Jump to content


Photo

The Chief's Gauntlets

Halo 3

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 22 May 2008 - 11:55 PM

This is ridiculous. I came onto this forum at 2AM and my mind, it is boggled. I see nothing but double speak and self-congratulations here for arriving at the same conclusion and a couple posts that say I'm wrong, but end in something along the lines of, "But it's entirely possible there'd be civil war." What is this argument even about, can anyone clue me in? I elaborated, I used examples, I said, there will be Sangheili that reject the evidence presented to them, there will be Sangheili that disagree with the military's view that their religion was a sham. What I see from Voc and others is, "The Sangheili practiced the most fervent, zealous religious view you can imagine. And upon the return of the military, they will all drop this belief. However, the chaos that ensues may cause the same thing you predicted." As I said, my mind, it is boggled. We're arguing over one single thing, we all accept there is the possibility of civil war within the species of the Covenant, as well as, obviously, between the species of the Covenant, but we disagree over one thing: will the Covenant belief system remain in any single individual? I say yes, I used examples. There will always be naysayers, conspiracy theorists. I think that there are always going to be people, and even aliens, who distrust other people when they say that everything they've believed in for their entire lives has been a joke, a veil pulled over their eyes. Eegad, if you guys want a discussion about religion versus Atheism, make a topic and I'll gladly represent my views, but come on, I'm not allowed to use real world example to show that another view has no evidence with which to stand upon?

#22 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 23 May 2008 - 02:21 AM

[B]ut come on, I'm not allowed to use real world example to show that another view has no evidence with which to stand upon?

No you're just not allowed to play the part of the antagonistic ass. (That part is reserved for Blaze or his understudy.)

#23 Kinetic

Kinetic

    is Algebraic.

  • Veteran
  • 3,709 posts
  • PSN:DocKinetic
  • Steam:dockinetic

Posted 23 May 2008 - 03:39 AM

No, you're just not allowed to play the part of the antagonistic ass. (That part is reserved for Blaze or his understudy.)

And you're not allowed to play the part of Cpt. Double Post.

Edited by Kinetic, 23 May 2008 - 03:39 AM.


#24 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 05:09 AM

I see nothing but double speak and self-congratulations here for arriving at the same conclusion and a couple posts that say I'm wrong, but end in something along the lines of, "But it's entirely possible there'd be civil war."

I don't know that anyone has congratulated themselves in this thread yet and if I've repeated myself or others have echoed my opinion, I'm sure it's likely because they agree with me or because they think I needed to be repeated for some to understand. I said one thing and you said another as indicated by your response: No they wouldn't, Voc. to my statement: If that idea [of God and their faith] is proven to be false, there would likely be a moral fallout of incredible proportions. How am I to understand that you are referencing anything other than the idea that you reject my argument that there would be "moral fallout of incredible proportions" in the wake of the events of Halo 3? Regardless if one or one billion Elites still cling to the promise of the Great Journey, the reality stands that there would be, as Falkor aptly put, "global meltdown." I've argued nothing to the contrary.

What is this argument even about, can anyone clue me in? I elaborated, I used examples, I said, there will be Sangheili that reject the evidence presented to them, there will be Sangheili that disagree with the military's view that their religion was a sham.

You never said anything of the sort, Anpheus. Quote the portion where you offered the variety of possible social outcomes which could/would result in the wake of the events of Halo 3. Maybe you're remember what I wrote, but I can't recall you anything of the sort. What did you say? You simply provided examples in current religious units to support the single notion that Sangheili would still believe the lies of the Prophets. You never offered disambiguation or elaboration on anything other than that, save for the negative barbs about religion you were aptly able to integrate into your statements.

We're arguing over one single thing, we all accept there is the possibility of civil war within the species of the Covenant, as well as, obviously, between the species of the Covenant, but we disagree over one thing: will the Covenant belief system remain in any single individual?

When did I say it wouldn't? Please quote me. Accurately this time. And when did you "accept there is the possibility of civil war" through implication, inference or outright declaration? Please quote. Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement, but I think you've assumed a lot. Keep in mind that I was responding to someone who said that the Sangheili culture would go on as they were before the Covenant and your first response to me was "No" followed by no assertion of agreement with anything else that I said in either two posts.

Eegad, if you guys want a discussion about religion versus Atheism, make a topic and I'll gladly represent my views...

But you already have and that's my point, Anpheus. I like you and I love a good-spirited debate, but you have to admit that when you use words like this you're not looking to fill in gaps in an existing conversation with your opinion - you're looking to start a fight:
  • groupthink
  • mob mentality
  • 'truth'
  • brainwashing
Are you going to try to convince me that those were appropriate terms to use which would likely not offend anyone and that they were civil? Particularly when more than 50% of the world's population and likely the population of this forum are either Christian or Muslim? Like I said before, I think you're a great contributer; you're bright, your comments are well-structured and precise and you definitely have opinions which are well-thought out, but your statements here were insulting and that was the only reason I said what I said. If I offended you in my previous post, my apologies, but I see you as a bright dude and I obviously know that you could have handled your position with more tact than was originally uttered.

#25 Confalone

Confalone
  • Member
  • 119 posts
  • Location:Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Posted 23 May 2008 - 10:45 AM

im sure the chief's gloves themselves followed ALL of those faiths wraped into one super faith

#26 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:06 AM

And that's just a lack of context, if you only read one line of my post you could arrive at that conclusion, but the next line was, "People will still believe in something even in the presence of proof that it's false." And that's what I argued for. If you want to start a different topic about how you are offended by such terms, then I would gladly argue those points there. I don't think you should be so offended by them.

#27 Nightshade

Nightshade

    ↓ I'm with stupid. ↓

  • Veteran
  • 3,328 posts
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:11 AM

If you want to start a different topic about how you are offended by such terms, then I would gladly argue those points there. I don't think you should be so offended by them.

Doesn?t this just prove Voc?s opinion further? People get angry when others even allude to something they believe in is false. This causes unrest.

#28 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:39 AM

I think I agree with you that there'll be unrest. I argued, specifically, that there will be a large number of Sangheili that disagree with the military about their religious beliefs being wrong.

#29 Nightshade

Nightshade

    ↓ I'm with stupid. ↓

  • Veteran
  • 3,328 posts
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:51 AM

I think I agree with you that there'll be unrest.

I argued, specifically, that there will be a large number of Sangheili that disagree with the military about their religious beliefs being wrong.

Neat-o.

PS: Why does this even matter? Then again, I love to argue pointless points.

Edited by Nightshade, 23 May 2008 - 11:51 AM.


#30 Kinetic

Kinetic

    is Algebraic.

  • Veteran
  • 3,709 posts
  • PSN:DocKinetic
  • Steam:dockinetic

Posted 23 May 2008 - 12:13 PM

Oh, you kids and your debates over fictional politics.

#31 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 12:14 PM

Some people appeared to be under the impression, Coco included, that the entire Forerunner-worshiping faith of the Covenant would be demolished, destroyed, let's use their own words here:

Their core, pre-Covenant religion was based on the belief that the Forerunners were gods. Their species-wide goal pre-Covenant still revolved around finding Forerunner artifacts. This has been proven (to the Arbiter and 'Vadum, as well as their crew) to be a false belief - unfounded and based on lies and misunderstanding. Now that their religious belief system is gone you don't think there will be any turmoil or social issues at all? The destruction of the Covenant and the beliefs that were championed by it would seem to me to have catastrophic effects on the Sangheilian social landscape.

Imagine if tomorrow the world discovered irrefutable evidence that there was no God. All of the folds of modern religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, Judaism would fall into disarray. Now whether or not there is a God really isn't the point, the point is that a rather large some of our planet's population bases their life, their future and security beyond death on the idea that God exists. If that idea is proven to be false, there would likely be a moral fallout of incredible proportions.


Fallout? Yes. Totally. Proven to be false? In whose eyes? Certainly not each and every Sangheili.

But the point is that the Arbiter, Half-Jaw and all of the other Covenant leaders know that it's false. What if the Pope, the councilmen of the Methodist Church, and the leaders of the Baptist Association, and the leaders of every world religion all presented irrevocable facts to their followers that disproved the existence of god and then disbanded their respective organizations? We're not talking about a prophecy or prediction coming true or not coming true. We're talking about the leaders of a major religion realizing beyond the shadow of a doubt that their religion is false and then reporting that back to their people.


So their military comes back and reports one thing, and the people believe another. Still going to be tumultuous? Yes. For the same reason? Sort of. But will the Covenant belief system totally disappear? No.


Everyone after Voc's reply attempted to say I was wrong while reiterating the same view, there would be a societal meltdown, that there would be turmoil, etc. But at the same time, accepting the same flawed idea that every single Covenant believer would change their mind, that there would be no more Covenant belief system, etc. Some people even reinforced my point of view by reiterating that the Covenant is a religion that is at least an order of magnitude more severe, more zealous than any on Earth. Ok, so if we presume that to be true, would there not be even more hesitation to believe the returning military, as opposed to less?

Edited by Anpheus, 23 May 2008 - 12:15 PM.


#32 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 12:51 PM

Proven to be false? In whose eyes? Certainly not each and every Sangheili.


But will the Covenant belief system totally disappear? No.


at the same time, accepting the same flawed idea that every single Covenant believer would change their mind

Dude, who did they accept this from? Who? Me? Really? Did you even read my last post?

I'll tell you what, Anpheus. I'm kind of glad you've dodged the vast majority of quotes I requested from you before, because it gives me an opportunity to ace this argument in one post.
  • Provide me the statement (anywhere in this thread) in which I said that every last Sangheili would disregard the Covenant religion? It has to be there right? Otherwise it would mean that your statement "No, it wouldn't, Voc" and everything which followed would be without warrant.
  • Provide me the statement in which you agreed that there would be civil war, that there would be turmoil or that there would be anything but Sangheili refusing to give up the promise of the Great Journey (in your first two posts which sparked this conversation to begin with - not after I put your argument in a headlock and made you finally say it).
If you can do that, I admit defeat and will relinquish this thread to you and your innate and superior ability to engender positive and constructive discussion among peers. Clearly this a trait only possessed by people who purport a staunch disbelief in God's existence and their arm-cuff hatred for anything which might resemble a belief in it. A belief that I may or may not possess, which, I might remind you, I have yet to even introduce into this thread (nor will I).

Yet you still assume such: "If you want to start a different topic about how you are offended by such terms, then I would gladly argue those points there. I don't think you should be so offended by them."

I'm personally not offended by anything you've said but I'm pretty certain that the 50%+ of the population of our planet might have a good portion of people who don't like being called brainwashed victims of group-think and mob mentality following 'truth.' Is this a compliment where you come from? Does this make people want to believe you, the beholder of all truth and wisdom, or do you think you might be starting a fire where none need be?

#33 Nightshade

Nightshade

    ↓ I'm with stupid. ↓

  • Veteran
  • 3,328 posts
  • Location:Nebraska

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:08 PM

Posted Image

Also, while were at it. Here?s hoping Halo 4: Dark Planetoid Rising: Finish the Fight (You started and finished) has a mode where you play as the Arbiter running for president of Sanghelios. Getting to duke it out and run your opponents through the mud. But it won?t be easy, you will have to fight your way to the top against Half-Jaw (He was once in a human prison camp, so he?s got the warrior vote.) A new elite by the name of Oarack Bbama, the new elite rallying for change from the old not so hip Covenant. And who could forget that loveable candidate no one cares about, Hillary Clinton.

#34 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:34 PM

Ace in the hole? Let's avoid such generalizations here Voc.

You clearly, specifically said the Covenant and its beliefs would be destroyed. Here's a couple quotes:
Now that their religious belief system is gone
The destruction of the Covenant and the beliefs that were championed by it


What did you mean by that if not the literal interpretation?

#35 Stormtrooper30

Stormtrooper30

    Keep on your toes or you might lose 'em.

  • Member
  • 461 posts
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:46 PM

I'm pretty certain that the 50%+ of the population of our planet might have a good portion of people who don't like being called brainwashed victims of group-think and mob mentality following 'truth.'


This just became my new favorite quote.


Thank of it as the American Civil War, Anpheus. When the North defeated the South, the Southern people were not very happy. Even though the states below the Mason-Dixon (sp?) line were not permitted to use slavery, the Southern people still tried to get it back. They did not aggree with the North.
Some of the Southern people accepted Abe's philosophy, but some didn't go down without a fight. Now just substitute muzzel-loaded rifles with plasma rifles and there ya go. Same thing.

Moral of the stroy: Don't argue with Voc unless you enjoy getting your face crushed by a steam roller.


Hope my story helped. I'm sure it somehow doesn't have anything to do with the argument, but I tried my best.

Edited by Stormtrooper30, 23 May 2008 - 01:48 PM.


#36 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 02:47 PM

See, this is the ridiculous bit. I'm saying that when the North (the Sangheili military) comes home/wins, the people in the South (the Sangheili population) are going to continue to believe in the validity of their erroneous ways. Probably not all of them, maybe not even most of them.


I don't even think anyone reading this conversation knows what I'm arguing for given the replies I've seen since Voc's post. The fact that someone, Stormtrooper, just posted something like that, that completely agrees with what I've said earlier, then... I don't know, this is ridiculous to me.


As I said earlier, my mind, it is boggled. I've said the same thing consistently that I don't think the Covenant religion will simply disappear, be vanquished, be "destroyed" in Voc's own words.

#37 vociferous

vociferous
  • Veteran
  • 3,639 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 04:55 PM

I think the terms "gone" and "destruction" are where you're getting snagged, because by using those I by no means was attempting to indicate that there wouldn't be any remnants of the religion left whatsoever. In the wake of "irrefutable evidence," as I stated earlier, there would likely be a great deal of confusion, but I can't imagine a situation where there wouldn't be some who would try to hold on to the notion of the Great Journey. In fact, by stating that there might be grounds for a civil war in the first place clearly sets the stage that some Sangheili would likely be siding with old ideals - otherwise, what would be opposition to the new truth that the Arbiter brings with him? Anyways, I think we've gone as far with this conversation as possible. You misunderstood my statement and perhaps I should have been more clear. I still don't agree with your word choice in reference to religion and I would say the same thing if someone said something repugnant about atheism. I'd ask that you respect that sentiment and how it's applied in the forum. And I apologize if I crossed the line in my comments.

#38 Anpheus

Anpheus
  • Member
  • 226 posts

Posted 23 May 2008 - 05:02 PM

I don't think you've at all been offensive, Voc, or crossed any lines. I, more than you, would have done that. You failed to live up to your namesake, I suppose. If you want a discussion of religion, PM me or create a topic, I think my words are warranted, I think that as repulsive as the idea is, I stand behind what I said.

#39 mattacus

mattacus

    I get the sneaking sense that Gamble is NOT a douche.

  • Veteran
  • 3,518 posts
  • Xbox LIVE:Old Mattacus
  • Steam:oldmattacus

Posted 24 May 2008 - 03:06 AM

There's already a religion discussion. It's the politics thread...or it has been hi-jacked for that purpose in the past with little complaint.

#40 slurpeekilla

slurpeekilla
  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 24 May 2008 - 06:56 AM

just some food for thought... the Sangheili's pre-Covenant religion focused more on finding Forerunner artifacts and protecting them (instead of using them, like the Prophets). any possibility there would be a shift back to that belief system? there are certainly more Forerunner artifacts in the Halo universe to be found, not to mention that the Sangheili have found the ultimate Forerunner artifact in humanity.

Edited by slurpeekilla, 24 May 2008 - 06:56 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Halo 3

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq