Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
You can poke at either the atheist side or the religious side and play with the "flaws" of either view.

That's the insight you draw from this comment?

Insight? More like a comment on a safe mechanism to engage the player.
Hard to "engage" in discussion with these fun comments.
Not sure what comment you refer to for that "insight"...

However, as you can guess, faith is not portrayed in a very positive fashion. How could it ever be?

Back On-T, any game that portrays faith entailing magical powers is not talking about faith.

Really?
The traditional "magic" in the game is demonstrable but it's assumed origin is based on "faith" which even in traditional D&D can be of varying sources.
There is still plenty of room to portray belief with no objective evidence for or against.

Black and white views make for easy dismissal, it is the shades of grey that make the topics interesting.

No, I mean dualism (in the sense we are talking about) is a position imagined by materialists on behalf of others.

Err... what sense are we supposedly talking about here?

The sense in which the world is best understood in monolithic terms "material" and "non-material" (i.e., the materialist sense). This as opposed to, for example, the more general concept of dualism you might read about in Zen texts.

 Manchu wrote:
The sense in which the world is best understood in monolithic terms "material" and "non-material" (i.e., the materialist sense). This as opposed to, for example, the more general concept of dualism you might read about in Zen texts.

The belief is our physical experience has "impermanence" so developing attachment to the "material" is futile and only leads to suffering.
The "concreteness" of the immediate experience is of import, "Not two".
I thought the intent of Zen is to remove dualism, to think of nothingness and completely remove any thought of pairs or the polar.

To talk of Zen however is to deviate very much off-topic since "god wanting us dead" is pretty much as far away as that belief gets.

You're on the right track regarding Zen. In classical Chinese thought, dualism is a fundamental concept. Most simply stated, dualism is the practice of identifying a thing by contrasting it against/alienating it from all other things. For example, love is whatever love is on the basis that it not anything else. Dualism, at least discussed at this level of generality, is obviously also a fundamental concept in the West. This is how we unconsciously understand everything, which is why the challenge to this worldview offered by Zen is so radical and why Zen techniques are often design to "shock" us, waking us up to realize that dualism is a way of looking at the world and not the world itself. As the famous Zen saying goes, don't confuse your finger for the moon when you point at it.

This general dualism is already uncritically accepted by materialists; that is, the issue is settled/invisible as far as they are concerned. What they mean by the term dualism, usually in the context of studying consciousness, is the notion that reality consists of something in addition to material. Before pursuing that more specific concept of dualism, let me clarify in the sense of generalized dualism what materialism assumes: not only that what is material certainly exists but that the concept of material is literally reality. To put that in Zen terms, they say the finger is the moon. So given the specific sense of dualism we're talking about has that notion for its context: that kind of dualist does not dispute the reality of what is material but only that reality is solely material. It's a slightly different finger, but it as finger that is still equated with the moon.

This is the kind of thinking implicated by the metaphysics of religion. A cute bit of copy like "god wants us dead" could be re-worded as "god is an enemy NPC." So you see, that's not about religion at all but (just barely) about product development.

First non-Catholics were telling Catholics what they really believe. Now Catholics are telling Zen Buddhists what they really believe. This thread is delivering on all cylinders.

what a weak criticism even by drive-by standards

 Manchu wrote:
what a weak criticism even by drive-by standards

Oh please, the standards here aren't even that high.

So do you really think only a Catholic can understand anything about Catholicism, etc? Or do you just want to keep it to snark? If the latter, please excuse my lack of reply.

 Manchu wrote:
So do you really think only a Catholic can understand anything about Catholicism, etc? Or do you just want to keep it to snark? If the latter, please excuse my lack of reply.

I think it is more "Manchu understands Manchu's worldview and thinks everyone should too".

Take your rewriting of the title - god is an npc - all just to further the narritive that there is no true faith in video games and no value to any depiction of faith in video games while you simultaniously ignore or brush aside any rebuttle to your points or evidence to the contrary.

You claim to have a deep understanding of not just your own personal faith, but that of your religion too... and the religions and non religions of pretty much everyone else as well but then spend your time dismissing anything anyone else then says...

Since the whole gamergate debacle the stories on Polygone become such delusional view on the gamer and game world that i don't take any of them seriously.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
"Manchu understands Manchu's worldview and thinks everyone should too"

Manchu does indeed make an effort to be aware of and understand Manchu's worldview. After all, a worldview is more like ones own fleshly eyes than a pair of glasses. You have the one you have and no other, even if it does change over time. I don't know how you can criticize me for speaking from my own perspective, trying to clarify it for others, and hoping others will better understand it.

I have posted that "god wants us dead" in the context of this article can be rephrased as "god is an enemy NPC." That is an argument. Do you have a counterargument? All you have done so far is identify that this argument supports a larger one I have been making, that video games never (IME) actually talk about religion in a meaningful way. I don't know why you felt it was significant to point this out given I already did so in my post preceding the one you quoted.

Your own post supplies a useful metaphor to further explain my point about how video games treat religion (when religion is anything more than set dressing). Rather than talking about any point I made you talk about the way I talk about the points I made. Video games, including the BioWare RPGs, treat religion the same way. In effect, video games mostly just make tone arguments about religion.

For the last 6+ years, the evidence has really piled up that there is no point posting anything on this site that is not a comment about a product. I don't know why now and not sooner or why here instead of in one of the seemingly endless MRA threads, maybe it's the fact that Ahtman who is one of the smartest regular posters we have will not even bother to engage above snark-level, but I think I'm finally done doing anything but modding and posting "nice sculpt but too pricey for me" type posts.

Perhaps if you hadn't conflated a bit of wry observation with criticism and lashed out I may have been more likely to be a bit more sincere in a response. As it was you weren't exactly straight with your response and jumped right into attack mode. If you need more specific a response: I didn't make a criticism as much as note that we have traveled from one group commenting on another group, to that group then commenting on another group. Honestly I just assumed it was late and you are a bit grumpy from the hour, which is why I let it go.

 Ahtman wrote:
Perhaps if you hadn't conflated a bit of wry observation with criticism and lashed out I may have been more likely to be a bit more sincere in a response. As it was you weren't exactly straight with your response and jumped right into attack mode. If you need more specific a response: I didn't make a criticism as much as note that we have traveled from one group commenting on another group, to that group then commenting on another group. Honestly I just assumed it was late and you are a bit grumpy from the hour, which is why I let it go.

I figured the "drive-by" comment was more in my direction anyway.

With the way Manchu posts it is hard to figure out what belief system this person operates on...
The slap-downs are rather distressing.

I have done martial arts in the Japanese tradition most of my life so many belief systems have rubbed off on me and I find Buddhist methods a good means to clear the mind and try to reduce / remove prejudice since the emphasis is to experience the moment for what it is, not compare with other events. So the Catholic / Zen comment is rather funny since we are all experts in our minds and need the occasional tear-down.

What I find interesting is should the BioWare god be an NPC or treated more as a "hostile environment"?
I have felt when playing the games that the "god" directed forces were more of a challenging backdrop for the main story to develop within: something to keep you busy while you pursue the main plotline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
<snip>...I have posted that "god wants us dead" in the context of this article can be rephrased as "god is an enemy NPC." That is an argument. Do you have a counterargument? All you have done so far is identify that this argument supports a larger one I have been making, that video games never (IME) actually talk about religion in a meaningful way. I don't know why you felt it was significant to point this out given I already did so in my post preceding the one you quoted.

It could easily be argued how can you possibly talk about a religion in a meaningful way in any medium?
Discuss it's merits? Pitfalls? The behavior of it's followers?
I would say anything that turns your attention to the less material matters and gets you thinking, has a merit all it's own.
Like these lively discussions in the forums.
Calling a person out about counterarguments is rather pointless since I have posted many and the tendency is to ignore them...

For the last 6+ years, the evidence has really piled up that there is no point posting anything on this site that is not a comment about a product. I don't know why now and not sooner or why here instead of in one of the seemingly endless MRA threads, maybe it's the fact that Ahtman who is one of the smartest regular posters we have will not even bother to engage above snark-level, but I think I'm finally done doing anything but modding and posting "nice sculpt but too pricey for me" type posts.

I think it depends on what you want to get out of these discussions.
Passing judgment is somewhat less rewarding than seeking out a person's motivation for writing something, gaining further understanding of other views.
I would examine why frustration level is getting to a point where one would want to withdraw.

We can always slip into politics to ensure we get good and heated there too.
I seem to remember quite a few politics being portrayed in video games as well...

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know how you can criticize me for speaking from my own perspective, trying to clarify it for others, and hoping others will better understand it.

I'm not, I'm criticizing the fact that you either dismiss or outright ignore anyone talking about how religion and faith are actually treated and can be treated in games and go on about how ("IME") games never actually talk about religion in a "meaningful way".

I have posted that "god wants us dead" in the context of this article can be rephrased as "god is an enemy NPC." That is an argument. Do you have a counterargument? All you have done so far is identify that this argument supports a larger one I have been making, that video games never (IME) actually talk about religion in a meaningful way. I don't know why you felt it was significant to point this out given I already did so in my post preceding the one you quoted.

To be honest it is quite hard to tell what your point actually is as it appears to be quite nebulous and defies any attempt you have made to actually clarify it.

Your own post supplies a useful metaphor to further explain my point about how video games treat religion (when religion is anything more than set dressing). Rather than talking about any point I made you talk about the way I talk about the points I made. Video games, including the BioWare RPGs, treat religion the same way. In effect, video games mostly just make tone arguments about religion.

I think the problem here is no one here can actually understand what the feth it is you want games (and other communication and artistic mediums) to do to treat religion and faith "meaningfully" rather than as set dressing. Perhaps clarify, from your perspective, what an excellent treatment of religion/faith would entail in the video gaming world.

As far as it appears (IME ) you have been provided some examples of how religion and faith can possibly be interacted with in various game settings and ways to delve into the background, beliefs etc of said religions/faiths and have largely not then replied to them in order to then talk about duality and materialism.

For the last 6+ years, the evidence has really piled up that there is no point posting anything on this site that is not a comment about a product. I don't know why now and not sooner or why here instead of in one of the seemingly endless MRA threads, maybe it's the fact that Ahtman who is one of the smartest regular posters we have will not even bother to engage above snark-level, but I think I'm finally done doing anything but modding and posting "nice sculpt but too pricey for me" type posts.

It's a shame you feel that way. I know that I tend to give up on a lot of threads that don't interest me or where I know exactly who will post what and why; perhaps it is forum fatigue which is feeding back into your posts and making them seem snappy in of themselves, sparking similar tone from other users replying to you. Some of your short posts in this thread have been, for me, infuriatingly difficult to follow in terms of what your thought pattern actually is and how it relates to what people have actually been posting. It makes it very hard to reply constructively which, I would imagine, makes it hard for you to reply in turn with a civil head seeing people not replying to what you think your argument is.

 Manchu wrote:
Before pursuing that more specific concept of dualism, let me clarify in the sense of generalized dualism what materialism assumes: not only that what is material certainly exists but that the concept of material is literally reality.

There is certainly a case to be made. Rocks, the wind, living bodies and lightning are all perceptible, measurable, predictable and in some cases awfully impressive if you get too close. If you want to argue that physical forces aren't really real then you have your work cut out for you. Not the least because, well, how do you go about proving it? If you want to interject now that faith isn't fact I will actually agree with you. That is precisely the problem. Faith doesn't acknowledge or need the world outside your head. It's intentionally unknowable.

Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Where the real can be unreal and the unreal real by the very virtue of thought

 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Where the real can be unreal and the unreal real by the very virtue of thought

At least until someone who you don't believe in bashes your head in with a non-existent rock.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Where the real can be unreal and the unreal real by the very virtue of thought

At least until someone who you don't believe in bashes your head in with a non-existent rock.

Maybe the rock can exist so long as it is convinced it does exist

 LordofHats wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Where the real can be unreal and the unreal real by the very virtue of thought

At least until someone who you don't believe in bashes your head in with a non-existent rock.

Maybe the rock can exist so long as it is convinced it does exist

You know...

That would work in the Planescape setting...

Think I will go read this than participate further...

 Torga_DW wrote:
Thats a good point. As i understood it the reapers merely 'reaped' what was growing naturally - they just shaped their development once they reached a certain tech level.

The thing about the OP is it starts by talking about god, and then finishes talking about a higher power. Reapers were a higher power for sure, but they were never considered as a god or god-like by anyone but themselves.

As for dragon age, well i haven't played the recent one but in the first two the links to 'the maker' and religion in general were all supposition. There was a black city in the fade (which is like the warp, and shaped by the dreams/emotions of people and it's denizens) and there was a story that the city used to be golden. There's a religion associated with that, but at the end of the day (for the first two at least) it was only just stories.

And therein lies the problem with religion. Without some form of demonstrable existance of god, it's just a story.

Weren't the renegade Geth described as worshiping the Reapers?

True, I'd forgotten that. But i'd still argue that doesn't give them any semblance of divinity.

god is an enemy npc

I have no words, but this is full of win.

 Torga_DW wrote:
True, I'd forgotten that. But i'd still argue that doesn't give them any semblance of divinity.

god is an enemy npc

I have no words, but this is full of win.

So when playing the game:

Nothing like taking on a god npc for that thrill...

 LordofHats wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Welcome to the realm of philosophy. Where the real can be unreal and the unreal real by the very virtue of thought

At least until someone who you don't believe in bashes your head in with a non-existent rock.

Maybe the rock can exist so long as it is convinced it does exist

Solipsism is fun!
You all don't exist. Only I exist. Which means you must be figments of my imagination.
As figments of my imagination, I demand you all do the Time Warp in fishnets and corsets

Sorry, your imagination isn't that strong.

 Melissia wrote:
Sorry, your imagination isn't that strong.

You will need to kill 40 imaginary rats for 5000 exp to level up three more times. That'll give a 10% chance of success

 Melissia wrote:
Sorry, your imagination isn't that strong.

Sorry, I had a mental picture and I think I am scarred for life.
Just the image of myself alone...
Plus I think fishnet stockings on hairy legs must really hurt.

 Melissia wrote:
Sorry, your imagination isn't that strong.

As this is a public forum, I had to go for something tame