Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Have you ever heard the expression "religion kills"? Of course, even without religion, people would always be fighting over something. Religion is just the organized chaos that stands out the most because peace is often preached in these religions, and it allows people to hate it more.

TheDoctor455:
Sorry to say, but for anyone to seriously suggest that organized religion is completely innocent of any involvement in any kind of real-world violence... is either a demonstration of historical ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

and anyone to suggest it is the only cause or the greatest cause of violence, hatred and bigotry is likewise performing the same ignorance. (not that you are but just look at this thread.)

Guy Jackson:
NEWSFLASH: BORED STUDENT PLAYS SOME VIDEO GAMES, GETS QUOTED ON THE ESCAPIST

Oh, and...

thethird0611:
So this thread is EXACTLY why you cant have an open-minded discussion about religion. Ill just point that out real quick, because if a thread even mentions religion, its all 'OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE', 'RAGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY', when the topic doesn't even have a motive to talk about religion specifically.

Did you really just put "open-minded" and "religion" in the same sentence?

Anyway, there's plenty of motive. The topic is religion and violence and... stuff. Therefore we have a license to bash religion some more. Until it dies. Forever.

I realllllyyyyyy have to hope you were being sarcastic there. Because if not, you seriously just proved my point, and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics.

Wowzer.

Though, if your first statement wasnt so unprofessional, I would agree with you. Theres not much substance to this study, not very many real world implications, and very basic.

Treblaine:

If the gods of Hinduism appeared to you and directly threatened you to give up Christianity and convert to their religion... would YOU!

The Hindu gods aren't traditionally obsessed with people worshiping them. They offer things in exchange for sacrifices. Hindus definitely have a hell. In fact, they have many and varied versions of hell, but for the most part you don't get sent there for not worshiping someone. You get sent there for doing bad shit, regardless of religion. And it's more of an action-reaction thing than it is a judgment thing. That being said, if you piss off a Brahmin or don't perform certain rituals bad things are supposed to happen to you. So if they did come down, they would probably offer you wisdom and earthly rewards for worshiping them. Passing up on the rewards out of your own pigheadedness would probably be enough of a punishment.

Treblaine:

"if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?"

I'd have some reservations, like for example I'd ask him to STOP TORTURING BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! Muhatma Ghandi is in there being tortured because he is Hindu, I am NOT OK at all hanging around with a god who would do such a thing. Heavy hand or not HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!

You're very focused on the punishment aspect of it, which is understandable. But to be fair there are other ways of understanding punishment. St. Augustine offered a more mystic/gnostic approach where God simply is the eternal and the Good and by giving into impermanent sensual pleasures and negative emotions you've essentially damned yourself without any grumpy old man on a cloud having to chuck lightning bolts at you. Of course Augustine was a Manichean who converted back to Catholicism, so a lot of his philosophy could be considered unorthodox for its time, even though he went on to become a central Christian theologian. Even in the most backwards and fanatical traditions there occasionally arises someone with an interesting idea or two.

Treblaine:

The very concept of this god I find monumentally offensive. You cannot deny that it tries to scare people into believing and obeying and with that belief charlatans can quote the bible and give false legitimacy to their claims. It is no zero sum thing believing in the God of the bible... believing his words that call for gays to be lynched, that evolution and all of geography are wrong.

The most offensive thing to me about the anthropocentric notion of the Christian God is not that he punishes a lot of people, it's why he punishes them. Supposedly God created human beings to worship him. Or, if we're going to take genesis literally, then he created us first as pets, and then once we became conscious of good and evil he started demanding that we worship him. This is probably the most offensive idea that I can think of. Added to this is the fact that God created us to enjoy things that he deems bad, so we have to suppress our own nature and grovel before him because his love is the only thing that can give our lives meaning.

People talk a lot about God's love being so great, but it seems to have a lot of strings attached. The relationship seems rather one-sided. We have to give up everything and worship God and submit to his every request and when we misbehave he tortures us. Supposedly he still loves us even when he sends us to hell; "I only hit you cuz I love you so much baby! Please don't make me hit you!" Sounds to me like God needs to lay off the Jack Daniel's.

Of course I can hardly be mad at an entity that doesn't exist. What sickens me is the mindset of the person who came up with this crap. I find the notion of an uncaring universe quite comforting. I can create whatever values I want and live my own life without some supernatural entity breathing down my neck. What kind of person is so insecure and self-hating that they need to create some sort of divine disciplinarian to punish them and make them feel even more guilty? Well, Nietzsche has already answered that particular question in The Antichrist and On the Genealogy of Morals.

ShadowKirby:

I'm pretty sure a doctoral student knows what problematization means.

You'd be surprised. There are college professors who don't know that a modem needs to be plugged in to work.

OT: Wow, so he completed his doctorate by writing a paper stating the obvious? This country...

Treblaine:

Krion_Vark:

Treblaine:

The bible said mankind were created from Adam and Eve. That in itself is nonsense and contradicts the archaeological record of ape-like creatures gradual evolution into modern humans.

Sorry, grain of salt or bag of salt, there is no excusing how the Bible is full of false claims, as has been proven by science. The bible's word has about as much weight as Aesop's Fables and other stories.

We can get into the whole evolution debate if you would like but we do not have proof that they evolved into humans we know that they evolved into human like not necessarily human itself though since we did not observe it and that is the only definitive proof there is.

That's nonsense, we HAVE seen this evolution in the fossil record, accurately dated for each of the remains and confirmed further with study of genetics.

These "human like, not necessarily human" used complex tools, wore clothes, communicated verbally, cared for their sick and made art and jewellery. We know this from the archaeological record, how those with poorly injuries meant they were nursed to stay alive even though they didn't recover.

You're just being arbitrary to say these are not THE missing link of human evolution from primates. And just to clear up any confusion, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, they are our "cousins". We have a common ancestor, they chimps and gorillas went one way, the path of living in the forests of fruit and forage. The path that would lead to humanity had far more evolutionary pressures that lead to us standing tool-users.

I find it funny that you are stating that Humans evolved from apes but then use the known ancestral humans and not stating anything about Lucy or the fact that there are quite a few steps between her and the ones that you are stating. You haven't said anything to prove that you are right or that the bible is wrong.

Organized religion is violence.
So much blood has been spilt in the name of a god.

Krion_Vark:

Treblaine:

Krion_Vark:

We can get into the whole evolution debate if you would like but we do not have proof that they evolved into humans we know that they evolved into human like not necessarily human itself though since we did not observe it and that is the only definitive proof there is.

That's nonsense, we HAVE seen this evolution in the fossil record, accurately dated for each of the remains and confirmed further with study of genetics.

These "human like, not necessarily human" used complex tools, wore clothes, communicated verbally, cared for their sick and made art and jewellery. We know this from the archaeological record, how those with poorly injuries meant they were nursed to stay alive even though they didn't recover.

You're just being arbitrary to say these are not THE missing link of human evolution from primates. And just to clear up any confusion, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, they are our "cousins". We have a common ancestor, they chimps and gorillas went one way, the path of living in the forests of fruit and forage. The path that would lead to humanity had far more evolutionary pressures that lead to us standing tool-users.

I find it funny that you are stating that Humans evolved from apes but then use the known ancestral humans and not stating anything about Lucy or the fact that there are quite a few steps between her and the ones that you are stating. You haven't said anything to prove that you are right or that the bible is wrong.

I personally don't have to prove evolution, it's already been proven. I have just given a brief overviews of what is accepted scientific fact that you can easily look up yourself.

"but then use the known ancestral humans"

The hominids I referred to are not humans, but they are damn close. There have been so many stages found between "Lucy" and homo-sapiens. That's the problem with creationists, they want to draw a fine line between "this is ape" and "this is human as god created" when the archaeological record shows all the continuous stages of adaptation from ape to human. Why the fuck would a god do that? have all these ape like species over time become more and more human like then suddenly they disappear and he magically makes humans starting with a breeding pair of only two, less than ten-thousand years ago?

Bullshit. Creationism is intellectual cowardice to deny scientific evidence to suit dogma.

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

Treblaine:

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

Krion_Vark:
There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain YET

Fixed that for you. Just because we don't have an explanation for something, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

Anyway, go figure that I look away from this thread for a bit and then when I come back, it has gone on for 6 more pages. It's nice to know that you can still troll almost any forum with the topic of religion. I think it still takes a backseat to Mass Effect right now, though, in terms of immediately provoking a flame war. Mass Effect practically is a religion at this point, I'm starting to think.

Also, go figure that the vast majority of the people who posted here didn't seem to have read the article and most are pretty quick to bash the doctoral student for being dumb and coming out with pointless studies (presumably because the posters here, most of them high school students, are so much smarter than the doctoral candidate in question).

Krion_Vark:

Treblaine:

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"

Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.

"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."

That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!

"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."

Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".

"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."

Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.

"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."

I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.

dobahci:

Krion_Vark:
There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain YET

Fixed that for you. Just because we don't have an explanation for something, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

Anyway, go figure that I look away from this thread for a bit and then when I come back, it has gone on for 6 more pages. It's nice to know that you can still troll almost any forum with the topic of religion. I think it still takes a backseat to Mass Effect right now, though, in terms of immediately provoking a flame war. Mass Effect practically is a religion at this point, I'm starting to think.

Also, go figure that the vast majority of the people who posted here didn't seem to have read the article and most are pretty quick to bash the doctoral student for being dumb and coming out with pointless studies (presumably because the posters here, most of them high school students, are so much smarter than the doctoral candidate in question).

Me and my friends were actually talking about Mass Effect as a religion and how Shepard is pretty much Jesus then got to how Jesus was called the Shepard. It was a crazy conversation.
Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

Krion_Vark:
Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

Andy Chalk:
Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

image

A University of Missouri doctoral student says many modern videogames "problematize" organized religion by equating it with violence in their stories.

As improving technology has allowed videogames to evolve over the years, their narratives have become more detailed and nuanced as well, according to Greg Perreault, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. That increased sophistication has led to a growing incorporation of religion into various storylines, and that in turn has led religion to be "problematized" in videogames by way of strong narrative connections with violence.

Perreault looked at Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy 13, Assassin's Creed, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in his research and found that all of them tied religion to violence. "In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a 'Knights Templar' and crusader motifs," he said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."

But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."

This is where I'd normally make a crack about being thankful that organized religion has never been responsible for any real-world violence, but I don't want to offend any sensibilities so I'll simply note that Perreault presented the results of his research at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion and leave it at that.

Source: University of Missouri

Permalink

Wow whatever that dudes on, it can't be legal.

'Oh no! The Enkindlers are going to kills us all, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!' that was the lasting impression I received from Mass Effect 2, don't know about anyone else... oh wait a minute, I'm still sane. Yep, still sane, so no, I didn't leave the game thinking that.

I hope he failed his doctorate, or had to resubmit his thesis, with a hypothesis as flawed as the one he presents, and I mean, Assassins Creed is set in the past, and its full of Templars and dudes, but its fairly bloody accurate! Every other game there is just non-sense, wow what a waste of life he must have put in to make such a non sequitur argument.

dobahci:

Krion_Vark:
Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

Its not short sighted at all. There are things Science will NEVER be able to explain. EVER. No amount of testing will prove it. UNLESS like I said we are able to turn the laws that we already know in science on their heads and pretty much become gods.

Or as my Agnostic friend says. I can explain everything with science and what I cannot explain with science Doctor Who takes over.

dobahci:

Krion_Vark:
Also my sentence that you "fixed" didn't need fixing there are some things that science cannot and will not explain unless we figure out how to completely flip the laws of the universe on their heads. IE create and destroy matter.

It's pretty shortsighted to say that there are things that science will never explain. The very nature of science is that it doesn't really tell you what is true or what isn't, it's just a method, a process for observing phenomena and coming up with explanations for those phenomena that can be observed or tested.

MY GOD(irony intended), SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS THAT 'SCIENCE' IS A METHOD AND NOT A SET OF DOCTRINES!

dobahci:

As scientists learn more, they update their base of knowledge. If the things they discover conflict with the things they currently know to be true, they amend the old knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge.

It's just like when Albert Einstein came out with special relativity. Scientists didn't throw away Newtonian mechanics. The later discovery doesn't invalidate the former, it just extends it.

Well, what you just described is theoretic reduction, which is true for a lot of theories, but not all. Some are outright eliminated, like phlogiston and caloric fluid, or Aristotle's telic understanding of causality (things fall because it is in their nature to do so).

Treblaine:

Krion_Vark:

Treblaine:

The bible has not proved itself when it needs to and science has proved itself.

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"

Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.

"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."

That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!

"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."

Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".

"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."

Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.

"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."

I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.

Never said I was Christian.

Also no where recently have Christians knocked down doors and started shoving creationism down peoples throats as fact besides at CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC schools. The Creationist Museum? Yeah completely private venture. No one s saying that you HAVE to go there and you HAVE to believe it. Yes people latch onto what they are taught but there are more and more people questioning things.

To your statement that Science has proven them wrong. What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way. I bet that if you did believe in Santa Clause that it took a little bit afterwards for you to actually realize that he wasn't real. Beliefs are something that people hold close to them it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. People will always believe in a higher power.

As for the 90% of science being wrong? Go look up all the debunked hypothesis and all the ones that were changed from their origin. Yeah there is your 90%. Science doesn't mean just the things that worked. Science includes EVERY experiment ever done. Be it by a PHD holder or by a kindergartener Science by definition can and will be wrong on multiple occasions.

As for the "Prove you didn't do it" statement if there is no evidence against the person. There would be no court trials if that were true. Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all. Apparently science can prove and disprove anything. Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet. It has disproved some of the teachings of what it states God has done. But there is a point where science will not prove or disprove it. It might eventually but for now there is no evidence to contradict a higher power.

Krion_Vark:

dobahci:
snip

Its not short sighted at all. There are things Science will NEVER be able to explain. EVER. No amount of testing will prove it. UNLESS like I said we are able to turn the laws that we already know in science on their heads and pretty much become gods.

Or as my Agnostic friend says. I can explain everything with science and what I cannot explain with science Doctor Who takes over.

Science is empirical. Anything that cannot in principle be empirically measured or tested can neither be verified or disproved through the scientific method. As such it belongs to the realm of metaphysics. Unfortunately, metaphysical inquiry is pretty much limited to arbitrary speculation, if it is possible at all. The fact that the scientific method cannot verify the truth values for some propositions does NOT entail the truth of those propositions. And even if one does allow for metaphysical inquiry, said inquiry would still be subject to the general rules governing reason.

Occham's razor, when applied to religious doctrine, becomes a broadsword. In order to accept creationism we must accept so many additional and arbitrary explanations (e.g., that fossils were planted in the earth by the devil) that the position becomes untenable when considered alongside Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory doesn't have to be complete or perfect to be the more rational choice.

If you're going to be a creationist then you might as well subscribe to the Tertullian school of thought: "I believe because it is absurd!"

thethird0611:

Guy Jackson:
NEWSFLASH: BORED STUDENT PLAYS SOME VIDEO GAMES, GETS QUOTED ON THE ESCAPIST

Oh, and...

thethird0611:
So this thread is EXACTLY why you cant have an open-minded discussion about religion. Ill just point that out real quick, because if a thread even mentions religion, its all 'OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE', 'RAGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY', when the topic doesn't even have a motive to talk about religion specifically.

Did you really just put "open-minded" and "religion" in the same sentence?

Anyway, there's plenty of motive. The topic is religion and violence and... stuff. Therefore we have a license to bash religion some more. Until it dies. Forever.

I realllllyyyyyy have to hope you were being sarcastic there. Because if not, you seriously just proved my point, and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics.

Wowzer.

Though, if your first statement wasnt so unprofessional, I would agree with you. Theres not much substance to this study, not very many real world implications, and very basic.

Let me just highlight something here:

"...and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics."

Annnnd thank you for proving my point. That you apparently see the study of sciences as proof of the open-mindedness of some Christians demonstrates how staggeringly closed-minded you, specifically, are. That's not your fault, of course. Indoctrination works, and it works well. Fortunately the internet is here to save future generations from its effects. Hurrah! Go internet!

Well of course religion is violent, it's comprised by humans. And what are humans? A miserable pile of--cough- excuse me, going Castlevania there for a second.

But in the end, Religion is violent and it isn't. The problem is that religion wether it teaches peace or not, it's open. It's kind of like Anonymous, if it lets in the right people, they'll drag down they name of it. A lot of the time, Religion is used by people who wanted to justify their hate or use religion to scare their enemies.

Religion also varies between person to person. Just because there's terrorist who kill in the name of their religion, doesn't mean that all the people who follow that religion are gone to be violent.

I think the Westboro Baptist church is proof of idiots hiding behind 'religion' to try and justify their sick and demented minds.

But in the end, it's not the religion that's violent it's the people who follow it. Unless the religion itself directly teaches violence and hate, then in most cases it's the people 'following' the religion, doing all the violence. And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.

You don't see many games about Monks, though. lol

Asuka Soryu:
And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.

Silly Asuka... the Suul'Ka don't act the way they do because of religion. It's because of their fear of death. :P

Asuka Soryu:
You don't see many games about Monks, though. lol

Well, not western monks, anyway. There have been some pretty cool games involving eastern martial artist monks.

Krion_Vark:

Treblaine:

Krion_Vark:

One question then for all powerful Science. What started the universe/Big Bang?

Lots of plausible hypothesis that are being studied in this extremely hard to study area, while none of them involved god and none relate to Christian scripture.

I don't believe in Creationism but I also believe that Evolution isn't the entirety of the truth. There are things in this world that science CANNOT explain. There are quite a few things in this world that it CAN explain. Look at religion throughout history and then put it with the scientific advances throughout history and you will notice that things that the God(s) have done/are responsible for.
You also jumped into this thread and down people's throats who are expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO! Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well. I mean they don't call it trial and error testing for nothing. There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved. There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved. There is still a lot to learn from the bible and I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head.

"expressing their beliefs going WRONG WRONG WRONG SCIENCE SAYS SO!"

Well science does say there are wrong. Remember, Christians started this when they kicked down the door to the science classroom and started forcing scripture to be taught as science. I don't have a go at other religions because it doesn't try to corrupt science.

"Well guess what Science is wrong 90% of the time as well."

That defies the definition of science as it requires proof, repeatability, predictability and to be falsifiable. How could we have landed on the moon of 90% of the science was wrong. How can your GPS be so accurate. How are you able to use the internet to make such a claim??!?!

"There are still things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved."

Same with Harry Potter books. Both are JUST books. Why should something which there is no evidence for need to be disproven? That is not how the burden of proof works. You can't accuse someone without any evidence for a crime and say "huh! Well prove you didn't!".

"There are also somethings in the bible that Science HAS proved."

Some part of Harry Potter are true. Like parts of it take place in London, and London is a real city.

"I am guessing the teachings of humility by Jesus has completely gone over your head."

I think that applies much more to you both for how you act and how you are supposed to be following his ideals.

Never said I was Christian.

Also no where recently have Christians knocked down doors and started shoving creationism down peoples throats as fact besides at CHRISTIAN/CATHOLIC schools. The Creationist Museum? Yeah completely private venture. No one s saying that you HAVE to go there and you HAVE to believe it. Yes people latch onto what they are taught but there are more and more people questioning things.

To your statement that Science has proven them wrong. What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way. I bet that if you did believe in Santa Clause that it took a little bit afterwards for you to actually realize that he wasn't real. Beliefs are something that people hold close to them it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. People will always believe in a higher power.

As for the 90% of science being wrong? Go look up all the debunked hypothesis and all the ones that were changed from their origin. Yeah there is your 90%. Science doesn't mean just the things that worked. Science includes EVERY experiment ever done. Be it by a PHD holder or by a kindergartener Science by definition can and will be wrong on multiple occasions.

As for the "Prove you didn't do it" statement if there is no evidence against the person. There would be no court trials if that were true. Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all. Apparently science can prove and disprove anything. Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet. It has disproved some of the teachings of what it states God has done. But there is a point where science will not prove or disprove it. It might eventually but for now there is no evidence to contradict a higher power.

You talk about "the Bible" being true without a shred of evidence, you're a Christian. You may claim to not be a creationism yet you espouse creationist ideals of god creating things rather than natural processes.

Christians HAVE forced secular public schools to kowtow to this theory, not just private religious schools and even then those private religious schools have a public responsibility to - if they want the reputation as teachers to standards of national curriculum - should teach SCIENCE in the science classrooms!

"What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way."

So you admitting to wilful ignorance? To believe in holy scripture and damn everything else, just dismiss, ignore and reject. Typical creationist stance.

The fact that even the majority (you seem to have pulled 90% figure out of your ass) of science experiments going against expectation does NOT make science wrong, that adds to its strength that so many lines of enquiry have been tested and keeps adjusing theory to fit WITH ACTUAL PRACTICE! It's not about dogma, it's about the hard results of experiments and studies, Science get excited when the results go AGAINST expectations!

"Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all."

Yes but there must be SOME prima-facie-evidence to analyse and weigh. Bible doesn't have that. It's just baseless ancient rumour.

"Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet."

Well, no more than science has not yet disproved the existence of Santa Clause either. Really, science has disproved both by their claims being impossible.

It has disproved almost every one of the claims of natural providence to the point of making the work wholly unreliable. If you know a man has been caught out lying over and over and over and over again... would you still ask for more of his outlandish and unsupported claims to be "proven wrong" before thinking it might be a bad idea to start forcing his lies on education and public policy.

It is intellectually insulting to treat the Bible as fact or even remotely reliable.

So a Journalism student in Missouri has concerns that video games are too down on religion?

Huh.

And here, I get frustrated because I don't think they're nearly down enough; there is so much more room for intolerance, bigotry, dogma, superstition, honor-killing and broad-stroke divisiveness (a la John Carter of Mars (here's hoping Disney stays true to the subject matter), His Dark Materials (again, hoping to see more adherence to the original subject matter in the future), and many other semi-satirical works) in video games, and it seems like whenever religion comes up, you really get the sense that the writer really, really wanted to go further with the whole thing, but got nixed by marketing, who was afraid that it would offend faith-heads.

I know that around here it's preaching to the choir, but it still bears mention that video games don't 'problematize' religion; religion simply is a problem, and games lately seem to be more likely to give that fact a nod, even if they do handle the topic with kiddy gloves most of the time. I'll admit that I share Perreault's concern about games habitually emphasizing the violent side of religion, but for what I suspect are exactly opposite reasons from his: it's not that religions don't traditionally bear the most responsibility for human suffering and violence in the world -- it's that the violence and suffering are symptoms of the root cause of faith.

What a really good game narrative needs, is a focus on how faith has a habit of shitting all over reason and reasonable thought, leads people to form conclusions rather than informed conclusions, and ultimately often results in dogmatic soldiery and an us-versus-them mentality. Obviously this would work better in the context of a sci-fi universe than it would in that of a fantasy universe where, for instance, Tiber Septim really is a god, per the definition of the Elder Scrolls universe. Obviously, once your universe includes historical documents of supernatural entities and their powers, and once you can actually interact with them, then you're not dealing with faith anymore, yanno?

Anyway, this is already entirely too much writing about a paper I didn't even read -- not for lack of trying. I'd really like to see how he made his case now. :(

Everyone, just ignore Treblaine. Click on his name, then click on the rest X icon. Nothing you say is going to convince him of anything and he's just going to continually insult the religious and derail this topic with his ranting.

Stop, ignore him, and let the mods deal with the matter if he continually acts problematic.

To Treblaine specifically... take your issues to the Religion board and stop derailing this topic.

GrandmaFunk:
besides the use of "problematize", what he's quoted as saying is all pretty legit.

Yup, i agree completely. Ac in particular is oddly accurate in terms of it's expositional history.

Kimarous:

Asuka Soryu:
And as video games find violence usualy to be their 'blood', it's not hard to see why video games would focus on those who use religion for violent acts, wether they be for the sake of mankind, or for dark porpoises.

Silly Asuka... the Suul'Ka don't act the way they do because of religion. It's because of their fear of death. :P

Asuka Soryu:
You don't see many games about Monks, though. lol

Well, not western monks, anyway. There have been some pretty cool games involving eastern martial artist monks.

I think I'd laugh if there was a game in which you played a pacifist and had to avoid fighting, while the world was out to kill you, because they don't like your fashion sense.

I think that the article's statements are mostly fair, but that its angle is a bit skewed. Why should fiction avoid having motifs of religious violence when it is so common in the world today? Yes, some religions espouse peace, but many of these same systems have self-described followers who resort to murder and maiming to communicate that "message of peace".

I do find it amusing that in the article's semantics, you can "problematise" something that is already a problem. The abuse of religion to create violence and control others is a real problem in the world. Imitating reality is a natural part of fiction. That's why most novels aren't about worlds with no gravity and where everyone is a literal carrot or lettuce leaf.

You can't "problematise" religion unless you specifically state that religion is a problem, or blatantly use motifs to state that it is one. These games used historical figures and groups that caused real problems involving religion - without caricature or exaggeration, I wouldn't consider this a motif, simply a device.

Even if you consider all the examples listed as truly anti-religion (and I'd question your objectivity if you did), there's certainly pro-religious games out there as well. (Left Behind is one, perhaps disturbing, example.)

How fuckin' original.

Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative.

No, religion appears to get ties in with violence because it's that fuckin' easy. All you have to do is turn on the TV and watch the news every once in a while, or read a fuckin' history book. Or even better, read one of the Holy Books. There's more evil in those books than in Al-Qaeda suggestion box.

Kimarous:
Everyone, just ignore Treblaine. Click on his name, then click on the rest X icon. Nothing you say is going to convince him of anything and he's just going to continually insult the religious and derail this topic with his ranting.

Stop, ignore him, and let the mods deal with the matter if he continually acts problematic.

To Treblaine specifically... take your issues to the Religion board and stop derailing this topic.

That seems to be an open admission of wilful ignorance. Typical.

Religions shouldn't be insulted by someone stating there is no factual basis to their faith, nor should they be insulted when it is pointed out how their dogma harms and otherwise negatively affects other people either inherently in scripture or by exploitation.

How am I being problematic when I answer questions that you ask? Did you assume I'd be unable to answer them? As to your false and fallacious claims about religion and science it is not the duty of other forum members to kowtow to the first to make claims so as not to cause a "problem". I have been civil. You cannot go off topic and expect no challenge by hypocritically expecting others to not follow in challenge of those claims. Discussion is not "problematic". It however IS a "problematic" to say that religious claims about the natural world cannot be challenged, that is the path to censorship.

And to keep this so on topic, why is challenge to religion a problem rather than religion itself being the problem?

You accuse me of derailing when you start making claims biblical scripture has precedence over scientific method and a load of other false and fallacious claims. Do you expect to preach to this thread and we should all just be silent? That would give it the impression of acceptability if it wasn't challenged.

"take your issues to the Religion board"

What?!?!? You concoct these false and fallacious claims about science and religion, Yet you tell ME TO LEAVE?!!?!?

This is already a topic about religion, the titles is: Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

You CAN convince me. Just not with baseless claims (goddidit), logical fallacies (prove He didn't) nor hollow threats and blackmail (Pascal's Wager).

This should not be a problem.

While I can see where this is coming from, I would still disagree. Yes, baddies are often religous in games, but it is almost never meant to comment on real beliefs(save Yevon and the Catholic Church). Besides, most of the time, calling the stuff in games "religon" is a strech, cause most of the time its just a variant on a Scientologist death cult.

Pft, like Religion in Reality was ever perfect... Cue face palms - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxzJGgox_E

I think this guy has an interesting point. Like he said, video games don't say religion is bad (which is what I originally thought this was going to be about), he just spoke of how they are excessively "problemized". I see where he's coming from. I can't think of one game off the top of my head that includes a religion that isn't directly involved in the conflict of the story in which it is included. As he said; they create interesting moral and physical conflicts.

Thespian:
3 - Nah, forget Schopenhauer and Epicurus and Nietzsche and generations of writers, philosophers, scientists, artists and film-makers who have spoken out negatively against Religion - VIDEO GAMES ARE INDOCTRINATING THE YOUTHS.

From what I gathered from the post, the writer never portrayed video games' depictions of religion as being bad or "indoctrinating our youths," and that they were simply used as an interesting means of conflict and portrayed as violent, never that it causes kids to become anti-religious or anything.

But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."

To me, that doesn't seem like it's saying video games are doing anything wrong. Just that they are doing it.

Ohh, not like books and film then and religions themselves? No, just vidja gaems.

Gocha........

Anyone up for trying to prove Mario is responsible for 9/11? Got a feeling that's where this is headin. I figure if we beat them to it we might get a sweaty.

Treblaine:

You talk about "the Bible" being true without a shred of evidence, you're a Christian. You may claim to not be a creationism yet you espouse creationist ideals of god creating things rather than natural processes.

Christians HAVE forced secular public schools to kowtow to this theory, not just private religious schools and even then those private religious schools have a public responsibility to - if they want the reputation as teachers to standards of national curriculum - should teach SCIENCE in the science classrooms!

"What is the point of saying you BELIEVE in something if you let somethings sway you the other way."

So you admitting to wilful ignorance? To believe in holy scripture and damn everything else, just dismiss, ignore and reject. Typical creationist stance.

The fact that even the majority (you seem to have pulled 90% figure out of your ass) of science experiments going against expectation does NOT make science wrong, that adds to its strength that so many lines of enquiry have been tested and keeps adjusing theory to fit WITH ACTUAL PRACTICE! It's not about dogma, it's about the hard results of experiments and studies, Science get excited when the results go AGAINST expectations!

"Most non-guilty verdicts are people proving that the evidence that is apparently against them is not evidence against them at all."

Yes but there must be SOME prima-facie-evidence to analyse and weigh. Bible doesn't have that. It's just baseless ancient rumour.

"Well it hasn't disproved the existence of a God yet."

Well, no more than science has not yet disproved the existence of Santa Clause either. Really, science has disproved both by their claims being impossible.

It has disproved almost every one of the claims of natural providence to the point of making the work wholly unreliable. If you know a man has been caught out lying over and over and over and over again... would you still ask for more of his outlandish and unsupported claims to be "proven wrong" before thinking it might be a bad idea to start forcing his lies on education and public policy.

It is intellectually insulting to treat the Bible as fact or even remotely reliable.

Indeed.

It is good too see another voice of reason on these boards.
Keep up the good work, Sir.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here