Was it fedoracore rubbish or a quality addition to the 40k universe?

...

>Emperor gets completely butt blasted
>Fedoracore
I understand that people have different tastes, and what one thinks is a quality addition another might think is garbage, but is the last church really fedoracore? I thought that was stuff that was supposed to be for portraying obnoxious atheism positively, not anything at all to do with religion.

C R I N G E

>Isnt there a book written by a priest from the middle ages that discusses how to counter nearly every arguement made in the book.
Do you mean aquinas? His arguments were considered bad even at the time among theologians.

Ugliest tie since X-files.

Depend on the of view.
The arguments seens way too childish to me, but some could enjoy it

>obnoxious atheism
>not anything at all to do with religion

wut?

I'm saying that if it was fedoracore, emperor would have been proven utterly correct instead of having a priest tell him he's a little bitch that needs a bunch of soldiers to 'convince' everyone he's right.

Well, big E didn't fall on his knees at the end and didn't invite Jesus into his heart so it's fedoracore.

>aquinas
>considered bad by theologians
Nigga what?

Wouldn't that make everything that isn't a Chick Tract fedoracore?

> This is what fedoras that don't want to read Aquinus' massive works claim to believe.

ding!

That’s not the case. He was well regarded in Catholic Europe at the time, much to the consternation of the neo-platonists. It’s wasnt until the Protestant Schism that he became decisive, but even today he is immensely well regarded by most serious Catholic theologians and apologetics, as well as some non-Catholics and secular types who find his ethics appealing. His opponents haven’t managed to descredit him yet either.

I used to like it, but the author getting it signed by Dawkins made me realize that I was giving it way too much credit and it really was what it appeared to be at the surface. A shallow morality story reflective of the author that shows a great lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Meant divisive, not decisive. Though he was that too.

But in the end the priest did recognize that the Emperor was right about religion, what the Emperor didn't recognized was the human need of religion

Its a lot better after you read master of mankind and understand why he was eliminating religion.

Nah fag, pure catholic. But the summa is pretty good, like Plato or Aristotle but with the autism cranked up to an eleven. On the flip side, the arguments are really good, and logical almost to a fault

It’s nothing like Plato. It’s literally the first major Aristotelian on Christian thought, and as a result was and still is extremely influential in the theology of the Catholic Church. Beyond the Summa theologica though, his other works have also been extremely influential. The Summa contra gentile is nearly required reading for any apologists.

It's not fedoracore at all, it's the opposite. It shows how ultimately basic and short-sighted the Emperor is, and how completely incapable he is of understanding mankind.

The author stated “while Uriah might have been wrong, he was the one you liked better and who came out with the apparent moral high ground. The Emperor was right, yet he came across as the arrogant, short-sighted tyrant – the very kind he rails against in the story.” And then he had it signed by Dawkins.

The story was apparently just to make us realize the emperor was an asshole, but a correct asshole, something everyone understood already. He also claimed Uriah was a priest that never went to seminary so that’s how he was justified in being a strawman.

It's a decent fluff piece, shining more light on what the Emperor was about, and why he ultimately couldn't succeed.

But the actual content of their argument is laughable. It's exactly what you'd expect a debate between smart people written by an averagely intelligent guy to be like.

>I love reason and science
>Richard Dawkins
I have to go throw up now

>I used to like it, but the author getting it signed by Dawkins made me realize that I was giving it way too much credit and it really was what it appeared to be at the surface. A shallow morality story reflective of the author that shows a great lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Got it in one. When the TTS spoof shows a better understanding of the material, something's fishy.

Why the Emperor wants to be rid of religion is nothing new. It's still as stupid and shallow as it ever was, not to mention hypocritical.

You're giving the author a trillion times too much credit. But for the sake of the argument, I disagree with your analysis. I think it shows the absurd impossibility of the undertaking the The Emperor had been born to do. Not even the greatest being in the history of mankind had power enough to fight the cancer of Chaos and carry the withered husk of humanity into a new age. He understood the strengths and weaknesses of humanity all too well. He just so happened to believe (or perhaps hoped would be a better term) that humanity could rise above its weaknesses and reach the point where it didn't need a God or an Emperor anymore. Maybe he just overestimated mankind...or maybe this was all the way it had to happen. Hopefully we never find out cause there's no one currently in the employ of BL or GW capable of doing anything more than shitting all over themselves.

The Emperor's goal makes sense in a universe that has magic and where prayers create demons from another dimension.

You completely failed to refute one word the Emperor said.

>An actual theologian would

Would piss his ivory tower pantaloons at the thought of demons being real and eating his soul. I never met a theology major that was worth his paycheck.

Nobody argues that the emperor isnt right in the context of the story when it comes to the final nature of God.

The problem is that the story is filled with r/atheism tier jabs about the role of religion in culture and and an insulting lack of knowledge on the subject. I was able to overlook it because I thought that it was just a puff piece to show how the emperor can be an uncaring, self-righteous asshole who exemplifies everything he hates. The author’s own comments however on the emperor being right in his arguments about religion, and him getting it signed by Dawkins is icing on the shitcake that means the story is little more than someone preaching under a thinly written story. Which makes the previous jabs and theological shortcomings totally worthy of derision and harsh judgement.

All of Warhammer is fedoracore rubbish.

All of religion is a comfort blanket for adults.

>the role of religion in culture and and an insulting lack of knowledge on the subject

Stop pretending to be complicated enigmas on a high pedestal. You aren't. Religious people are easy to understand. I read you like an open Bible.

>An actual theologian would have taken the emperor and his arguments apart.

And then the Emperor would have psychically taken the priest apart. Emperor wins.

All of society is a comfort blanket for sheep.

Cool idea. Meh execution.

Good one.
Also, not by chance the first to fall were the Word Bearers

Reminder that if you have a biology degree, you’re automatically qualified to speak about everything and anything philosophy, foreign affairs, psychology, and every other subject under the sun. It’s not like we have actually experts who study this and do research anyway.

As a Christian, I thought it was pretty good. I've always been wary with the Imperial Truth stuff in the lore, but The Last Church shows it failing, which is radically different from the other writings. The only issue I really had with it was Big E's arguments; why the fuck would he still be using examples like the Crusades or the Inquisition so far in the future? Especially since his Crusade was far grander in scale, and far more violent than any previous human war. Sure it made Uriah seem so much more sensible when he called bullshit, but it feels so out of place.

Like said, had it been written by an actual theologian, with both Uriah and Emps using actual intellectual arguments besides, "No U!", it would have certainly surpassed anything 40k has ever provided, possibly even going into mainstream literature.

Don't forget to tip your fedora at the mugger that guts you like a fish because lol! society is for losers.

>Don't forget to tip your fedora at the mugger that guts you like a fish because lol! society is for losers.

Not likely.

When you really think about it, Yahweh, as-written, is infinitely more terrifying and eldrtich than the Chaos Gods.

I'm just going to leave this here:

youtube.com/watch?v=7XGX64XfSkU&t=4916s

>If I kill you it proves I was the correct one all along.

Was the Emperor an autistic hypocrite?

What, I thought we were competing on who can make the edgiest comment?

>Was the Emperor an autistic
What do you think?

I think that’s part of the appeal. It’s like how there’s organizations of peaceful bikers who use their tough-looking exteriors to help people. It’s a “this is a scary ass man, but thankfully he’s on your side”.

It doesn’t even need to have been written by a theologian, it just needed to be written by someone who actually knew more of the subject matter beyond historical exaggerations and low level claims the church burned down when the pagans made them 1700 years ago. He didn’t care, he thought he was right, and it reflects in the content of the argument.

"We are right because we are mighty."

It's funny how Veeky Forums misses the point of it constantly despite it being so simplistic. It's an attack on militant atheism and the Emperor's stubborn dogmatism, not religion.

It’s a quality story. Only DOOS VOLT fags and Templarpers are pissed at it.

The author literally explained the point of it, and it wasn’t an attack on militant atheism. He even got his copy signed by Dawkins.

>It’s not like we have actually experts

You completely failed to name one. Name your so called "expert" on gods. How many deities has he met?

I know you’re a self righteous idiot, but why don’t you reread the post in question. He was complaining clearly enough about Dawkins wilingess to speak out on subjects he isn’t particularly well educated in. Now go back and read the subjects he mentioned before vomiting onto your keyboard.

William of Ockham already destroyed Aquinas one century later.
Also Aquinas is so damn boring, even for a medieval philosopher

Imagine having two very wrong opinions and trying to share them with other people. But I guess that’s the suffering of being a nominalist. You’re always wrong.

>He was

Don't speak for other people. Only speak for yourself.

Moderates are the true enemies.

This is how I took it at first. Essentially turning the entire story upside down at the end and making the priest smarter then the god he worships is a way.
But then you see the author doing shit like . So sadly I sincerely doubt that was his message

except you can still be a fan of dawkins atheism and still understand that militant, violent atheism and strict dogmatism is a problem

dawkins himself has condemned the destruction of churches and persecution of priests that the bolsheviks did in the 1917-1930 period

The priest won.

>dawkins himself has condemned the destruction of churches

I stand with my Norwegian brethren in their right to express themselves and their culture.

>It’s not like we have actually experts who study this and do research anyway
Most of these experts suck though.

Considering how the warp works, this statement could be actualy true

Dawkins is a militant atheist. He said so himself and he considers convincing people that God dosen't exist to be the most important intellectual task in our society. Opposing violence and destruction while also being that dogmatic is a morally idiotic tone to take given the sheer fact that anyone with three brain cells to rub together should be aware that any movement that seeks to "counter, criticize, and expose." religion as dogmatically as the New Atheist movement will eventually turn to violence as religion in turn reacts to being attacked and becomes more dogmatic itself. He knowingly perpetrates a cycle that will only ever end in violence and he is too intelligent to not see that.

I think you've got your chronology all mixed up, user.

>except you can still be a fan of dawkins atheism
Why would you?

It was shit - there were literally thousands of better arguments Emps could use, starting with in-setting "you know guy you worship was me in the past, and your whole faith was based on lie" or "look, these 4 are the only real gods" but then lots of indoctrinated fundies would lose their shit and boycott setting, so they probably pulled their punches and made Emps a moron.

On the other hand, it was also shit because priest was retarded idiot who could have used any of hundreds of arguments why religion is sometimes helpful, but went to usual fundie crap instead and was all "muh tradishun". Neither of the two had any effort put into their stance, to the point when priest goes "I saw the divine light" Emps doesn't even bother to debunk it by saying it was him...

>implying Trial by Combat isn't divinely-supported and thus the theologian was less pious than the Emperor
Don't forget that there's a reason that Might Makes Right is a saying.

Fundies don’t play warhammer, and if they had done that nobody who playes would have had a problem. God doesn’t exist in the 40k setting, and nobody cares because it’s fiction. The problem people have with it instead is that they used the Emperor for their own “correct” infantile opinions and made Uriah a strawman.

It was just bad all around.

>except you can still be a fan of dawkins atheism

Dawkins is pleb tier, he won't even debate William Lane Craig, much less the big guns like Plantinga.

Reminder that if you're a leading biologist, and have to deal with decades of swamp-dwellers telling you that your profession is nothing but a stack of lies because the nice man in the tv set that collects money for god says so, you might end up being a bit bitter.

>Dawkins is a militant atheist

How many confirmed kills does he have?

>He said so himself

Prove it. Post the quote.

Dammit Varg, stop fighting poor christians and instead do something about the "peaceful" refugees that come to your oh so special europe.

I think you are giving the Emperor far too much credit.

*tipping intensifies*

There is a reason a church is a big, tall building. It is a very deliberate attempt by those who built it to dominate the area surrounding and sent a message to everyone who sees it. If you resent that attempt to dominate, it is pretty easy to justify destroying it. I doubt a small, unobtrusive building would have drawn the same virulence

Well, it needs to be big to fit a lot of people and the bell tower not only lets the ringing be heard a long way away, but also acts as a landmark when navigating there.

So you're saying that it wouldn't have happened if the church didn't dress like it wanted a burning, the little slut?

>Religious people are easy to understand.
So are atheists
>I read you like an open Bible.
So without nuance, context and already geared towards a slanted position?

Seems I've read you like and open God Delusion.

And I'm not even a fucking Christian!

It's fine. Honestly I like it largely because it's one of the rare examples of a 40k story that doesn't revolve around giant slabs of screaming meat smacking against each other for 300 pages. Wish we had more stories exploring the world of 40k outside of battle.

I'm not saying the destruction of property is justified. But the psychological impact of the building is deliberate, and I would argue (though I don't expect Veeky Forums to agree) a form of violence. Not one that warrants violence as a response, but still. If I stuck up a poster calling you my bitch that you had to walk past everyday, many people in your situation would be affected by it and would be tempted to respond with violence of their own ie tearing it down.

Wow, graham is buffed. I bet he can smash the face of every BL writer, wait correction everyone who worked for GW .

I echoed Custodisi's sentiment, but damn if Uriah schooling the Emperor wasn't cathartic.

>So are atheists
>Seems I've read you like and open God Delusion.

Good. Dawkins wrote it to be understandable.

>without nuance, context

Here's real context for you. The Bible was written by barbaric semites running around the desert, chopping each others heads off. And it shows. Yahweh should hire an editor.

>mfw watching creationists get this butthurt over a single story.

So all skyscrapers need a burnin' too? Or multi-story houses?

>But the psychological impact of the building is deliberate, and I would argue (though I don't expect Veeky Forums to agree) a form of violence.
This might actually be the stupidest single thing I've ever read on Veeky Forums. Revel in your accomplishment.

lel

No. But often they are a statement. But it is a statement you are so used to seeing that you don't even recognise it. It has become normalised, despite the fact that that if you really think about it, it's not even particularly subtle statement. And so if you resent this statement you will have a very hard fighting it via consensus because people you speak with may not even be able to perceive something so subliminal. Which may turn some people to other routes of response, which are less socially acceptable.

>no u