Oh my god, still no news about volume 10? Narita is a lazy bum.
Oh my god, still no news about volume 10? Narita is a lazy bum.
Nice bait
Originally Posted by Rafflesiac
Let me start of by voicing my genuine appreciation for your comment. I think it’s a very well written and thoughtful response. It is however not really opposed to my main contention. My answer is late, but I have been discussing with other people and deciding what I can say without breach any policy of BL. That’s why I am going to be fairly brief.
No, that’s actually true by definition:
Cambridge dictionary: Religion, the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship:
Given the simple fact that no god or supernatural power has ever been proven to exist, it is by definition irrational to believe in them. It is however certainly far from the only reason people act irrational.
True, but that doesn’t change the fact that religious extremism does and has done a lot of evil throughout history, and is often opposed to knowledge to keep itself alive.
Completely agree. And religion can comfort people and foster social cohesion. Doesn’t change that it is at its core an (at best) unfounded and irrational belief in supernatural tales.
Here is where we disagree.
And her answer is trying to be more faithful to a real religion that still does incredible amounts of harm in the real world. The only thing that would mitigate this is her actively rejecting large parts of her religion, which she doesn’t (or it isn’t said at the very least).
In short, my opinion on religion is close to that of Richard Dawkins to name someone. I am not really willing to go in more depth about it because I don’t want to break the rules, but am more than willing to discuss it with anyone by PM or Discord. What I do object to is an aversion to religion being called irrational, as it isn’t by its very definition.
As I have already said, I greatly dislike idealism and idealistic characters like Saber and Shirou(Fate) too. And while idealogues have done incredible amounts of harm because they did what they thought was best (or at least said they did), at the very least the reason they did so (people, a country, themselves…) did demonstrably exist. Also nearly no ideologies are so averse to factual examination as religion is.
Finally, I nor anyone close to me have been directly harmed by religion in any way. I have seen were zealotry leads through, when a Professor of History of Mathematics tried to save some old manuscripts from destruction in the Middle East. Not a society I would wish upon anyone.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for humans to believe in things that have not been proven to exist. We will never have all the answers and only believing in things because it's the most rational and logical choice to me is not really a philosophy I personally subscribe to. I'm not religious, nor do I believe in the supernatural, but I don't really think believing "an intelligent entity may have created the Universe" or "there may be something after death" is all that incongruous with reality. Because really we can't prove anything regarding these two fronts. Even scientists (example: Newton) have authentically held religious beliefs because they don't believe that trying to understand reality is incompatible with the idea of there being truths that go beyond what's observably and demonstrably true.
I mean think about aliens for example. Aliens have not been proven to exist. However I think, just mathematically speaking, it's ridiculous to assume that alien life does not exist outside of Earth, because that essentially implies that Earth is an one-time miracle in a sea of stars so huge our brains can't comprehend it. That to me feels like more of an irrational belief. Similarly I think it's fair for someone to come to the conclusion that the world we live in feels so purposeful, so coordinated, and so beautiful that something must have made it. Personally, the main reason why I don't subscribe to such beliefs, following that train of logic, is because believing in the supernatural comes with accepting ideas that I think would be inconvenient, if not existentially terrifying, to the way in which I live now. But I am open to them being true.
But really it's just a clash of opinions. So it's whatever, I guess.
I can't claim to know you personally, but I think huge swathes of the human population have directly or implicitly supported something that causes harm to other people without speaking out against it. This isn't really about other people, this is about her. She's an assassin. Like. She kills people. And this franchise is full of characters like this, including many we are supposed to like, who also directly or implicitly support institutions, real or fictional, who harm others, if not do the harming themselves.
Last edited by Formless Creature; January 21st, 2025 at 09:33 PM.
If you think about the world, it's pretty irrational in general. I mean we're all on a floating rock in space! Like what? Isn't that weird??? What is space anyway...singularities??? what what??? And don't even get me started on how weird life is. It's also super weird that we've never encountered extraterrestrials before.
So for Fake Vol. 10 are we thinking April or May release? Also what would be your cover guesses?
Last edited by jennajayfeather; January 21st, 2025 at 09:48 PM.
April or May seems most likely to me. For the past few years Narita has been releasing new volumes like a year and a month or two after the last. As for covers… it’s the final one so hard to say honestly. We could see them go the route of Alter Ego Gil replicating Volume 1 Gil’s pose, some giant group shot of a lot of characters (not sure if like that because it would be super cluttered), or it could give a cover to somebody who hasn’t been on one yet. Lot of possibilities there.
I disagree in general, though there are exceptions. That’s why you formulate your hypothesis after all, because you belief something “might” be the case. But that’s not analogous to most religions. It’s more like choosing to believe while there’s a veritable mountain of evidence against it.
I don’t really comprehend your statement. How else do you decide between claims if not by looking which one is supported by the facts?
Same as before. While there’s no reason to assume the forces involved were intelligent (the four fundamental forces aren’t) or anything is going to happen to me after I pass besides the decomposition of my organic matter, I indeed can’t rule it out completely. I can say though that an examination of the evidence is incompatible with the creation myth of any religion I know.
Scientists (like me) are observably less religious. Furthermore in Newton’s time being openly atheist wasn’t socially feasible. That aside, you can indeed be religious and but set that aside to study reality according to scientific principles, and many great scientists were indeed religious. None were biblical literalists though, unless their research didn’t conflict with their field. Those that still are today get rightly ridiculed for it (Michael Behe, James Tour…)
True, and it’s called “the Drake Equitation” (though obviously the parameters are unknown). But what you just did was give a rational argument as to why that might be the case. This is completely different when looking at angels, ghost and goblins. And I agree with this belief. I consider the chance we are the only life in the universe pretty much non-existent. I highly doubt they go around abducting farmers and carving crop circles though.
We have better explanations for it, and there are loads of mistakes in our biology too. Did the creator source those out to his less gifted apprentice? But that aside, coming to that conclusion doesn’t harm anyone. Coming to the conclusion said being wants you to harm those who not believe, or believe even slightly differently does.
I don’t belief because there is no evidence to support the supernatural, and plenty to contradict pretty much all known religions. But I am open to being proven wrong. Evidence would have to be presented that is more compelling than what we already have, which is a very high bar though.
Who at least do it generally for something that exists, even if only for themselves. That makes a difference for me. That aside, it’s also the real world connection that makes it more of a problem for me. Not many people are trying to birth all the world’s evils in the world with a corrupted magical grail. If this was a more common problem, my attitude to this would also change.
Anyways, I did enjoy your answers and our discussion.
Parts of it are. But we have explanations on why we live on a spinning rock, how we interact with space-time (well, not entirely). Singularities in physics are an interesting concept though, and best understood through mathematics. We certainly don’t know everything, but we know a lot. And no explanation has ever been supernatural.
Not really. Space is exceptionally large, and travelling to even the nearest solar system would cause incomprehensible amounts of energy and time as far as we know.
That would be my guess. As for the cover, significant characters that haven’t been up there. Alter Ego Gilgamesh, Lancer Sigma, whatever becomes of Ayaka/Flat/...
Last edited by RCM9698; January 21st, 2025 at 10:45 PM.
This really is the one thing you really wanted to scream your heart out huh
That's a bit misleadingly quoted. There are obvious differences between regions. But a strict theocracy ruled by zealots like some places? I mean, do you really believe for one nanosecond you will enjoy your life there (assuming you can even live it in the first place) if you believe even slightly differently? For what it's worth I don't think a strict Christian theocracy would be much better.
Last edited by RCM9698; January 21st, 2025 at 11:31 PM.
The twists and turns this back and forth has gone deserves to be studied
It depends on how you define supernatural. Would you consider matrix to be supernatural? Because it escapes current knowledge?
The priest was waiting for the arrival of the princess, who was only an enemy of all of them.
For the priest, the golden princess was the one and only main heroine.
Everyone else was unworthy of his respect, no matter how strong they were.
Tsukihime 2 Prelude III
You mean the movies?
Just the idea behind it. Would you consider the scenario and the possibility behind it supernatural even though it would just be highly advanced science?
Honestly highly advanced science is not much different from magic.
The priest was waiting for the arrival of the princess, who was only an enemy of all of them.
For the priest, the golden princess was the one and only main heroine.
Everyone else was unworthy of his respect, no matter how strong they were.
Tsukihime 2 Prelude III
You're derailing too far from the original point of the discussion, I think. The focus is about Zealot's character, and your contention with her is simply that you can't stand fanatical characters in fiction. I'm just wondering why this visibly Muslim character is getting such remark when as people have demonstrated, labeling her as "fanatic" is a gross misunderstanding and shows that you just cannot give a benefit of doubt to analyze this character by what is actually written and not just external label and appearance.
This is such a funny yet unfun way to engage with fiction, why would you subject yourself with this kind of idealism if it's not just some very obvious bias and arbitrary prejudice? Why should a character's personal belief and ideology render their character invalid and not worth to even sympathize? Shouldn't you also disregard Gilgamesh's entire character because he also promotes authoritarianism, upholds misogyny and advocated mass genocide of mankind?And her answer is trying to be more faithful to a real religion that still does incredible amounts of harm in the real world. The only thing that would mitigate this is her actively rejecting large parts of her religion, which she doesn’t (or it isn’t said at the very least).
Last edited by Kamera; January 22nd, 2025 at 12:00 AM.
Assuming you mean that our reality is some super advanced simulation? It's not supernatural. It's unprovable either way (assuming a perfect simulation) by its very nature and thus not interesting to me. That idea is also once again incompatible with every religion I know of.
Its not that complicated , people just want to believe something is out there watching their efforts and that everything in the end is not in vain that is all the suffering they endured.
That's just it.
Anything that isn't at least mathematically proven to exist or discovered any hints requires some form of faith.
People like to make alien argument but just because probability says it might exist doesn't mean it would.
Because you see the universe might not have picked the right hand. No matter how probable it is. We can surely still be alone in the universe.
- - - Updated - - -
Zealot is on the same vein i think. She just wants to believe everything wasn't for nothing. I don't think we should label her as fanatic.
Fanatical adherent of some real religions, yes.
Already answered, and you keep steering back too this point. Because she’s played as a hero and her attempting to increase her devotion as a good thing. If an inquisitor was played as a hero who was troubled by what the inquisition was doing, but decided that he should be more faithful instead to understand it instead of saying: sorry, that’s not what any god worth believing in could want, I reject this. Unless her faith is specified as some unknown tolerant sect, which it isn’t, I’ve got to assume what she wants to be more faithful to is medieval Islam. With, again just like Christianity, is a terrible goal in my opinion. If specified she just wants to learn to enjoy her religious holidays more fully, I can assure you I wouldn’t care.
Skill: Zealotry A: Normally unattainable mental strength can be obtained by having so much religious faith in something that it is beyond the understanding of those around her.
She is fanatically religious, that is beyond dispute and apparent in her character.
What kind of idealism? And again, as already explained not arbitray either.
Because the worldview is a significant part of a character? Why do you think Voldemort is a villain, or Darth Sidious? It’s because WHY they take action, more then even the actions themselves.
Really?
- That’s an enormous misread of his character, based in best case solely on FSN
- That’s played as a character flaw, not something in any way admirable
- Many part God/inhumanly superior kings trying to take over your country recently?
- At the very least, Gilgamesh does what HE believes is right, not someone else he just decided to blindly follow
Edit:
And I have no problem with that, never said I did.
Not really, unless you mean assuming reality is real, which it for all intends and purposes is, or that natural laws ar constant, which has been the case every single time someone has ever done a reliable experiment. That's evidence. But you do touch on one of the reasons I became a mathematician, because I find beauty and tranquility in absolute certainty and objectivity.
True, which is why I never claim to know for certain, only that it seems likely to me. That's not what religious fanatics say.
Her own skill does.
Anyway, I have to stop now. If this continues I will answer tommorrow.
Last edited by RCM9698; January 22nd, 2025 at 12:47 AM. Reason: Formatting Issues
Welp she is a fanatic nvm.. I really should read profiles of character I am speaking of.
Why are you so zealous with crusading against religious fanatics, are these religious fanatics in this thread right now. How does announcing yourself as fanatical anti-theist matter in this line of discussion about fictional characters? Here you have a character that uses faith as coping mechanism against religious trauma and abuse, and you can't see just how ironic it is that you're also denouncing her as a fanatic? Faith does not equal fanaticism. In Zealot's case, faith here is intentionally left ambiguous the specifics of exactly because to her character faith simply denotes an emotional entity. Her real-life religion literally does not matter because she virtually has not shown any specific manifestation of her being actually *religious* and performing Islam-specific rituals or adhering to actual Islamic dogma in her actions and speech throughout the series at all.
Rest of the things you said is true but her profile does outright call her a fanatic. I mean that's what zealotry means in english. But yes to give a benefit of doubt, it could be that she is a fanatic about a certain page or certain verse of Quran.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
