PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Templar or Assassin



roostersrule2
07-30-2011, 09:02 PM
okay i know that this might be offensive to alot of people but its says that he used the pieces of eden to do all of those things he did in the bible now its also said that the templars crucified him to get the pieces of eden now he could still be a templar sort of like al mualim were he killed other templars so he could have the piece of eden all to himself but jesus instead of killing do something else so the templars killed him was he an assassin as if he didnt have TWCB the apple would of killed him so what do you think and i am christian so id o believe he is real and everything im talking about here is about the AC series

roostersrule2
07-30-2011, 09:02 PM
okay i know that this might be offensive to alot of people but its says that he used the pieces of eden to do all of those things he did in the bible now its also said that the templars crucified him to get the pieces of eden now he could still be a templar sort of like al mualim were he killed other templars so he could have the piece of eden all to himself but jesus instead of killing do something else so the templars killed him was he an assassin as if he didnt have TWCB the apple would of killed him so what do you think and i am christian so id o believe he is real and everything im talking about here is about the AC series

xCr0wnedNorris
07-30-2011, 09:06 PM
Or he could've been an average Joe who stumbled upon one of the Apples and decided not to use it for evil.

AdmiralPerry
07-30-2011, 09:41 PM
Whoa... *rubs eyes* First of all, punctuation is a wonderful thing. Please break up your thoughts next time. I mean this in the kindest way possible. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Second of all, I don't think Ubi is going to risk stepping on toes by saying Jesus was one or the other. They've already stepped on enough toes by saying everything he did was caused/created by a Piece of Eden. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And I don't think you have to have TWCB blood to wield a Piece of Eden--I can't recall that ever being mentioned or confirmed in the game. Though, being part TWCB does seem to grant some people certain immunities, and may prevent or at least delay possible insanity.

OGCFB
07-30-2011, 09:42 PM
Originally he was neither just an average guy who found the apple after his death he became Zombie Jeebus.

LightRey
07-30-2011, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
okay i know that this might be offensive to alot of people but its says that he used the pieces of eden to do all of those things he did in the bible now its also said that the templars crucified him to get the pieces of eden now he could still be a templar sort of like al mualim were he killed other templars so he could have the piece of eden all to himself but jesus instead of killing do something else so the templars killed him was he an assassin as if he didnt have TWCB the apple would of killed him so what do you think and i am christian so id o believe he is real and everything im talking about here is about the AC series </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you use punctuation marks please? It's really annoying to read all this without any.

Calvarok
07-30-2011, 11:18 PM
He was unnafiliated, and I'm assuming he wanted power if he told them he was god's son.

(I have no problem with this being a part of the story, though I am christan, incidentally.)

roostersrule2
07-30-2011, 11:33 PM
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him

Poodle_of_Doom
07-30-2011, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um,... no...? Or the cardnals and bishops would of died when Rodrigo Borgia used the papel staff on them...

roostersrule2
07-30-2011, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They did not touch the staff though

Um,... no...? Or the cardnals and bishops would of died when Rodrigo Borgia used the papel staff on them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poodle_of_Doom
07-30-2011, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um,... no...? Or the cardnals and bishops would of died when Rodrigo Borgia used the papel staff on them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did not touch the staff though
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do me a favor, and type outside of the quotes please. I struggled to find what you wrote. Even if that is the case, remember that Jesus used The Shroud, which has healing powers. Even if the power of POE was enough to kill a typical person, The Shroud would automatically heal him.

roostersrule2
07-31-2011, 01:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um,... no...? Or the cardnals and bishops would of died when Rodrigo Borgia used the papel staff on them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did not touch the staff though
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do me a favor, and type outside of the quotes please. I struggled to find what you wrote. Even if that is the case, remember that Jesus used The Shroud, which has healing powers. Even if the power of POE was enough to kill a typical person, The Shroud would automatically heal him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>okay then why wouldnt he die numerous times, im pretty sure he has some kind of TWCB connection and probably a connection to the assassins or templars

Mutley_Rulz
07-31-2011, 04:23 AM
Templar, probably.

LightRey
07-31-2011, 06:28 AM
Most likely not templar, since the templars stole at least some of his PoE's. I'd say he's neither. He is the son of god though, so he could have been a TWCB/human hybrid, which would make him at least similar to the assassins. However, we don't really know enough about that stuff.

medcsu11
07-31-2011, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Most likely not templar, since the templars stole at least some of his PoE's. I'd say he's neither. He is the son of god though, so he could have been a TWCB/human hybrid, which would make him at least similar to the assassins. However, we don't really know enough about that stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree

GariStz
07-31-2011, 08:40 AM
Well, apparently he's an Assassin...

http://store.picbg.net/pubpic/5F/4A/7d2792b33d005f4a.png

&gt;Watch the full video here&lt; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbpnxnapjlY&feature=related)

LadyGahan2010
07-31-2011, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden <STRIKE>would of</STRIKE> would have killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Yeah, it is offensive. Makes no sense either way.
2. WOULD HAVE. English is not my native language so when natives make those mistakes my blood boils. it is YOUR language, treat it with respect. But considering you have none for religious beliefs of some, probably should not even ask you.

Rakudaton
07-31-2011, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LadyGahan2010:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden <STRIKE>would of</STRIKE> would have killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Yeah, it is offensive. Makes no sense either way.
2. WOULD HAVE. English is not my native language so when natives make those mistakes my blood boils. it is YOUR language, treat it with respect. But considering you have none for religious beliefs of some, probably should not even ask you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His so-called command of the English language may be dreadful, but why are you saying he has no respect for people's religious beliefs?

He didn't say anything I can see that could be construed as offensive.

Also, there is no special reason to respect a person's religious beliefs, any more than you are obliged to respect a person's belief that he is Napolean. Unless of course he is actually Napolean.

Poodle_of_Doom
07-31-2011, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
First of all I was on my iPod so it's harder to put punctuation marks in,secondly I thought of different things as I was typing so things might be over the place,lastly if he was just an average person the pieces of Eden would of killed him </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Um,... no...? Or the cardnals and bishops would of died when Rodrigo Borgia used the papel staff on them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did not touch the staff though
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do me a favor, and type outside of the quotes please. I struggled to find what you wrote. Even if that is the case, remember that Jesus used The Shroud, which has healing powers. Even if the power of POE was enough to kill a typical person, The Shroud would automatically heal him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>okay then why wouldnt he die numerous times, im pretty sure he has some kind of TWCB connection and probably a connection to the assassins or templars </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhapes he dies and revives at the same rate?

rileypoole1234
07-31-2011, 10:40 AM
Okay I don't want to get all philosophical with you but, he's just Jesus. He's neither Assassin nor Templar. He's Divine. He's more than just an average man, therefore the Apple didn't harm him, though he could be killed by other means... Sorry if I sound umm, like a jerk? But that's just what I think.

Turkiye96
07-31-2011, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GariStz:
Well, apparently he's an Assassin...

http://store.picbg.net/pubpic/5F/4A/7d2792b33d005f4a.png

&gt;Watch the full video here&lt; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbpnxnapjlY&feature=related) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
haha i remember that episode! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LadyGahan2010
07-31-2011, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:

He didn't say anything I can see that could be construed as offensive.

Also, there is no special reason to respect a person's religious beliefs, any more than you are obliged to respect a person's belief that he is Napolean. Unless of course he is actually Napolean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

really? Then for your special information, he did offend me. And if you think there is no reason to respect someone's faith then you need a lesson in tolerance.

Poodle_of_Doom
07-31-2011, 12:57 PM
Cool it guys, or the mods may close and remove the thread.

Black_Widow9
07-31-2011, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
Also, there is no special reason to respect a person's religious beliefs, any more than you are obliged to respect a person's belief that he is Napolean. Unless of course he is actually Napolean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a reason and it is laid out in the Forum Rules. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/2961017947) If any of you cannot adhere to this it will be locked.

Animuses
07-31-2011, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
He is the son of god though, so he could have been a TWCB/human hybrid </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't believe AC is following Christianity, which would mean the Jesus isn't the son of God and just an ordinary man with a POE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rileypoole1234:
Okay I don't want to get all philosophical with you but, he's just Jesus. He's neither Assassin nor Templar. He's Divine. He's more than just an average man, therefore the Apple didn't harm him, though he could be killed by other means... Sorry if I sound umm, like a jerk? But that's just what I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can't state Christian beliefs as they are the truth, like saying Jesus is divine. Nowhere in the game does it say he is divine, so as of now he is an ordinary man with a POE.

Rakudaton
07-31-2011, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LadyGahan2010:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:

He didn't say anything I can see that could be construed as offensive.

Also, there is no special reason to respect a person's religious beliefs, any more than you are obliged to respect a person's belief that he is Napolean. Unless of course he is actually Napolean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

really? Then for your special information, he did offend me. And if you think there is no reason to respect someone's faith then you need a lesson in tolerance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If he did offend you, could you please explain to one of my inferior intelligence what he said that was offensive?

And as for respecting someone's faith... again: would you respect someone's belief that they were Napolean, or Jesus, or a unicorn? Or would you consider them in need of psychological help? Their belief is faith, so according to you it should be respected.

The problem is that societies raise us to NEVER EVER QUESTION RELIGION. And the one lesson we need to learn is that you should question everything. If you don't question, how do you learn?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is a reason and it is laid out in the Forum Rules. If any of you cannot adhere to this it will be locked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh. Yes, this is true. Sorry. (I didn't actually say anything disrespectful, but I understand that it was wrong to suggest it would be OK to say something disrespectful.)


ON TOPIC: I don't think Jesus was a Templar or Assassin, but I believe he was an enemy of the pre-Templars. Getting him crucified sounds like something they'd do. And it's likely he had TWCB blood so that he could use the Apple without going insane.

Poodle_of_Doom
07-31-2011, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
And as for respecting someone's faith... again: would you respect someone's belief that they were Napolean, or Jesus, or a unicorn? Or would you consider them in need of psychological help? Their belief is faith, so according to you it should be respected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer would be yes by default, as it's reletive to faith. People are entitled to opinion. However, suggesting that people of faith are in need of psychological help has really crossed a line.

And it's not according to him. It's according to the forum mods, and TOU/Forum rules which one must agree to when signing up, or have forum privlages denied. That said, having spoken the way you have, it would seem like you are walking on a thin line here. Personally, I've seen nothing offensive until the subject began to derail. Please drop it, as I'm interested in seeing how this topic evolves.

xCr0wnedNorris
07-31-2011, 03:34 PM
Funny that people think the average person can't use a PoE. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Savonarola?

Animuses
07-31-2011, 03:56 PM
I was thinking of the same exact thing and there is also Rodrigo Boriga and Al Mualim.

LightRey
07-31-2011, 04:39 PM
I would just like to say one thing.

It's Napoleon.

Thank you.

Andulok
07-31-2011, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is that societies raise us to NEVER EVER QUESTION RELIGION. And the one lesson we need to learn is that you should question everything. If you don't question, how do you learn? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may, we should probably introduce the core motto of the game... we all should know it by now. :P

"A'shaia wak akla mukla bel kullukum mumkin" That might be it in arabic.

Rakudaton
08-01-2011, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Answer would be yes by default, as it's reletive to faith. People are entitled to opinion. However, suggesting that people of faith are in need of psychological help has really crossed a line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not suggest that people of faith are in need of psychological help.

I suggested that people who believe they are Napoleon (spelled correctly now, sorry) probably need psychological help.

I was drawing a parallel. Believing you are Napoleon is a position of faith; religion is a position of faith. I was questioning whether respecting someone's faith is always necessary. Try and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I was trying to suggest.

And for the record, faith is not an opinion.

LightRey
08-01-2011, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The problem is that societies raise us to NEVER EVER QUESTION RELIGION. And the one lesson we need to learn is that you should question everything. If you don't question, how do you learn? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I may, we should probably introduce the core motto of the game... we all should know it by now. :P

"A'shaia wak akla mukla bel kullukum mumkin" That might be it in arabic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that if you are a true believer, questioning your faith can and will only give you strength.
Only those who doubt their faith are generally afraid to question it.

migsanchy
08-01-2011, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
okay i know that this might be offensive to alot of people but its says that he used the pieces of eden to do all of those things he did in the bible now its also said that the templars crucified him to get the pieces of eden now he could still be a templar sort of like al mualim were he killed other templars so he could have the piece of eden all to himself but jesus instead of killing do something else so the templars killed him was he an assassin as if he didnt have TWCB the apple would of killed him so what do you think and i am christian so id o believe he is real and everything im talking about here is about the AC series </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a bit surprised with the question, I am even more surprised with the answers.

First of all, Jesus did indeed exist, that's a historical fact. Whether he was the son of God remains the question.

Secondly, Jesus was a Jew and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Assassin's Creed is set in 1191 so more than thousand years after the time Jesus was around.

The templars, or better, the Knights Templar, were founded around 1119, so it is impossible for Jesus to have been a Knights Templar nor is it possible for him to have been crucified by them.

The Assassins were were an order of Nizari Ismailis, particularly those of Persia (and Syria) that existed from around 1092 to 1265, again more than a thousand years after Jesus.

So to answer your question, Jesus was neither.

Was your question offensive ? From a religious point of view, no. The fact that your knowledge about the setting of the game and the historical era of Jesus is below zero is far more upsetting though. The information I provided is easily available on Wikipedia by looking up, Jesus, Assasin and Knights Templar.

LightRey
08-01-2011, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by migsanchy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by roostersrule2:
okay i know that this might be offensive to alot of people but its says that he used the pieces of eden to do all of those things he did in the bible now its also said that the templars crucified him to get the pieces of eden now he could still be a templar sort of like al mualim were he killed other templars so he could have the piece of eden all to himself but jesus instead of killing do something else so the templars killed him was he an assassin as if he didnt have TWCB the apple would of killed him so what do you think and i am christian so id o believe he is real and everything im talking about here is about the AC series </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am a bit surprised with the question, I am even more surprised with the answers.

First of all, Jesus did indeed exist, that's a historical fact. Whether he was the son of God remains the question.

Secondly, Jesus was a Jew and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Assassin's Creed is set in 1191 so more than thousand years after the time Jesus was around.

The templars, or better, the Knights Templar, were founded around 1119, so it is impossible for Jesus to have been a Knights Templar nor is it possible for him to have been crucified by them.

The Assassins were were an order of Nizari Ismailis, particularly those of Persia (and Syria) that existed from around 1092 to 1265, again more than a thousand years after Jesus.

So to answer your question, Jesus was neither.

Was your question offensive ? From a religious point of view, no. The fact that your knowledge about the setting of the game and the historical era of Jesus is below zero is far more upsetting though. The information I provided is easily available on Wikipedia by looking up, Jesus, Assasin and Knights Templar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We're referring to the groups that would eventually bring about the Templars and the Assassins. Read up on your AC history mai freind.

roostersrule2
08-01-2011, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
Funny that people think the average person can't use a PoE. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Savonarola? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Damn there goes my theory

St4va
08-01-2011, 07:46 AM
Well, they were called "Soldiers of Christ"..

But..
Don't forget that at that time there was no Assassins vs Templars war since we started it at the first game according to Lucy.
And the Templar order started at 1119.

Abeonis
08-01-2011, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by St4va.:
Well, they were called "Soldiers of Christ"..

But..
Don't forget that at that time there was no Assassins vs Templars war since we started it at the first game according to Lucy.
And the Templar order started at 1119. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She's wrong. The Assassins and Templars have both been around since at least 456BC. The "Order of Assassins" and "Knights Templar" seen in the first game are simply the latest (at that point) incarnation of already centuries-old organisations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by migsanchy:
The information I provided is easily available on Wikipedia by looking up, Jesus, Assasin and Knights Templar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but this isn't real life, so Wikipedia is about as useful as a blunt axe when it comes to Assassin's Creed lore. I suggest you take a good look here: here (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassins) and here (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Templars).

LightRey
08-01-2011, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abeonis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by St4va.:
Well, they were called "Soldiers of Christ"..

But..
Don't forget that at that time there was no Assassins vs Templars war since we started it at the first game according to Lucy.
And the Templar order started at 1119. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She's wrong. The Assassins and Templars have both been around since at least 456BC. The "Order of Assassins" and "Knights Templar" seen in the first game are simply the latest (at that point) incarnation of already centuries-old organisations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by migsanchy:
The information I provided is easily available on Wikipedia by looking up, Jesus, Assasin and Knights Templar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but this isn't real life, so Wikipedia is about as useful as a blunt axe when it comes to Assassin's Creed lore. I suggest you take a good look here: here (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassins) and here (http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Templars). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This. Although I would like to add that the wikia is not always reliable.

reini03
08-01-2011, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abeonis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by St4va.:
Well, they were called "Soldiers of Christ"..

But..
Don't forget that at that time there was no Assassins vs Templars war since we started it at the first game according to Lucy.
And the Templar order started at 1119. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She's wrong. The Assassins and Templars have both been around since at least 456BC. The "Order of Assassins" and "Knights Templar" seen in the first game are simply the latest (at that point) incarnation of already centuries-old organisations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

456BC? Remember the glyph in AC II? The first Templar is shown there, Cain, who killed his brother Abel and was the son of Adam and Eve. I guess that was before 456BC... Templars (and probably Assassins as well) exist since the First Civilization.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought you were only talking about Templars. The first known Assassin did, indeed, live sometime around 456BC.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-01-2011, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Answer would be yes by default, as it's reletive to faith. People are entitled to opinion. However, suggesting that people of faith are in need of psychological help has really crossed a line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not suggest that people of faith are in need of psychological help.

I suggested that people who believe they are Napoleon (spelled correctly now, sorry) probably need psychological help.

I was drawing a parallel. Believing you are Napoleon is a position of faith; religion is a position of faith. I was questioning whether respecting someone's faith is always necessary. Try and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I was trying to suggest.

And for the record, faith is not an opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, believing that you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, would be a position of psychological decay. Not fait.

Second of all, your parallel is unfairly weighted against religion, some of which include a man who thought he was God. Therefore, the parallel is the same, and unjust. Again, I stress that suggesting those of faith are in need of psychological help is crossing a line.

LightRey
08-01-2011, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Actually, believing that you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, would be a position of psychological decay. Not fait.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless of course you really are Napoleon or a unicorn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Poodle_of_Doom
08-01-2011, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Actually, believing that you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, would be a position of psychological decay. Not fait.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless of course you really are Napoleon or a unicorn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true.

Rakudaton
08-01-2011, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Actually, believing that you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, would be a position of psychological decay. Not fait.

Second of all, your parallel is unfairly weighted against religion, some of which include a man who thought he was God. Therefore, the parallel is the same, and unjust. Again, I stress that suggesting those of faith are in need of psychological help is crossing a line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, believing you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, is a belief and thus requires faith. The fact that it is an incorrect belief does not negate the fact that it requires faith.

Secondly, as for this man who thought he was god... let's call him "Jesus" for argument's sake. Now either people are correct in thinking he was a god, or they are incorrect. If they are correct then my parallel does not apply to them and so cannot be considered "unfair". If they are incorrect, then the parallel is justified: they have an unjustified belief, like the man who believes himself to be Napoleon.

Again, I stress that nowhere have I said religious people need psychological help. You have crossed a line by putting words into my mouth. Try reading what I've actually written.

Andulok
08-01-2011, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Rakudaton:

quote:
Originally posted by Poodle_of_Doom:
Answer would be yes by default, as it's reletive to faith. People are entitled to opinion. However, suggesting that people of faith are in need of psychological help has really crossed a line.



I did not suggest that people of faith are in need of psychological help.

I suggested that people who believe they are Napoleon (spelled correctly now, sorry) probably need psychological help.

I was drawing a parallel. Believing you are Napoleon is a position of faith; religion is a position of faith. I was questioning whether respecting someone's faith is always necessary. Try and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I was trying to suggest.

And for the record, faith is not an opinion.



Actually, believing that you are Napoleon, or a unicorn, would be a position of psychological decay. Not fait.

Second of all, your parallel is unfairly weighted against religion, some of which include a man who thought he was God. Therefore, the parallel is the same, and unjust. Again, I stress that suggesting those of faith are in need of psychological help is crossing a line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've caused a contradiction in you're first sentence Poodle_of_Doom by already saying that the person "believes" that they are Napoleon and then stating that is not faith, when faith and belief are the same concept in this situation.

To say somebody is in need of psychological help in this context would imply that they are entirely in the belief that they are something or there is something that to the average person would be percieved as ludicrous. The basis of most religions is that a book is stating how they should lead their lives. Napoleon is probably not a decent sort of comparison to make. Yet any person to state that they utterly believe in something and would live by it, if they are by themselves in their believes they'd probably get hastle from those that are "sane" or be called heretics if you lived a few hundred years ago. Some people now would percieve scientology as bizaare and may poke fun at it. The Ku Klux Klan was the same when it started it off and look what happened with that as time passed.

I agree that napoleon is probably an unfair example, heck im even feeling a bit guilty of the ku klux klan example there, but religion starts off as a barmy idea that once it gains followers and momentum becomes less ludicrous with the more people believing in it. I can see where Rakudaton is coming from personally.

Andulok
08-01-2011, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally Posted by: Light Rey

I think that if you are a true believer, questioning your faith can and will only give you strength.
Only those who doubt their faith are generally afraid to question it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't Doubt and the ability to question something the same thing? This statement does not make a whole lot of sense.

SWJS
08-01-2011, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xCr0wnedNorris:
Or he could've been an average Joe who stumbled upon one of the Apples and decided not to use it for evil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And the survey says... DingDingDingDing!

You are correct sir! So are we done here? No, no, we're never done, are we?

Well, I'll try and explain then. There are never two sides to any war.

The Assassin/Templar war had the Assassins, the Templars, and everyone else.

Both of the major players have had their fair share of turns with the POEs, but there were pleanty of other schmucks out there who stumbled upon one of the many Apples of Eden. Jesus, in the AC mythos, was one of said schmucks, alongside Savonarola and several others.

So yeah, if you find a glowing orb with the power to control minds, just walk away. Schmuck life-expectancy drops after touching one.

Animuses
08-01-2011, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
Isn't Doubt and the ability to question something the same thing? This statement does not make a whole lot of sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It can mean the same thing, but in the way he used the word doubt, it isn't.
In this case by doubt, he means disbelieving which isn't the same as questioning.
Questioning is to simply be curious as to why something is being done and ask why.

LightRey
08-01-2011, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally Posted by: Light Rey

I think that if you are a true believer, questioning your faith can and will only give you strength.
Only those who doubt their faith are generally afraid to question it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't Doubt and the ability to question something the same thing? This statement does not make a whole lot of sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, questioning is different from doubting, because questioning is the act of finding out if something is true, while doubt is the sensation of not being sure about something being true.

One quite often follows the other, but not always as is the case in what I said.

Andulok
08-01-2011, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
originally posted by LightRey
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
Originally posted by Andulok:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:

Originally Posted by: Light Rey

I think that if you are a true believer, questioning your faith can and will only give you strength.
Only those who doubt their faith are generally afraid to question it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> quote:

Isn't Doubt and the ability to question something the same thing? This statement does not make a whole lot of sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, questioning is different from doubting, because questioning is the act of finding out if something is true, while doubt is the sensation of not being sure about something being true.

One quite often follows the other, but not always as is the case in what I said.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm even by what you are saying, the phrase would still not make a whole lot of sense. My addition to it would be then, if in the context of religion the term "a true believer" would imply you to inexplicably believe the religion thus leaving no doubt...so then what exactly would lead you to question it, if doubt is not there? you would not question something for no reason there would have to be something to have caused you to do so, such as if you didn't know everything about the religion.

So is that what it is? would a true believer then not even know everything about their religion? Why question something your meant to regard so highly? unless doubt is there.

LightRey
08-01-2011, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
Hmmm even by what you are saying, the phrase would still not make a whole lot of sense. My addition to it would be then, if in the context of religion the term "a true believer" would imply you to inexplicably believe the religion thus leaving no doubt...so then what exactly would lead you to question it, if doubt is not there? you would not question something for no reason there would have to be something to have caused you to do so, such as if you didn't know everything about the religion.

So is that what it is? would a true believer then not even know everything about their religion? Why question something your meant to regard so highly? unless doubt is there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Questioning leads to understanding. That's why even things you are certain of are worth questioning. Knowing why something is true has more value than just knowing it is true.

Andulok
08-01-2011, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
Originally posted by Andulok:
Hmmm even by what you are saying, the phrase would still not make a whole lot of sense. My addition to it would be then, if in the context of religion the term "a true believer" would imply you to inexplicably believe the religion thus leaving no doubt...so then what exactly would lead you to question it, if doubt is not there? you would not question something for no reason there would have to be something to have caused you to do so, such as if you didn't know everything about the religion.

So is that what it is? would a true believer then not even know everything about their religion? Why question something your meant to regard so highly? unless doubt is there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Questioning leads to understanding. That's why even things you are certain of are worth questioning. Knowing why something is true has more value than just knowing it is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there is no dispute that questioning something is deffinatly a building block to the path of knowledge. Yet in the context of what you say, in my opinion the only knowledge that any type of religion can give us more understanding of is the human psych etc.

The problem is that with religion the whole basis of its popularity is that you dont need to ask "why" something is, it tells you how things are, what there is, dont question it or ill throw you in a pit of eternal suffering and damnation. The minute you start asking "why that is" is the minute you discover where the fallacies in religion are.

ILIKESOUP94
08-01-2011, 04:28 PM
I believe someone posted earlier about people questioning their religion makes their faith stronger (I'm too lazy to find the exact quote...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) I have to agree. I am 100% Christian. I love being Christian and getting involved in church events.

However...I also love to read books and watch documentaries that, for use of a better word, counterattack Christian beliefs. I recently saw a book that I want to read by a guy named Penn Jillette. The book is called, "God, No!" and the way he explained it (I saw an interview with him on Attack of the Show) was that everyone is Agnostic at one point, meaning we question our beliefs. We just don't know. And I've questioned my beliefs too. But I always come back to the fact that there is a God and always will be. Other people may not agree but hey, that's what makes the world go round right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LightRey
08-01-2011, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
Originally posted by Andulok:
Hmmm even by what you are saying, the phrase would still not make a whole lot of sense. My addition to it would be then, if in the context of religion the term "a true believer" would imply you to inexplicably believe the religion thus leaving no doubt...so then what exactly would lead you to question it, if doubt is not there? you would not question something for no reason there would have to be something to have caused you to do so, such as if you didn't know everything about the religion.

So is that what it is? would a true believer then not even know everything about their religion? Why question something your meant to regard so highly? unless doubt is there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Questioning leads to understanding. That's why even things you are certain of are worth questioning. Knowing why something is true has more value than just knowing it is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there is no dispute that questioning something is deffinatly a building block to the path of knowledge. Yet in the context of what you say, in my opinion the only knowledge that any type of religion can give us more understanding of is the human psych etc.

The problem is that with religion the whole basis of its popularity is that you dont need to ask "why" something is, it tells you how things are, what there is, dont question it or ill throw you in a pit of eternal suffering and damnation. The minute you start asking "why that is" is the minute you discover where the fallacies in religion are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you misunderstand what religion is. Although it's quite true that there are many religious institutions that would act as you describe, religion is independent of such institutions. It does not need them.
I myself am a Christian by choice and not part of any church. I choose to believe in god and that Jesus is his son. Not because someone tells me it is true, but simply because I believe it is. However, as a scientist I must question my faith, because in my opinion I would betray it if I didn't question it just as much as anything else in this world. I also seek to understand it, to know the why's and how's of it.
You see religion as something that prevents people from wondering about how the world works, I see it as something that promotes that.

Poodle_of_Doom
08-01-2011, 05:36 PM
And... notification off, as most of this is penny anny bs anyway.

Xanatos2007
08-01-2011, 06:09 PM
Judas Iscariot was a Templar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Gasketfuse
08-01-2011, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
And as for respecting someone's faith... again: would you respect someone's belief that they were Napolean, or Jesus, or a unicorn? Or would you consider them in need of psychological help? Their belief is faith, so according to you it should be respected.

The problem is that societies raise us to NEVER EVER QUESTION RELIGION. And the one lesson we need to learn is that you should question everything. If you don't question, how do you learn?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, it is stupid and childish to think that you shouldn't respect someone's religion for any reason. Just because you apparently are an atheist doesn't mean that you should be insulting Christianity and religion in general. I honestly find it insulting just that you feel that you can be as disrespectful as you want because you don't think something is true. Seriously, show some decency.

Rakudaton
08-02-2011, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gasketfuse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
And as for respecting someone's faith... again: would you respect someone's belief that they were Napolean, or Jesus, or a unicorn? Or would you consider them in need of psychological help? Their belief is faith, so according to you it should be respected.

The problem is that societies raise us to NEVER EVER QUESTION RELIGION. And the one lesson we need to learn is that you should question everything. If you don't question, how do you learn?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, it is stupid and childish to think that you shouldn't respect someone's religion for any reason. Just because you apparently are an atheist doesn't mean that you should be insulting Christianity and religion in general. I honestly find it insulting just that you feel that you can be as disrespectful as you want because you don't think something is true. Seriously, show some decency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and yet again, someone not reading what I've actually written.

How is it "stupid and childish" not to respect, say, Young-Earth Creationism? In which the followers believe the earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of about a dozen different dating techniques showing us the earth is much much older? Why should I respect them?

Where have I insulted Christianity or religion in general?

Who said I felt I could be "as disrespectful as I want"? Where did I say that? All I said was that religion does not have some special status that means you are not allowed to question it.

Show some decency and read my actual words.

Andulok
08-02-2011, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by LightRey:

I think you misunderstand what religion is. Although it's quite true that there are many religious institutions that would act as you describe, religion is independent of such institutions. It does not need them.
I myself am a Christian by choice and not part of any church. I choose to believe in god and that Jesus is his son. Not because someone tells me it is true, but simply because I believe it is. However, as a scientist I must question my faith, because in my opinion I would betray it if I didn't question it just as much as anything else in this world. I also seek to understand it, to know the why's and how's of it.
You see religion as something that prevents people from wondering about how the world works, I see it as something that promotes that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to bust your bubble there me lad, but then that does not mean you are a Christian... more of a Deist, if you were a Christian you would be apart of a Church and by that I assume you also mean that you don't attend the sabbath? being one of the commandments in the holy bible.

I understand your philosophy though and can sympathise with you more since you seem to be able to make your own mind up about how this world works.

Science and Religion don't work most of the time...however your way of thinking at least is the non-intrusive one to the advancement of mankind. However Religion as an institution is more of a majority view, this is what I think is where the limitation of Religion is, where it governs your life and set of rules to the point where all sense of additional; knowledge, understanding, rationalization is invalid.

I guess you have corrected me in a place where religion is acceptable despite that personally I believe Religion is not necessary anyways. Especially since we seem well out of the stage of Religion "needing" to be an integral part of our culture.

SWJS
08-02-2011, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by LightRey:

I think you misunderstand what religion is. Although it's quite true that there are many religious institutions that would act as you describe, religion is independent of such institutions. It does not need them.
I myself am a Christian by choice and not part of any church. I choose to believe in god and that Jesus is his son. Not because someone tells me it is true, but simply because I believe it is. However, as a scientist I must question my faith, because in my opinion I would betray it if I didn't question it just as much as anything else in this world. I also seek to understand it, to know the why's and how's of it.
You see religion as something that prevents people from wondering about how the world works, I see it as something that promotes that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to bust your bubble there me lad, but then that does not mean you are a Christian... more of a Deist, if you were a Christian you would be apart of a Church and by that I assume you also mean that you don't attend the sabbath? being one of the commandments in the holy bible.

I understand your philosophy though and can sympathise with you more since you seem to be able to make your own mind up about how this world works.

Science and Religion don't work most of the time...however your way of thinking at least is the non-intrusive one to the advancement of mankind. However Religion as an institution is more of a majority view, this is what I think is where the limitation of Religion is, where it governs your life and set of rules to the point where all sense of additional; knowledge, understanding, rationalization is invalid.

I guess you have corrected me in a place where religion is acceptable despite that personally I believe Religion is not necessary anyways. Especially since we seem well out of the stage of Religion "needing" to be an integral part of our culture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hate to burst your bubble, but I too am a Christian myself. LightRey and I are alike, but as a science man myself, I research my own religion to better understand it.

The Bible is not some list of demands written by God, nor is it an instruction manual. It is simply a guidebook into the soul, full of biblical stories to help us become moral. I myself believe that I don't need to visit curch every Sunday to worship him, I need only believe in him and accept him as the way. Being Christian doesn't mean that it is mandatory to go to church each Sunday. The bible doesn't demand that we attend the sabbath, but only that we remember it to keep it holy, and any true Christian knows that the Sabbath is actually on Saturday, not Sunday. I'll admit I didn't even know that until a friend happened upon it after talking with a priest.

I had to touch upon this subject after I read your first paragraph. Religion is more than blind faith toward an unknown entity, it is a way of understanding of life, a gift of philosophy that can guide people.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 02:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:
Hate to bust your bubble there me lad, but then that does not mean you are a Christian... more of a Deist, if you were a Christian you would be apart of a Church and by that I assume you also mean that you don't attend the sabbath? being one of the commandments in the holy bible.

I understand your philosophy though and can sympathise with you more since you seem to be able to make your own mind up about how this world works.

Science and Religion don't work most of the time...however your way of thinking at least is the non-intrusive one to the advancement of mankind. However Religion as an institution is more of a majority view, this is what I think is where the limitation of Religion is, where it governs your life and set of rules to the point where all sense of additional; knowledge, understanding, rationalization is invalid.

I guess you have corrected me in a place where religion is acceptable despite that personally I believe Religion is not necessary anyways. Especially since we seem well out of the stage of Religion "needing" to be an integral part of our culture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Being Christian means basically nothing more than believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Being Christian isn't a protected title. It's not bound by any other definition than the dictionary provides (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian).

I won't further debate with you why religion most definitely can and does go together with science. Instead, I will just give a list of famous scientists that were religious themselves.

Albert Einstein
Sir Issac Newton
Nicholas Copernicus
Renes Descartes
Gregor Mendel
Lord Kelvin
Max Planck

Science and religion go well together. What exactly is it that you base your idea on that science and religion "don't work most of the time" or that religion doesn't need to be an integral part of our culture? To be honest, your words mean nothing without being backed up by fact and it makes it seem that you're just stating your own opinions as if they were facts.

Rakudaton
08-02-2011, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I won't further debate with you why religion most definitely can and does go together with science. Instead, I will just give a list of famous scientists that were religious themselves.

Albert Einstein
Sir Issac Newton
Nicholas Copernicus
Renes Descartes
Gregor Mendel
Lord Kelvin
Max Planck

Science and religion go well together. What exactly is it that you base your idea on that science and religion "don't work most of the time" or that religion doesn't need to be an integral part of our culture? To be honest, your words mean nothing without being backed up by fact and it makes it seem that you're just stating your own opinions as if they were facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You do realise that those scientists were religious because society basically made it impossible not to be religious?

I mean, Christians were no longer burning us at the stake... but when Einstein announced that he did not believe in a "personal" god (he was a deist) it provoked a huge backlash, with people declaring publicly that he was an idiot and a sinner. Had those people in your list lived today, who knows? They might have been religious; they might not have been. The fact is that society did not allow people not to be religious until quite recently.

The reason science and religion do not go well together is because their positions are incompatible:

SCIENCE -- the idea that you come up with a guess and test it against what actually happens in the world. If it works it is correct; if not, you either discard it or modify it until it does accurately describe the world.

RELIGION -- the idea that you declare "X is true". You then ignore any evidence to the contrary. Anyone who tells you X is not true is killed, or imprisoned; or, if you're living in a slightly more enlightned age, they are accused of "intolerance" and "racism".

These do not seem to be compatible worldviews.

Andulok
08-02-2011, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally Posted by EzioTheAssassin
Hate to burst your bubble, but I too am a Christian myself. LightRey and I are alike, but as a science man myself, I research my own religion to better understand it.

The Bible is not some list of demands written by God, nor is it an instruction manual. It is simply a guidebook into the soul, full of biblical stories to help us become moral. I myself believe that I don't need to visit curch every Sunday to worship him, I need only believe in him and accept him as the way. Being Christian doesn't mean that it is mandatory to go to church each Sunday. The bible doesn't demand that we attend the sabbath, but only that we remember it to keep it holy, and any true Christian knows that the Sabbath is actually on Saturday, not Sunday. I'll admit I didn't even know that until a friend happened upon it after talking with a priest.

I had to touch upon this subject after I read your first paragraph. Religion is more than blind faith toward an unknown entity, it is a way of understanding of life, a gift of philosophy that can guide people.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the way love the originality by using the same phrase as i did at the start there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Bible is not some list of demands written by God, nor is it an instruction manual. It is simply a guidebook into the soul, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it is an instruction manual, for one thing it tells you "do X and you go to heaven,"... "do Y and you go to hell" that is the basis for what an instruction manual does right? Not to mention that a guidebook and an instruction manual are the same thing! There are various and utterly arbitrary things that in the bible that tell us to "win" gods favour such as the debasement of Homosexuality etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">full of biblical stories to help us become moral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact some biblical stores that we are taught in the bible are immoral too. Most people tend to pick and choose what they want to percieve from the bible and don't actually account everything that the bible says. Thus that is how it gives you this notion of a moral code you are then commiting a Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. You pre-suppose the thing you are trying to disprove. In order to choose what you will follow in the bible thus you must have a moral concept to begin with, otherwise why wouldn't you follow all of it?

One other thing...are you under the impression then that before the Jews recieved the Ten Commandments that they were not able to control themselves from Rape, murder, theft, adultery and all of those things and did it everyday until God dropped the ten commandments on them to give them a consequence?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Religion is more than blind faith toward an unknown entity, it is a way of understanding of life, a gift of philosophy that can guide people.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Faith is the belief without evidence. Mainly a belief in a deity without any evidence to show. This deity will then form as the essential component to the religion. Without this deity what religion has to teach us become arbitrary and unjustified. What philosphical truths could then be produced from a claim that lacks substanstiality? What life lessons does it have to give to us? A truth would require proof and evidence. Personally there is no need to believe in a God and there is no ethical justification in the bible for the Morals shown, the only one having a familiar similarity from that good ole game Simon Says...only its not simon calling the shots there.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I won't further debate with you why religion most definitely can and does go together with science. Instead, I will just give a list of famous scientists that were religious themselves.

Albert Einstein
Sir Issac Newton
Nicholas Copernicus
Renes Descartes
Gregor Mendel
Lord Kelvin
Max Planck

Science and religion go well together. What exactly is it that you base your idea on that science and religion "don't work most of the time" or that religion doesn't need to be an integral part of our culture? To be honest, your words mean nothing without being backed up by fact and it makes it seem that you're just stating your own opinions as if they were facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You do realise that those scientists were religious because society basically made it impossible not to be religious?

I mean, Christians were no longer burning us at the stake... but when Einstein announced that he did not believe in a "personal" god (he was a deist) it provoked a huge backlash, with people declaring publicly that he was an idiot and a sinner. Had those people in your list lived today, who knows? They might have been religious; they might not have been. The fact is that society did not allow people not to be religious until quite recently.

The reason science and religion do not go well together is because their positions are incompatible:

SCIENCE -- the idea that you come up with a guess and test it against what actually happens in the world. If it works it is correct; if not, you either discard it or modify it until it does accurately describe the world.

RELIGION -- the idea that you declare "X is true". You then ignore any evidence to the contrary. Anyone who tells you X is not true is killed, or imprisoned; or, if you're living in a slightly more enlightned age, they are accused of "intolerance" and "racism".

These do not seem to be compatible worldviews. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You just made up those definitions yourself -___-
Therefore they are likely biased and unreliable.

try: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

and:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

Come back when you have a degree in something along the lines of psychology, philosophy, religion, any science involving an experimental basis, or, hell, even English would do, before you start spouting random definitions of these terms based on your own biased opinions.

Andulok
08-02-2011, 03:00 PM
In addition to what Rakudaton said...

Just giving a list of names in no way bolsters your position. Its more of an appeal to authority. People at both sides of such a debate, particularly on a world issue always reference famous people as their own but it is pointless to do so.

Its not the names of these people that matters its what they say that does.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 03:23 PM
You want a real discussion about this? Fine.

I'll skip all parts about the bible, since I myself take the bible with a grain of salt. After all it's written by random humans that may or may not (probably not) have been some of the apostles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Faith is the belief without evidence. Mainly a belief in a deity without any evidence to show. This deity will then form as the essential component to the religion. Without this deity what religion has to teach us become arbitrary and unjustified. What philosphical truths could then be produced from a claim that lacks substanstiality? What life lessons does it have to give to us? A truth would require proof and evidence. Personally there is no need to believe in a God and there is no ethical justification in the bible for the Morals shown, the only one having a familiar similarity from that good ole game Simon Says...only its not simon calling the shots there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all (though what I'm about to say is philosophically debatable) truth does absolutely not require proof or evidence. If someone in 5000 BC were to say that 2 objects exert a force on each other dependent on their mass and distance to each other, would he have been wrong? If that same person were to say that that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun would he be wrong? Of course not. We have long since discovered proof that all these statements (except maybe the first one) are absolutely true.
Religion isn't about proof or evidence. It is about faith. Nothing more, nothing less. It is about believing that something is true. Religion is basically the same as thinking of a scientific theory and then believing that it is true, even though there is no proof or experimental evidence to back it up (like string theory for example).
Religion is about finding enlightenment and understanding through theory, rather than evidence. It's not there to explain the world to others, like science, but to explain the world to yourself. It is personal, while science is public. What anyone believes about the world has nothing to do with anyone else. That doesn't mean they can't share ideas with one another, but it does mean that whatever someone believes is only dependent on the will of that someone.

also, My list of names was purely intended to inform that there are many scientists who would disagree with him.

Rakudaton
08-02-2011, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
You just made up those definitions yourself -___-
Therefore they are likely biased and unreliable.

try: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

and:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

Come back when you have a degree in something along the lines of psychology, philosophy, religion, any science involving an experimental basis, or, hell, even English would do, before you start spouting random definitions of these terms based on your own biased opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, those are not definitions. I was telling you the attitudes of science and religion. That is not the same as defining them.

I love how you're implying I know nothing about science, when clearly I know more about how it works than you do. Whatever science you're doing, it involces the following steps.

1. Make an educated guess about how things work. (Hypothesis)
2. Work out the consequences of your hypothesis.
3. Compare these consequences to real-world data.
4. If the two do not match up, return to step one armed with your new knowledge and make a modified guess. Elsewise proceed to step five.
5. Continue to gather more evidence, and see whether your hypothesis (which is now on its way to becoming a theory) continues to describe the world accurately.

That, my friend, is an explanation of how science works. Not a definition. Never mind getting a degree, I think you need to just listen to what people are saying. Particularly when what I said about science is right at the very core of how science operates.

Your move.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
You just made up those definitions yourself -___-
Therefore they are likely biased and unreliable.

try: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

and:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

Come back when you have a degree in something along the lines of psychology, philosophy, religion, any science involving an experimental basis, or, hell, even English would do, before you start spouting random definitions of these terms based on your own biased opinions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, those are not definitions. I was telling you the attitudes of science and religion. That is not the same as defining them.

I love how you're implying I know nothing about science, when clearly I know more about how it works than you do. Whatever science you're doing, it involces the following steps.

1. Make an educated guess about how things work. (Hypothesis)
2. Work out the consequences of your hypothesis.
3. Compare these consequences to real-world data.
4. If the two do not match up, return to step one armed with your new knowledge and make a modified guess. Elsewise proceed to step five.
5. Continue to gather more evidence, and see whether your hypothesis (which is now on its way to becoming a theory) continues to describe the world accurately.

That, my friend, is an explanation of how science works. Not a definition. Never mind getting a degree, I think you need to just listen to what people are saying. Particularly when what I said about science is right at the very core of how science operates.

Your move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, no. That's not how science works. That's a basic model for gathering experimental data.
I don't know what authority you have pertaining to this particular subject, but I myself am an astronomy student and I'm pretty sure that what they're teaching me on this university is science or else I'm pretty screwed.

Science is far more general. Science is simply nothing more than at some point having these 2 things:
1. A theory explaining a certain (natural) phenomenon.
2. (Strong) evidence that supports said theory.

That is all you need. What you wrote down there is simply a basic guide to get those things.

If you were naming the attitudes then you were, and probably still are, generalizing large groups of people, which is basically stereotyping, which borders (negative) discrimination, so I'd suggest you'd stop that.

Calvarok
08-02-2011, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rakudaton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I won't further debate with you why religion most definitely can and does go together with science. Instead, I will just give a list of famous scientists that were religious themselves.

Albert Einstein
Sir Issac Newton
Nicholas Copernicus
Renes Descartes
Gregor Mendel
Lord Kelvin
Max Planck

Science and religion go well together. What exactly is it that you base your idea on that science and religion "don't work most of the time" or that religion doesn't need to be an integral part of our culture? To be honest, your words mean nothing without being backed up by fact and it makes it seem that you're just stating your own opinions as if they were facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You do realise that those scientists were religious because society basically made it impossible not to be religious?

I mean, Christians were no longer burning us at the stake... but when Einstein announced that he did not believe in a "personal" god (he was a deist) it provoked a huge backlash, with people declaring publicly that he was an idiot and a sinner. Had those people in your list lived today, who knows? They might have been religious; they might not have been. The fact is that society did not allow people not to be religious until quite recently.

The reason science and religion do not go well together is because their positions are incompatible:

SCIENCE -- the idea that you come up with a guess and test it against what actually happens in the world. If it works it is correct; if not, you either discard it or modify it until it does accurately describe the world.

RELIGION -- the idea that you declare "X is true". You then ignore any evidence to the contrary. Anyone who tells you X is not true is killed, or imprisoned; or, if you're living in a slightly more enlightned age, they are accused of "intolerance" and "racism".

These do not seem to be compatible worldviews. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not biased at all. /sarcasm

Religion is believing in something bigger than yourself, something that cannot be explained by convetional means. Something that science cannot disprove or prove. I believe in God, I believe that humans can figure somethings out thorugh science. It's not at all incompatible. Science has never proved that any religion is wrong. It has merely offered theories on explanations for things that can never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by science. If you believe in evolution, you're believing in something that can never be totally proven. I won't insult you for doing that.

But what I do find is that those who believe in such things tend to, like yourself, call people who believe in other things "unenlightened" or "superstitious". Who are you to say that? And quite honestly, if you believe that life happened by chance, and there is no purpose in it, what possible reason could you have for telling ANYONE how to do ANYTHING?

And if you are a life that will last about 100 years, then who are you to say that your life is more valuable because you spent some of that time in science? you act like there are no scientists that believe in god.

I know that there are people in relgions that do this too, but I'm not saying that THAT's ok either. People are equal. they shouldn't pretend they have authority over someone because of WHATEVER they believe.

Science is about figuring out how the system that is life works. Religion is believing that the system works like it does for a reason.

NO. CONTRADICTION.

Jesus was unnafilliated with Templars. Mods should lock this thread, because apparantly this community can't discuss religion maturely, and have to bring their biases into it.


EDIT: And your entire idea of naming the attitudes is full of crap. There is no single attitude. Some people approach religions the way you say people approach science, and vice-versa. All that you've shown us is your own personal bias, and you've tried to use that to twist our views into believing that science is an exclusive belief system. You can be an atheist scientist, or a creationist scientist. Science has nothing to do with beliving something. Science is about proof. A good atheistic scientist does not believe that there is no god because he's proved it with science, because he HASN'T. He believes that there's no god because of whatever experiences he's had or choices he's made in his life that have led him to not believe in a god. Same thing but reversed the other way around.

Now lets just leave each other alone as long as we're supposed to be talking about Assassin's Creed. Restart this cesspool of a topic in Off Topic, if you really feel like it. This kind of thread never works because most people never try to be objective about it.

SWJS
08-02-2011, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andulok:

By the way love the originality by using the same phrase as i did at the start there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I never intended to be "original." You are obviously contesting the beliefs and opinions of others. They have their beliefs and opinions, yet you seem to think that your beliefs are superior and are making heavily biased arguments. I felt it was necessary to "give you a taste of your own bias."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well it is an instruction manual, for one thing it tells you "do X and you go to heaven,"... "do Y and you go to hell" that is the basis for what an instruction manual does right? Not to mention that a guidebook and an instruction manual are the same thing! There are various and utterly arbitrary things that in the bible that tell us to "win" gods favour such as the debasement of Homosexuality etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Incorrect. The bible does not blatantly tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Instrucrion manuals usually tell you how to do something step by step. They are usually to the point, and tell you upfront how to do something. Guidebooks on the other hand offer advice on a situation, nothing more. Just as well, the Bible was written by man, so I don't trust sayings such as "homosexuality is evil and all homosexuals are condemned to hell." How can I know that men didn't add that out of their own contempt for homosexuals? Homosexuality, or rather, the sexual desire for the same sex is actually caused by a horomone defficiency. Why would God condemn someone to hell for something they were born with?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In fact some biblical stores that we are taught in the bible are immoral too. Most people tend to pick and choose what they want to percieve from the bible and don't actually account everything that the bible says. Thus that is how it gives you this notion of a moral code you are then commiting a Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. You pre-suppose the thing you are trying to disprove. In order to choose what you will follow in the bible thus you must have a moral concept to begin with, otherwise why wouldn't you follow all of it?

One other thing...are you under the impression then that before the Jews recieved the Ten Commandments that they were not able to control themselves from Rape, murder, theft, adultery and all of those things and did it everyday until God dropped the ten commandments on them to give them a consequence? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is the point. The biblical stories tell us of greatly immoral situations, why it is wrong to perform such acts, and how to avoid doing so. It is only there to help us learn from our mistakes so that we may better ourselves. I myself chose to follow my own code of beliefs before I heard the biblical stories. I had morals to start with, unlike many people.

No. Why would you assume something like that? I'm neither stupid nor ignorant. The Jews were smart people and were perfectly capable of controlling themselves, but they still needed guidance and direction, just like all people do. They were human just like everyone else. Everyone sins, and great pleasure comes from sinning, but nobody actually understands the consequenses of sin until they learn from their mistakes. For example, I took having parents for granted until my mother passed away. After she died, I understood that I never knew what I had until I lost it, therefore I am closer to my father as a result and have learned to love and appreciate him. I'm not discrediting anything in the bible, I'm simply saying no one needs to follow it by heart to be a Christian, or a good person. Just because you have your own beliefs doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a Christian, or any other religious member of society.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Faith is the belief without evidence. Mainly a belief in a deity without any evidence to show. This deity will then form as the essential component to the religion. Without this deity what religion has to teach us become arbitrary and unjustified. What philosphical truths could then be produced from a claim that lacks substanstiality? What life lessons does it have to give to us? A truth would require proof and evidence. Personally there is no need to believe in a God and there is no ethical justification in the bible for the Morals shown, the only one having a familiar similarity from that good ole game Simon Says...only its not simon calling the shots there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Faith is belief, period. It doesn't have to be about religion. I can have faith in my Aunt Lorene that she can quit smoking, it doesn't have to be related to my religion. Religious faith is simply having faith in a higher power. Just as well, just because something doesn't have tangible proof of it's existance, doesn't mean it isn't real. No one has proven Big Foot, or The Loch Ness Monster, or Alien Visitation, yet millions of people report sightings and encounters every year. Tangible proof or not, they exist in SOME way. For a lot of people, they have had their proof come in the form of miracles, or out-of-body experiences. To you it's a lucky coincidence or medicine-induced hallucinations. To us, the only explaination is a divine power.

As for Christianity needing God to justify the philosophies of the religion, that statement is no more true than the statement that the Earth is flat. No one has to believe in God in order to understand the morals of the biblical stories, and anyone has the capability to learn from philosophical interpretation, no matter their beliefs.

As for truth needing proof, that is also false. Despite not having actual tangible proof, Stephen Hawking's Big Bang Theory is the most popular and widely believed scientific theory reguarding the creation of the universe. Not even science can TRULY explain the creation of the universe. Yes, the physical evidence would suggest the theory is true, but some things still don't add up, and there still isn't concrete proof to solidify the theory.

You entire argument is nothing but bias. Try studying the bible's stories as I have, maybe you'll actually be able to pick out the story's morals. You aren't supposed to try and justify philosophy and wisdom with scientific reasoning and facts. Being able to say a few big words and pour a chemical to make a new one doesn't make you wise. Knowledge and and understanding of the knowledge do. If you can't understand what morals the bible was written to teach us, then you aren't wise, but blind.

EDIT: I heavily agree with Calvarok.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
I agree heavily with both Calvarok and EzioTheAssassin.

Anton1792
08-02-2011, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
First of all (though what I'm about to say is philosophically debatable) truth does absolutely not require proof or evidence. If someone in 5000 BC were to say that 2 objects exert a force on each other dependent on their mass and distance to each other, would he have been wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe you are creating a straw man out of his post. He did not say that unsubstantiated claims were wrong without evidence, he merely implied that they could not seriously be taken as truth without such.

So in your example here: No, the man is not wrong in asserting the law of gravitation, but without proof or evidence his claim cannot be taken as truth. In this case we do not know for sure, so therefore we cannot assert anything, especially not the fact that there is any truth here at the moment.

And do not argue from foresight. Yes, the law of gravitation is very well regarded today, but back then it would hold just as much weight as some of the more controversial ideas today such as M-Theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Of course not. We have long since discovered proof that all these statements (except maybe the first one) are absolutely true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is what was previously established: That something cannot be held to have any truths behind it until proof or evidence is turned up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Religion isn't about proof or evidence. It is about faith. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is about believing that something is true. Religion is basically the same as thinking of a scientific theory and then believing that it is true, even though there is no proof or experimental evidence to back it up (like string theory for example). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hardly think that you nor I are qualified to debate String Theory. Though I am not sure about you, but I believe that it is not, in actual fact, called String Hypothesis. For it to be labelled as a scientific Theory by the mainstream scientific community must imply that there is evidence for it.

And believing something to be true without proof or evidence is exactly why Science and Religion are mutually incompatible. Science works upon establishing a hypothesis to fit an initial data set, then you try to disprove this hypothesis. If it stands the test of sceptical inquiry then it may be called a theory.

Simply believing in something with neither evidence/proof and without subjecting it to the scientific method makes many religious claims unfalsifiable hypotheses that science cannot disprove, therefore we cannot know whether they are true or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
Religion is about finding enlightenment and understanding through theory, rather than evidence. It's not there to explain the world to others, like science, but to explain the world to yourself. It is personal, while science is public. What anyone believes about the world has nothing to do with anyone else. That doesn't mean they can't share ideas with one another, but it does mean that whatever someone believes is only dependent on the will of that someone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Something is either true or not true. You may deceive yourself as you wish, that is your personal business like you say, but reality is not subjective.

However this becomes a problem when Religion attempts to encroach upon the Government or the school. Then it becomes everyone's business, and like I said, disproving Religious claims are problematic. When disagreeable Religious influences begin interfering in politics or education it is thus difficult to uproot them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
also, My list of names was purely intended to inform that there are many scientists who would disagree with him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
These scientists lived in time periods when Scientific understanding was significantly less developed that it is now. Of course there would be less friction between these disciplines back then. It is therefore to be expected that many well reasoned people would adopt such positions.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So in your example here: No, the man is not wrong in asserting the law of gravitation, but without proof or evidence his claim cannot be taken as truth. In this case we do not know for sure, so therefore we cannot assert anything, especially not the fact that there is any truth here at the moment </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you're saying is that something should only be perceived as true, in any case whatsoever, if there is enough evidence to back it up? I strongly disagree with that. People should believe whatever they wish. There have been many things that have guided many people to do the right things in life that were not proven at that time or even just wrong. Such things still exist now and we, human as we are, really are in just as much need of them as before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I hardly think that you nor I are qualified to debate String Theory. Though I am not sure about you, but I believe that it is not, in actual fact, called String Hypothesis. For it to be labelled as a scientific Theory by the mainstream scientific community must imply that there is evidence for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I can explain why string theory is only theory, nothing more. String theory is one of the many attempts to unify Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics, because both theories have yet to be proven wrong and have endured much experimental testing.
String Theory is a theory that is most successful in working out this mathematical solution to avoid the contradiction between the two. However, this is actually at this point completely useless to physics, since at this point there is no way we know to prove or disprove any part of String theory, which is why it remains just that, theory.
To put it more plainly, string theory is a theory based on theory, which makes it speculation, well founded and well worked out speculation, but still speculation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Something is either true or not true. You may deceive yourself as you wish, that is your personal business like you say, but reality is not subjective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quantum mechanics disagrees with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However this becomes a problem when Religion attempts to encroach upon the Government or the school. Then it becomes everyone's business, and like I said, disproving Religious claims are problematic. When disagreeable Religious influences begin interfering in politics or education it is thus difficult to uproot them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am Dutch. Such a thing doesn't exist in our public schools or our government.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">These scientists lived in time periods when Scientific understanding was significantly less developed that it is now. Of course there would be less friction between these disciplines back then. It is therefore to be expected that many well reasoned people would adopt such positions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, in physics at least we're really not much further than Einstein's generation got. There haven't been any major theories that explain more than his General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, only small ones that use those very theories.

SixKeys
08-02-2011, 06:30 PM
My thoughts on this thread:

-There are two different definitions for the word "theory". There's the common man's version, which is used to express opinions or speculation: "My theory is that..." Then there's the scientific definition of "theory", which means a hypothesis backed up with a lot of evidence and research. Trying to claim that any particular scientific theory is "just a theory" means you obviously have no understanding of the two different definitions.

-It's poor etiquette to openly challenge someone else's religious beliefs when the topic didn't start out as a religious debate. However, religion deserves no special plea from rational discussion and no-one's free speech rights should be magically revoked just because you're personally offended that they don't believe in the same things you do.

-The person who tried to claim Einstein was religious is dead wrong. Einstein was such a well-known atheist that claiming otherwise proves you've done no research at all and instantly discredits a lot of your other claims. On a side note, whether or not a smart person like Einstein was religious has no bearing on the validity of the claims behind that religion. It just ticks me off when religious people keep trying to "claim" Einstein for their side to give credibility to their ideas when he was not, in fact, religious.

-In the context of the games, I believe Jesus was just an average dude who used the Piece of Eden for his own purposes. I doubt he was an Assassin, he didn't seem to be much into making people think for themselves. He preached following a higher authority, so it seems more likely he would have been a Templar.

LightRey
08-02-2011, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SixKeys:
My thoughts on this thread:

-There are two different definitions for the word "theory". There's the common man's version, which is used to express opinions or speculation: "My theory is that..." Then there's the scientific definition of "theory", which means a hypothesis backed up with a lot of evidence and research. Trying to claim that any particular scientific theory is "just a theory" means you obviously have no understanding of the two different definitions.

-It's poor etiquette to openly challenge someone else's religious beliefs when the topic didn't start out as a religious debate. However, religion deserves no special plea from rational discussion and no-one's free speech rights should be magically revoked just because you're personally offended that they don't believe in the same things you do.

-The person who tried to claim Einstein was religious is dead wrong. Einstein was such a well-known atheist that claiming otherwise proves you've done no research at all and instantly discredits a lot of your other claims. On a side note, whether or not a smart person like Einstein was religious has no bearing on the validity of the claims behind that religion. It just ticks me off when religious people keep trying to "claim" Einstein for their side to give credibility to their ideas when he was not, in fact, religious.

-In the context of the games, I believe Jesus was just an average dude who used the Piece of Eden for his own purposes. I doubt he was an Assassin, he didn't seem to be much into making people think for themselves. He preached following a higher authority, so it seems more likely he would have been a Templar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you're wrong on 2 counts.
1. Theory, especially within the context of science is not necessarily backed up by evidence. Theory can be backed up by evidence such as experimental data, but it doesn't need to be and it often isn't.

2. Einstein most certainly wasn't an atheist. He was an agnostic theist. In fact, he openly rejected atheism.
more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...%27s_religious_views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views)

You clearly didn't read any of the posts thoroughly. I don't blame you for it, since they are so long. However, I would suggest you refrain from judging any of us, including those I disagree with, since you clearly haven't properly read our posts.

Rakudaton
08-03-2011, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
1. Theory, especially within the context of science is not necessarily backed up by evidence. Theory can be backed up by evidence such as experimental data, but it doesn't need to be and it often isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A theory must be in agreement with available evidence. The only way it could have no evidence is if there is no evidence either way, in which case the theory has no more merit than its inverse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eh, no. That's not how science works. That's a basic model for gathering experimental data.
I don't know what authority you have pertaining to this particular subject, but I myself am an astronomy student and I'm pretty sure that what they're teaching me on this university is science or else I'm pretty screwed.

Science is far more general. Science is simply nothing more than at some point having these 2 things:
1. A theory explaining a certain (natural) phenomenon.
2. (Strong) evidence that supports said theory.

That is all you need. What you wrote down there is simply a basic guide to get those things.

If you were naming the attitudes then you were, and probably still are, generalizing large groups of people, which is basically stereotyping, which borders (negative) discrimination, so I'd suggest you'd stop that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see no contradiction. What you're calling a "basic model for gathering scientific data", I'm calling for simplicity's sake "how science works". I think that's a fair enough label to use, wouldn't you agree? Because it is how science works. I'm studying physics, so I would hope that I have some idea about these things.

And your idea that science needs those two things -- it's wrong. Science is not a collection of information -- it's a tool used to gather that information, a process if you will. Granted, it's a process that tends to lead to those two things, but that isn't quite the same.

I was not generalising large groups of people. I was generalising the attitudes of science and religion. That's a bit like me saying "NASA is interested in space", and you saying "You're generalising about people because there are some people in NASA who are not interested in space". Whilst there are always exceptions to rules, I was talking about how religion and science operate. Science unquestionably operates in the manner I have described; and judging by the last few thousand years, I didn't seem to be so far off with my description of how religion works.

If you think I'm wrong about religion, take a look at Christianity. The Bible asserts X, Y, and Z. But Christianity has not been changed even when parts have been proven to be demonstrably false, and indeed people who have tried to point out where it's wrong have often been silenced usually through force. The Copernicus Conspiracy for Brotherhood is a good example.

LightRey
08-03-2011, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A theory must be in agreement with available evidence. The only way it could have no evidence is if there is no evidence either way, in which case the theory has no more merit than its inverse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, only if there is any evidence that can actually have any influence on whether said theory is true must it be in agreement with that evidence. Theory is independent from evidence. However, in physics a theory without any evidence to back it up is basically useless. For this I will simply refer back to my example of String Theory, which is such a theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I see no contradiction. What you're calling a "basic model for gathering scientific data", I'm calling for simplicity's sake "how science works". I think that's a fair enough label to use, wouldn't you agree? Because it is how science works. I'm studying physics, so I would hope that I have some idea about these things. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I wouldn't. These are the basics of experimental physics and though they are an essential part of physics, they're but a part of a much larger whole. Physics also holds theoretical physics. The part of physics that focuses purely on finding out ways to explain phenomena. It is true that such things remain useless until supported by evidence, but it's part of a system that works well and it's what people like Einstein did for a living. For example, it took decades before any parts of his theories of relativity got some actual experimental basis.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was not generalising large groups of people. I was generalising the attitudes of science and religion. That's a bit like me saying "NASA is interested in space", and you saying "You're generalising about people because there are some people in NASA who are not interested in space". Whilst there are always exceptions to rules, I was talking about how religion and science operate. Science unquestionably operates in the manner I have described; and judging by the last few thousand years, I didn't seem to be so far off with my description of how religion works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is generalizing large groups of people. Science and religion don't have actual attitudes, people do. To say religion or science has an attitude is simply the same as saying people that associate themselves with those things have those very attitudes.

Your supposed attitude of science is also off. It's clearly the attitude of a scientist can be, not what it is. Scientists come with different motivations and different methods. There is no distinctive opinion or attitude that describes a scientist. All that scientists have in common is the fact that all of us use logic and evidence to not only come up with theories, but also (dis)prove them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And your idea that science needs those two things -- it's wrong. Science is not a collection of information -- it's a tool used to gather that information, a process if you will. Granted, it's a process that tends to lead to those two things, but that isn't quite the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's scientific method. Science is a collection of information that is either strongly supported by evidence or any theory pertaining to that information, though the last part is only to advance knowledge, since it has yet to be verified it cannot be used actively (yet).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you think I'm wrong about religion, take a look at Christianity. The Bible asserts X, Y, and Z. But Christianity has not been changed even when parts have been proven to be demonstrably false, and indeed people who have tried to point out where it's wrong have often been silenced usually through force. The Copernicus Conspiracy for Brotherhood is a good example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your view of religion is close minded. You only see the institutions within the religions and the way they often use religion for political gain. I would like to point out that there has never been actual conflict in the name of religion alone. It has simply been used to divide people, just like with racism and sexism, and to hide the actual political reasoning behind these conflicts.

Andulok
08-03-2011, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

Your view of religion is close minded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hypocrisy! At it's core.

You are unwilling to listen to any evidence against the existance of god. Any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable in your eyes, despite the fact that early that you said it was important to question you faith. To know "Why is it true".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

questioning your faith can and will only give you strength.
Only those who doubt their faith are generally afraid to question it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
questioning is the act of finding out if something is true </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Thus finding evidence? However you later go on to say that you don't need evidence to believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:

So what you're saying is that something should only be perceived as true, in any case whatsoever, if there is enough evidence to back it up? I strongly disagree with that. People should believe whatever they wish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what do you really mean? Do you need evidence or not? If the latter...what is the point in this discussion? If you're just going to believe what you want to believe even though I would make the case that everyone can't, Racists can believe that other races are inferior however scientific evidence shows that this isn't true.

If you can pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible that obviously shows you are using your own moral compass that doesn't originate from that bible. So you don't need evidence and you dont need moral guidance...so what is left? Fear of no afterlife? Thats all i see that is left for you to dispute. As far as I can see...who wants to live forever? That is hell. Never being able to leave the tea party, and you MUST enjoy yourself - Look up Christopher Hitchens. A dying man no-less.

LightRey
08-03-2011, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are unwilling to listen to any evidence against the existance of god. Any evidence to the contrary is unacceptable in your eyes, despite the fact that early that you said it was important to question you faith. To know "Why is it true". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no definite evidence whether any religion is true or not. It is impossible to have such evidence in fact, because an all powerful god (or set of gods) is omnipotent and can therefore always explain away any possible explanation offered by science. Even though such explanations can be seen by some, even many, to be unlikely, they're still valid enough to be possible, unlikely as they may seem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus finding evidence? However you later go on to say that you don't need evidence to believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, just searching. You can't truly find the answers through evidence. It is impossible as I have explained just now. You can however discover more about them through searching for them nonetheless, even though you know you will never truly be able to find them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So what do you really mean? Do you need evidence or not? If the latter...what is the point in this discussion? If you're just going to believe what you want to believe even though I would make the case that everyone can't, Racists can believe that other races are inferior however scientific evidence shows that this isn't true.

If you can pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible that obviously shows you are using your own moral compass that doesn't originate from that bible. So you don't need evidence and you dont need moral guidance...so what is left? Fear of no afterlife? Thats all i see that is left for you to dispute. As far as I can see...who wants to live forever? That is hell. Never being able to leave the tea party, and you MUST enjoy yourself - Look up Christopher Hitchens. A dying man no-less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an idea. An idea alone is enough to enlighten any individual. It's not about it's truthfulness, though it often does play a part, it's about believing it and using it to explain the world to yourself. Not to find the "right" explanation, but to find comfort or understanding through doing so. True religion isn't about being right or wrong, like science. Rather, it's about seeing reason and patterns where none seem to exist. To have an idea to hold on to that might be so unlikely it's considered ludicrous, but gives one hope, understanding, motivation, guidance and anything else all humans really need.

Look, as a scientist looking at any religion I would always come to the conclusion that it would be best to assume that it is false. However, religion is not meant to be part of science (except when studying religions or something). It is meant to be part of the worldviews of individuals. The only part religion should ever play in science is inspiration or subject.

Mr_Shade
08-03-2011, 12:08 PM
I think this debate has gone on for long enough..

debates about religion do not belong on the forum, due to the wider implications...


If you wish to continue in private - please do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif