for every person, and the aim of philosophical clarity is achieved. Now, the potential downside is that the meanings require elucidation, since they may not correspond 100% with everyday usage. But you've already seemingly expressed a preference for systematic clarity over what happens to be popular, so I don't see why this should be such a huge issue.

Also the true definition before some morons attempted to change it to something with no burden.

From the same dictionary:

"DISBELIEVE, verb transitive [dis and believe.] Not to believe; to hold not to be true or not to exist; to refuse to credit. Some men disbelieve the inspiration of the scriptures, and the immortality of the soul."

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Disbelieve

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Disbelieve

webstersdictionary1828.com

Since agnostics also don't believe in God, your definition backs up the view that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. To support your view, the definition should have said something like "belief in the impossibility of the existence of God".

 

[YoshiMadness]

Rather see an Egyptian God of War.

Also, Jesus would whoop Kratos Ass.

Oh please, Jesus would go down to a simple nail gun.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Better stick to whooping false gods ass. Very fitting.

I hope he whoops Jebus and his false god

 

[Yoboman]

The fact we have people in here already arguing about theology vs atheism shows how bad of an idea this would be

I think at best some modern religion will get some winks and nods in different Easter eggs but they will never make a game or anything that could be controversial

 

[TLZ]

I hope he whoops Jebus and his false god

He can try.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Hindu is ancient but still adhered to. it's so fundamental to a billion people that the country and culture are named after it.

Hinduism is named after the country actually, not the other way around.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

He can try.

Whatever you say Jebus freak

 

[Toons]

This threads responses are the reason why we shouldn't.

And I say that as a religious individual

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Nah. I don't see Islamic or Christian religions even working well. Jesus was about love and turning the other cheek.

Now he's in god of war? Kind of absurd.

Nah, Egyptian is probably the next logical step. But honestly,after that? I genuinely gave no clue.

 

[belmarduk]

Today’s trailer and subsequent revelation this would be the end of the Norse installments got me wondering where things go next. Is it too far fetched for them to dabble in Abrahamic mythology? Can you imagine that shit? Kratos whooping up on Jesus or Mohammed?

Somewhere, some mullah has issued a fatwah on you just for creating this thread.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Somewhere, some mullah has issued a fatwah on you just for creating this thread.

I for one welcome it, it would be great to see the religious nuts get all salty

 

[Md Ray]

Thread ignored.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Nah. I don't see Islamic or Christian religions even working well. Jesus was about love and turning the other cheek.

Now he's in god of war? Kind of absurd.

Nah, Egyptian is probably the next logical step. But honestly,after that? I genuinely gave no clue.

As they move into the Abrahamic god of war it is revealed that Atreus is actually Jesus and they go on a journey to take down Satan and his demon army

 

[TLZ]

WhateverWhatever you say Jebus freak

 

[R6Rider]

Thread ignored.

 

[Javthusiast]

Only way Jesus will fight Kratos is if he kills his children:

Or his wife:

 

[PleaseDontBanMe]

Sony Santa Monica doesn't want planes flying into their studios so the chances are slim

 

[VAL0R]

The huge difference is that the Judeo-Christian God is that being which none greater can be conceived. Literally perfect in every possible way, including power, this eternal being's existence holds the very fabric of reality itself together. It would be nonsensical to have a mere contingent creature like Kratos "fight" the God of Christendom. You can't fight eternal, almighty God. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That is to say, he is literally God. Christ chose to lay down his life for humanity to redeem it from sin and separation from God in Hell. But you can't take his life against his will. It's literally logically impossible. It cannot happen in reality. For anyone with an inkling of what that would mean, having some character defeat God would be, frankly, moronic. Don't get me wrong, you could make a game and say the final boss is "God" and have the character defeat him. But that's not the Christian God, or Jesus, call it what you want.

On the other hand the pantheon of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc., gods are an entirely different concept. They were not monotheists who believe in the perfect creator "God" like Jews, Muslims and Christians. They believed in fallible super-beings who could be tricked, outsmarted, etc. These gods could be petty and had many human-like flaws. They certainly do not have all perfections and therefore, it is logically possible they could be defeated by another super-being.

This is why the argument that Dawkins fanboy Pastafarian-tier atheists make saying, "I only believe in one god less than you!!!!" is just incredibly stupid.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

The huge difference is that the Judeo-Christian God is that being which none greater can be conceived. Literally perfect in every possible way, including power, this eternal being's existence holds the very fabric of reality itself together. It would be nonsensical to have a mere contingent creature like Kratos "fight" the God of Christendom. You can't fight eternal, almighty God. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That is to say, he is literally God. Christ chose to lay down his life for humanity to redeem it from sin and separation from God in Hell. But you can't take his life against his will. It's literally logically impossible. It cannot happen in reality. For anyone with an inkling of what that would mean, having some character defeat God would be, frankly, moronic. Don't get me wrong, you could make a game and say the final boss is "God" and have the character defeat him. But that's not the Christian God, or Jesus, call it what you want.

On the other hand the pantheon of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc., gods are an entirely different concept. They were not monotheists who believe in the perfect creator "God" like Jews, Muslims and Christians. They believed in fallible super-beings who could be tricked, outsmarted, etc. These gods could be petty and had many human-like flaws. They certainly do not have all perfections and therefore, it is logically possible they could be defeated by another super-being.

This is why the argument that Dawkins fanboy Pastafarian-tier atheists make saying, "I only believe in one god less than you!!!!" is just incredibly stupid.

Sure Jan GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

GIPHY is the platform that animates your world. Find the GIFs, Clips, and Stickers that make your conversations more positive, more expressive, and more you.

giphy.com

 

[The Fartist]

Sounds lame as fuck, gimme an Aztec GOW.

 

[Dacon]

Dude that's fucked up for a lot of reasons.

 

[Javthusiast]

Dude that's fucked up for a lot of reasons.

She deserves a loving embrace.

 

[Razvedka]

Today’s trailer and subsequent revelation this would be the end of the Norse installments got me wondering where things go next. Is it too far fetched for them to dabble in Abrahamic mythology? Can you imagine that shit? Kratos whooping up on Jesus or Mohammed?

Not in a billion years.

 

[YukiOnna]

The huge difference is that the Judeo-Christian God is that being which none greater can be conceived. Literally perfect in every possible way, including power, this eternal being's existence holds the very fabric of reality itself together. It would be nonsensical to have a mere contingent creature like Kratos "fight" the God of Christendom. You can't fight eternal, almighty God. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That is to say, he is literally God. Christ chose to lay down his life for humanity to redeem it from sin and separation from God in Hell. But you can't take his life against his will. It's literally logically impossible. It cannot happen in reality. For anyone with an inkling of what that would mean, having some character defeat God would be, frankly, moronic. Don't get me wrong, you could make a game and say the final boss is "God" and have the character defeat him. But that's not the Christian God, or Jesus, call it what you want.

On the other hand the pantheon of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc., gods are an entirely different concept. They were not monotheists who believe in the perfect creator "God" like Jews, Muslims and Christians. They believed in fallible super-beings who could be tricked, outsmarted, etc. These gods could be petty and had many human-like flaws. They certainly do not have all perfections and therefore, it is logically possible they could be defeated by another super-being.

This is why the argument that Dawkins fanboy Pastafarian-tier atheists make saying, "I only believe in one god less than you!!!!" is just incredibly stupid.

Chill, it's just a game. I'm not here for Sunday School.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Lunatic_Gamer That's crazy you brought this up as me and my friend were speculating about this today and how they could pull it off. My suggestion was to have the player play as Satan.

 

[MarkMe2525]

The huge difference is that the Judeo-Christian God is that being which none greater can be conceived. Literally perfect in every possible way, including power, this eternal being's existence holds the very fabric of reality itself together. It would be nonsensical to have a mere contingent creature like Kratos "fight" the God of Christendom. You can't fight eternal, almighty God. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That is to say, he is literally God. Christ chose to lay down his life for humanity to redeem it from sin and separation from God in Hell. But you can't take his life against his will. It's literally logically impossible. It cannot happen in reality. For anyone with an inkling of what that would mean, having some character defeat God would be, frankly, moronic. Don't get me wrong, you could make a game and say the final boss is "God" and have the character defeat him. But that's not the Christian God, or Jesus, call it what you want.

On the other hand the pantheon of Greek, Roman, Norse, etc., gods are an entirely different concept. They were not monotheists who believe in the perfect creator "God" like Jews, Muslims and Christians. They believed in fallible super-beings who could be tricked, outsmarted, etc. These gods could be petty and had many human-like flaws. They certainly do not have all perfections and therefore, it is logically possible they could be defeated by another super-being.

This is why the argument that Dawkins fanboy Pastafarian-tier atheists make saying, "I only believe in one god less than you!!!!" is just incredibly stupid.

Perfect yet he fucked up the first time he made humans

 

[PleaseDontBanMe]

Chill, it's just a game. I'm not here for Sunday School.

i've always found it fascinating that people believe theres a God in the afterlife when there isn't even one in the current life

what if Fetus all thought that after being born they'd meet God, only to find out they'll be stuck paying taxes for life on earth

I'm pretty much sure the same thing happens again after we die somewhere else

we just pass through one universe to another after we expire

and in each one we have to slave away and pay taxes

there is no heaven, only work and taxes

 

[TLZ]

Perfect yet he fucked up the first time he made humans

Can you do a better job?