Support NeoGAF

[Haggard]

you prove it again. adaptation is not accidental. it's a built in mechanism. a tiny mechanism in the balance of the mortal world.

Tell that to the 99,9% of all species that accidentally developed in the wrong direction and died out again.
Creationists'.... let`s call it "arguments" for lack of a better word.... are getting more ridiculous by the minute.
The whole god thing is purely faith, there are no logical, let alone scientifical, "pro existense" arguments, just accept it.

 

[Amiga]

Tell that to the 99,9% of all species that accidentally developed in the wrong direction and died out again.
Creationists'.... let`s call it "arguments" for lack of a better word.... are getting more ridiculous by the minute.
The whole god thing is purely faith, there are no logical, let alone scientifical, "pro existense" arguments, just accept it.

99.9%? where are the stats for that? seems like a statement out of faith.
evolution from nothing is just hard sci-fi. it's Scientology with a deeper plot, I actually dig it.

 

[Haggard]

99.9%? where are the stats for that? seems like a statement out of faith.

Scientific research with cold hard facts. But that's obviously nothing a creationist would understand..... If you're interested though you can educate yourself on the big 5 extinction events in as much detail as you like from countless publications or just Wikipedia

evolution from nothing is just hard sci-fi. it's Scientology with a deeper plot, I actually dig it.

you have no arguments, and that is the bottom line. You have faith and nothing else. You're unarmed in anything that even remotely resembles a scientific discussion.

 

[Amiga]

Scientific research with cold hard facts.

you say this but no actual proof.

you can educate yourself on the big 5 extinction events in as much detail as you like from countless publications or just Wikipedia you have no arguments

Actually did, for many years. from actual books in libraries way before Wikipedia. hardly any serious claim for evolution from nothing. "from nothing" is just something non professional normal atheists say.

 

[R6Rider]

you say this but no actual proof.

The irony.

 

[Amiga]

The irony.

it's one belief vs another. otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.

 

[Dr. Claus]

it's one belief vs another. otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.

Science isn't a "belief". It is a rigorous series of experiments, data collecting, and analysis. Claiming otherwise is just plain ignorance.

 

[Amiga]

Science isn't a "belief". It is a rigorous series of experiments, data collecting, and analysis. Claiming otherwise is just plain ignorance.

Science starts with belief actually. fact comes later if the belief is confirmed. non reasoned belief is delusion.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Science starts with belief actually. fact comes later if the belief is confirmed. non reasoned belief is delusion.

Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is... sad. I thought this was taught in all schools at an elementary level?

Science starts with observations. These observations lead to questions. These questions lead to research, where one formulates a hypothesis, literally just a limited proposed explanation. This hypothesis is never considered true or is it a belief of correctness as its just that, *a hypothesis*.

From here we develop and plan experiments to test the hypothesis. If the results suggest our hypothesis is wrong, we go back to the drawing board and propose a new hypothesis from the new data. We repeat this until we get a definite, or highly probably answer. This creates a *theory*. Once that theory has been tested enough, it becomes a *law*.

Belief has no place in science. It is a process and methodology for seeking objective reality.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Science starts with belief actually. fact comes later if the belief is confirmed. non reasoned belief is delusion.

Hah that's ironic from someone who thinks everything was planned out by a mysterious greater force that we haven't seen a sign of, ever.

Why not just admit we don't know everything yet instead of adding another unexplained mystery like deities to the mix. And if the only thing they did is kickstart the universe, why consider them deities at all?

 

[sephiroth7x]

Geographically, depending on the ending of the game of course, I would expect it to head to Ireland and go into Irish Folklore and Mythology.

I would love Egypt but it doesn't seem to fit into the course as they would have to travel back in time since it predates most of what we have seen so far.

 

[Haggard]

you say this but no actual proof.

So, now hundreds of millions of years worth of fossils, sediments etc are all fake or just a very elaborate joke by god I guess?

Actually did, for many years. from actual books in libraries way before Wikipedia. hardly any serious claim for evolution from nothing. "from nothing" is just something non professional normal atheists say.

Your claims are so crudely wrong it seems you stopped following scientific research ~40 years ago....either that or you mostly read comic versions of the bible.
We have a pretty detailed picture of the evolutionary journey from today till back to the very first cells. We`ve even found complex organic molecules in space and it`s only a matter of time until we find the mechanism that turns a combination of those into a living thing.
The white spots people can point to and screech "god" are getting smaller by the minute.

non reasoned belief is delusion.

Do...do you even see the irony in you saying that?

 

[Amiga]

So, now hundreds of millions of years worth of fossils, sediments etc are all fake or just a very elaborate joke by god I guess?

these are actually a sign of God.

Your claims are so crudely wrong it seems you stopped following scientific research ~40 years ago

you don't even know what my claims are. you mix in assumptions from stuff you read watch elsewhere. repeating them like a mantra.

Do...do you even see the irony in you saying that?

I see the irony in what you are saying.

Science starts with observations. These observations lead to questions. These questions lead to research, where one formulates a hypothesis, literally just a limited proposed explanation. This hypothesis is never considered true or is it a belief of correctness as its just that, *a hypothesis*.

semantics! this is where people start throwing the Merriam-Webster at me.

to play along with this a hypothesis "is never considered true". then that should apply to "evolution from nothing" or "man from ape". but neo atheists take it as gospel (ironically).

Why not just admit we don't know everything

correct. we don't know everything. we know limited specific things. we discover new knowledge based on old knowledge. what we discover keeps proving the world is in a state of immaculate order. God is the source of the order. in Islam God encourages mankind to contemplate, discover and behold creation. it's how Islamic culture, based firmly on religion, advanced astronomy and math.

 

[Haggard]

these are actually a sign of God.

ooooookaaaaay.
I can just hope you`re trolling...if not well then I can just wish you to have fun at the next witchburning and praying for your eternal soul or something.......

 

[Amiga]

ooooookaaaaay.
I can just hope you`re trolling...if not well then I can just wish you to have fun at the next witchburning and praying for your eternal soul or something......

more assumptions. this is why I check thrice when I see claims of "logic" and "reasoning". they end up as salesmanship with little substance if people bother to investigate.

 

[poppabk]

You could do it Paradise Lost style, with the hosts of heaven fighting against the devil's horde. Does Kratos side with Heaven or Pandemonium. You have a decent size cast of characters/enemies and weapons galore, mountains being moved to block hells cannon fire, giant battle between angels and demons.
Honestly it could be amazing.

 

[Haggard]

more assumptions. this is why I check thrice when I see claims of "logic" and "reasoning". they end up as salesmanship with little substance if people bother to investigate

You`re just the usual "faith nutjob" trying to claim logic for yourself while completely ignoring the last few hundred years of scientific research. Pointless talking to you.. Ignored.

 

[CitizenKratos]

That's good because weak and strong atheism are different categories.

I wasn’t discussing juxtapositions. The base term does not include weak atheism.

Also ironic that you yourself seemingly committed the same "error" when you classified persons C and D as theists, despite the fact that they have different doxastic states towards preposition (i).

The doxastic attitudes are; affirmation, denial, and neutral towards (i). In your example both C and D find evidence that God exists and are believers in God (i). I’d put them into the correct doxastic attitudes.

But since you've decided not to address any of my points, I guess this discussion is over. If you are interested in philosophy, my advice is to actually try to engage with arguments rather than stepping around them with appeals to authority, or attacking their semantics. Since the one thing that differentiates philosophy from other disciplines is that philosophers disagree about practically everything,

Your points seemed to be based on a few flaws so just pointed those out. In order for those points to be true you would need to be correct in the terms. This is about semantics though, because it is about the definition of a word. Philosophers may disagree a lot but they do have a consensus on the standard definition of atheism.

"While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy,”

"Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term.

“Fails as an umbrella (base) term”; this is exactly what I argued for. In theory people can use the term ‘wrong’ and that then becomes a definition. Philosophy makes better arguments for correct usage than that.

 

[VAL0R]

I always find it arrogant when internet atheists are so condescending toward people of faith because in their minds they somehow have exclusive rights to science. This only highlights your ignorance of scientific history. Many of the greatest scientists that ever lived were theists and/or Christians. The belief that God created the physical world and designed our cognitive abilities in such a way that we can make sense of that world, is in absolutely no way an obstacle to scientific discovery, but actually an aid to it. (Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes the argument that you have no reason to trust your cognitive faculties as guides toward truth, on atheism, only survival - but I won't go into that here.) Yes, some people of faith have some beliefs that are not supported by science, but so what? Many non-monotheists and atheists also believe many foolish things. To deny that human life begins at conception is just as demonstrably false as denying that Earth is round. Yet many atheists do this very thing.

Many consider the men Roger Bacon (a Catholic friar [monk]), Francis Bacon (a devout Anglican Christian), Rene Descartes (Christian philosopher), Galileo (devout Roman Catholic, despite his persecution), and Isaac Newton (Christian, and arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived) to be central figures in the fashioning of the modern scientific method. Some, if not all of these same men were explicitly critics of atheism. Newton considered it foolish. There are many other giants in science who were men and women of faith. Discovering the mysteries of the universe the Creator made out of nothing outside of himself, is just as profound or more so than discovering the mysteries of a supposed accidental universe that came from nothing and with no purpose. The "Big Bang Theory", by the way, was first proposed by a Catholic priest (with a Ph.D. in physics), the "Father of the Big Bang", Georges Lemaître.

 

[BootsLoader]

op what did you smoke? Can you give me?

 

[kurisu_1974]

what we discover keeps proving the world is in a state of immaculate order. God is the source of the order.

But that's just something you believe. There is no actual proof, that's why you have faith. Also pretty sure the known universe is entropic (or maybe that's what you call immaculate order).

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

I always find it arrogant when internet atheists are so condescending toward people of faith because in their minds they somehow have exclusive rights to science. This only highlights your ignorance of scientific history. Many of the greatest scientists that ever lived were theists and/or Christians. The belief that God created the physical world and designed our cognitive abilities in such a way that we can make sense of that world, is in absolutely no way an obstacle to scientific discovery, but actually an aid to it. (Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes the argument that you have no reason to trust your cognitive faculties as guides toward truth, on atheism, only survival - but I won't go into that here.) Yes, some people of faith have some beliefs that are not supported by science, but so what? Many non-monotheists and atheists also believe many foolish things. To deny that human life begins at conception is just as demonstrably false as denying that Earth is round. Yet many atheists do this very thing.

Many consider the men Roger Bacon (a Catholic friar [monk]), Francis Bacon (a devout Anglican Christian), Rene Descartes (Christian philosopher), Galileo (devout Roman Catholic, despite his persecution), and Isaac Newton (Christian, and arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived) to be central figures in the fashioning of the modern scientific method. Some, if not all of these same men were explicitly critics of atheism. Newton considered it foolish. There are many other giants in science who were men and women of faith. Discovering the mysteries of the universe the Creator made out of nothing outside of himself, is just as profound or more so than discovering the mysteries of a supposed accidental universe that came from nothing and with no purpose. The "Big Bang Theory", by the way, was first proposed by a Catholic priest (with a Ph.D. in physics), the "Father of the Big Bang", Georges Lemaître.

Ah poor baby you think Jebus will save you

 

[Haggard]

To deny that human life begins at conception is just as demonstrably false as denying that Earth is round. Yet many atheists do this very thing.

So first we get one who claims that dinosaur fossils are proof of god, and now we got one of the pro life heroes in this thread. Internetz, yay.

 

[balt1kr1s]

You won’t be able to find god or Jesus there but entire lore is based on war between angels and demons with humans being a consequence of forbidden fruit.
Also worth to mention that everything in world of Diablo started with omnipotent being that have split in to good and evil as two extremely powerful beings that have split again into angels and demons.

 

[Velius]

You wouldn't be allowed to do anything about Islam or Muhammad for obvious reasons.

But despite Christianity being strictly monotheistic you have a ton of content there. Angels, demons, Lucifer himself, Lilith, etc. Milton would be a goddamn playbook for this kind of thing. Plus you could get all kinds of anit-christian jabs in there which has been all the rage for the past 10 or so years

 

[German Hops]

 

[Kimahri]

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

People do realize Jesus was a regular guy when alive right? And was killed like a regular man.

Muhammad was a warlord but he was also a regular guy.

In fact there are no Zeus equals at all. We are talking about people who could be standard enemies.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Hah that's ironic from someone who thinks everything was planned out by a mysterious greater force that we haven't seen a sign of, ever.

Sounds like the big bang.

Also you guys seem to be diving very close to politics in the direction your veering off in.

Evangelion

That's not really any thing but a completely nonsensical anime, which the creators themselves admit they had no idea what they were using, just thought it looked cool. Lol

 

[Amiga]

But that's just something you believe. There is no actual proof, that's why you have faith. Also pretty sure the known universe is entropic (or maybe that's what you call immaculate order).

in Islam the point is to realize God through creation. it's reasoned faith with different tiers that is higher for those who contemplate. when the clear proof comes it will signal the end of the trail of mankind, no acceptance after that event.

there is reasoning for creation. and the reasoning is consistent even across different religions. in the west Christian and Jewish thinkers responded eloquently to atheist claims. but religion requires commitment and discipline and forgoing a lot of common pleasure prevalent these days. people want the easy now and atheism is a convenient idea.

 

[Dr. Claus]

these are actually a sign of God.



you don't even know what my claims are. you mix in assumptions from stuff you read watch elsewhere. repeating them like a mantra.



I see the irony in what you are saying.



semantics! this is where people start throwing the Merriam-Webster at me.

to play along with this a hypothesis "is never considered true". then that should apply to "evolution from nothing" or "man from ape". but neo atheists take it as gospel (ironically).



correct. we don't know everything. we know limited specific things. we discover new knowledge based on old knowledge. what we discover keeps proving the world is in a state of immaculate order. God is the source of the order. in Islam God encourages mankind to contemplate, discover and behold creation. it's how Islamic culture, based firmly on religion, advanced astronomy and math.

Ok, so you are a blatant troll. Thanks for wasting our time.

 

[Kappa]

I hope they do. It would be cool seeing an angels vs demons war. Its the only fictional setting that I haven't done since the smt series

 

[VAL0R]

Ah poor baby you think Jebus will save you

So first we get one who claims that dinosaur fossils are proof of god, and now we got one of the pro life heroes in this thread. Internetz, yay.

 

[Sosokrates]

I really want to see SSM do a new iP .
After Ragnarok its time to give the GOW ip a rest.

 

[FireFly]

I wasn’t discussing juxtapositions. The base term does not include weak atheism.

So you agree that weak and strong atheism are perfectly valid and potentially useful classifications to describe the nature of someone's non-belief in God?

The doxastic attitudes are; affirmation, denial, and neutral towards (i). In your example both C and D find evidence that God exists and are believers in God (i). I’d put them into the correct doxastic attitudes.

Persons B and C are symmetrically situated. Neither claims to know whether God exists, but person C believes the evidence makes it more likely than not that God exists, so is a "believer". And person B believes the evidence makes it less likely than not that God exists, so is a "non-believer".

 

[cormack12]

Until the religion passes into a mythology there is no chance. There is plenty of material though from the OT. If it was the NT, would probably be a cinematic adventure game instead.

 

[kurisu_1974]

in Islam the point is to realize God through creation. it's reasoned faith with different tiers that is higher for those who contemplate. when the clear proof comes it will signal the end of the trail of mankind, no acceptance after that event.

there is reasoning for creation. and the reasoning is consistent even across different religions. in the west Christian and Jewish thinkers responded eloquently to atheist claims. but religion requires commitment and discipline and forgoing a lot of common pleasure prevalent these days. people want the easy now and atheism is a convenient idea.

So which is it? In your previous post the proof was obvious, but now we are waiting for the proof? All this without you having presented an actual lick of said proof I might add. Also why would someone who has faith / belief in supernatural superbeings need proof? Feels like that's against the core of most religion (if there actually was proof, it would not really be a religion anyways, but just science/facts).

 

[Amiga]

So which is it? In your previous post the proof was obvious, but now we are waiting for the proof? All this without you having presented an actual lick of said proof I might add. Also why would someone who has faith / belief in supernatural superbeings need proof? Feels like that's against the core of most religion (if there actually was proof, it would not really be a religion anyways, but just science/facts).

the previous proof was about the order in life. the direct proof of God is the direct control of that order (miracles). and that great proof hasn't happened since the times of the prophets(and it's not something we wait for). and belief happens in the 1st place because someone has realized enough evidence, It doesn't happen suddenly. you assume it's against the core of religion but that is just wrong. evidence is actually the core.

 

[kurisu_1974]

the previous proof was about the order in life. the direct proof of God is the direct control of that order (miracles). and that great proof hasn't happened since the times of the prophets(and it's not something we wait for). and belief happens in the 1st place because someone has realized enough evidence, It doesn't happen suddenly. you assume it's against the core of religion but that is just wrong. evidence is actually the core.

OK so where is this proof "about the order of life"? Or do you not know how proof works? Protip: none of this can be proven, it's just your belief, and I'm guessing it's all based on circular reasoning or faith, especially since you presented exactly zero actual proof (or even evidence).

 

[Amiga]

OK so where is this proof "about the order of life"? Or do you not know how proof works? Protip: none of this can be proven, it's just your belief, and I'm guessing it's all based on circular reasoning or faith, especially since you presented exactly zero actual proof (or even evidence).

in court the conclusivity of evidence as proof depends on the jury. there are people out there that believe everything is relative and nothing is real.
For me I see that the myriad ways life develops and is in synergy as proof the order. that's more than enough for me and billions of others. I don't know what evidence is good enough for you. there is tons of material out there with a lot more depth. it's your responsibly to figure things out sincerely and without prejudice.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Well we are not in court and you still have not presented anything actually usable outside of stuff "you believe because ???" which is weird since there is "so much evidence and tons of material out there". Since you're going in circles without ever saying anything of actual value, I don't see us getting anywhere.

 

[anothertech]

Not enough of a pantheon even if you wanted to go that route.

I feel like Egypt or something would be the next logical choice.

No way. Would be sweet going up against Goliath, king David, the 12 disciples, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Michael the archangel, Gabriel the destroying angel, and then of course the Trinity, Jesus wielding a whip, and The Almighty Father. Alpha and Omega and all that.

Then of course getting cast down to biblical Hell, battling Satan and his minions. Beelzebub, Legion, Mammon, the seven sins, And clawing your way out.

That said, given the gow treatment, it would probably cause a christian anti videogame stir across the globe that would last for decades.

 

[Fare thee well]

My hope is always for more original ideas entirely. Obviously you will always draw from some human influence, but I'd prefer newer ideas.

Also, the two decades of having Catholicism shoved down my throat is enough to make me avoid the subject matter forever. But that's just personal to me.

 

[lukilladog]

I always find it arrogant when internet atheists are so condescending toward people of faith because in their minds they somehow have exclusive rights to science. This only highlights your ignorance of scientific history. Many of the greatest scientists that ever lived were theists and/or Christians. The belief that God created the physical world and designed our cognitive abilities in such a way that we can make sense of that world, is in absolutely no way an obstacle to scientific discovery, but actually an aid to it. (Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes the argument that you have no reason to trust your cognitive faculties as guides toward truth, on atheism, only survival - but I won't go into that here.) Yes, some people of faith have some beliefs that are not supported by science, but so what? Many non-monotheists and atheists also believe many foolish things. To deny that human life begins at conception is just as demonstrably false as denying that Earth is round. Yet many atheists do this very thing.

Many consider the men Roger Bacon (a Catholic friar [monk]), Francis Bacon (a devout Anglican Christian), Rene Descartes (Christian philosopher), Galileo (devout Roman Catholic, despite his persecution), and Isaac Newton (Christian, and arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived) to be central figures in the fashioning of the modern scientific method. Some, if not all of these same men were explicitly critics of atheism. Newton considered it foolish. There are many other giants in science who were men and women of faith. Discovering the mysteries of the universe the Creator made out of nothing outside of himself, is just as profound or more so than discovering the mysteries of a supposed accidental universe that came from nothing and with no purpose. The "Big Bang Theory", by the way, was first proposed by a Catholic priest (with a Ph.D. in physics), the "Father of the Big Bang", Georges Lemaître.

Cool story bro, we remember and appreciate those people by the theories they demonstrated to be right, it would be foolish to believe on everything they had in their head just because they were smart, that is not how science works.

 

[CitizenKratos]

So you agree that weak and strong atheism are perfectly valid and potentially useful classifications to describe the nature of someone's non-belief in God?

Of course. And I already answered this...

My only contention was in the definition of the base terms. Namely atheism. But also agnosticism, theism. The three base terms are the most useful in their original meanings because of the symmetrical opposition of the positions. These are base terms. I make no claim that there aren't juxtapositions that can flesh them out further. As I said "I wasn't talking about agnostic atheism." That may very well be a useful juxtaposition mind you but that cannot overturn the base meaning of atheism. Again I was referring to the base term.

Persons B and C are symmetrically situated. Neither claims to know whether God exists, but person C believes the evidence makes it more likely than not that God exists, so is a "believer". And person B believes the evidence makes it less likely than not that God exists, so is a "non-believer".

You don't need to know with 100% certainty to believe. I didn't see these as being symmetrical. C is an active conscious believer in God, putting him in the affirming doxastic attitude. Nothing you said about B indicated he actively disbelieves in God. Because a nonbeliever is not necessarily a disbeliever and that differentiation puts them into different doxastic attitudes. If B believed there was no God, as opposed to being neutral, he would indeed be a disbeliever; atheist. With the base terms, the choice is fairly binary by definition; whether you are neutral or not, but of course that's the nature of the doxastric attitudes and to a lesser extent, human choice in general.

 

[kurisu_1974]

So you can make a distinction between nonbeliever and disbeliever but not between statements of knowledge vs. statements about belief? Weird but OK.

 

[FireFly]

Of course. And I already answered this...

Ok. So I don't think the disagreement really amounts to much. Since the "Atheist" can simply renounce any claim to be using that term in its "base" form.

You don't need to know with 100% certainty to believe. I didn't see these as being symmetrical. C is an active conscious believer in God, putting him in the affirming doxastic attitude. Nothing you said about B indicated he actively disbelieves in God. Because a nonbeliever is not necessarily a disbeliever and that differentiation puts them into different doxastic attitudes. If B believed there was no God, as opposed to being neutral, he would indeed be a disbeliever; atheist. With the base terms, the choice is fairly binary by definition; whether you are neutral or not, but of course that's the nature of the doxastric attitudes and to a lesser extent, human choice in general.

So is the skeptic in the Loch Ness monster example a disbeliever or a non-believer?

 

[Amiga]

Well we are not in court and you still have not presented anything actually usable outside of stuff "you believe because ???" which is weird since there is "so much evidence and tons of material out there". Since you're going in circles without ever saying anything of actual value, I don't see us getting anywhere.

Science vs the temple of Science..


.
.
.
Aristotle, an actual ancient Greek that didn't grow under the influence of Christianity or Islam..

Unmoved mover - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scotty W]

 

[ColonialRaptor]

I don’t know where this thread seems to have gone but I feel like this would be a really interesting path for god of war to take. Since there are so many different old gods to go through first I think it will be a while until we get there. but if it did happen there’s a whole lot of potential. All the angels, then lucifer and his demons and perhaps even Adam and Eve. The potential for some really interesting places is really appealing to me. Although I hope we get Egypt and then some of Asia as well honestly there is so many places for the series to go, kratos will end up destroying all the gods.