Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

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

Blind Sight:

ReiverCorrupter:

Blind Sight:

Don't get me wrong, I think that a complete focus on religion as the cause for the majority of human conflicts often underplays the effects of other factors, but all the examples you gave are all based on the fanatical devotion to some brand of leftism, which you could argue is a religion in itself. None of your examples are a logical challenge to modern-day rational atheism and its complete rejection of fanaticism. Instead you're arguing against irrational atheism driven by a fanatical, faith-driven belief in something other then religion.

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

While some forms of atheism might be movements to reject what is seen as fanaticism, you can't simply assume or define it as a rejection of fanaticism. While the abstract concept of atheism might only be a negative view, i.e. a rejection of theism, pretty much all instantiated forms of atheism go hand in hand with a positive metaphysical belief system: either materialism or some broader form of physicalism. In fact, most atheists argue their point by appealing to these metaphysical worldviews. However, neither believing in physicalism or just rejecting the notion of God keeps you from being a fanatic about something else, e.g. nationalism or Marxism.

The point is that you can't conveniently define atheism to exclude anyone who exhibits fanaticism about something other than religion. Hardcore Marxists have a completely legitimate claim to atheism. Atheism is completely compatible with fanaticism.

Did I say that atheism as a concept is incompatible with fanaticism? No. I said that rational atheism (not my term by the way, it's used as a historical descriptor for Enlightenment era atheist theorists and post-modern atheists that come to the conclusion based on empirical analysis) was not compatible with it, while irrational atheism (another historical descriptor used for atheism such as anarchists in the late 19th century) is completely so. In the same way that there are fundamentalist religious groups and moderate religious groups, there are rational and irrational atheists (one builds their consensus on empiricism, the other embraces atheism due to another pre-existing doctrine). Irrational and rational atheists are openly part of the non-theistic culture now, it's typically fairly easy to tell them apart.

Well, you're still defining things as rational and irrational, so you haven't evaded my point entirely. The question remains as to whether the "rational atheists" necessarily live up to their namesake. You can have the abstract notion of rational atheism, but by calling yourself a rational atheist you seem to be making the same sort of pretentious presumption to which I was originally objecting.

Another worry occurs: someone could arrive at the doctrine of atheism rationally, i.e. through well supported empirical arguments, and still be completely irrational when it comes to politics. So yes, if 'rational atheism' is defined by using rational methods to arrive at atheism, then it is, by definition, incompatible with fanaticism regarding atheism. (Putting aside the question as to whether anyone actually lives up to the ideal of rational atheism.) But this doesn't preclude it from being compatible with fanaticism in other regards.

You seemed to be asserting that anyone who is a fanatic in regard to non-religious subject matter cannot be a rational atheist.

As far as I'm concerned, every other form of fiction, and non-fiction (hey there, crusades!) has done this far before gaming. I find it interesting, also, that he draws attention to the Knight Templar and Crusader aspects, as it seems he's pointing out that they're a sort of allegory for real people that did real, violent things with real, violent consequences.

Also, I call bullshit. There is no way in hell an actual student used the 'word' "problematize" in his study. Edit: And yet he did.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as unnecessarily snide, too, as I actually am just making observations. Honestly, it just seems like slightly less than a big deal to me.

Treblaine:

Kimarous:

Treblaine:

Theistic evolution still contradicts the bible... completely.

And how would you know? You don't read the bible. And no, it doesn't.

Don't act like you're an authority on the matter, because you clearly aren't doing your homework.

Day-age interpretation? Oh this is ridiculous. I know enough about the bible to know it is very specific on many matters that are just scientifically impossible! Now they have to be interpreted inflating a day to be either a million years or a billion years? Why would god be so cryptic? Isn't it far more likely genesis like the rest of the bible was just completely made up back when they had no idea that science of the future would totally catch them out?

I haven't read all the work on homoeopathy to know that THAT is bullshit.

Here's an explanation of how that reasoning works.

Not that I expect someone who denounces everything religious as "bullshit" to bother understanding it.

ReiverCorrupter:

Treblaine:

Well yeah, I DO think it's ridiculous to believe in invisible and totally undetectable consciousness that apparently personally made every last tiny bit of the universe... until science proved it didn't.

Ermm... You do realize that all subjective consciousness in undetectable, right? Prove to me that you're conscious and not merely a complex bundle of matter and energy that behaves in certain ways.

There are plenty of problems with the idea of God and creationism, but scientific inquiry hasn't disproved these ideas outright. It has effectively disproved the doctrine that the world was created in seven days etc. But someone could still say that God created the big bang, etc. They can't be disproved in the strongest sense, but their story is so arbitrary and needlessly anthropocentric that there's no reason to accept it.

It's pretty clear that consciousness exists in the brain. Studies of people with brain injuries and how people recollect consciousness with varying measured brain activity have confirmed this. It is a well established science of studying if someone is brain dead or if they have "locked in syndrome", mainly advising on whether life support should be removed. That is consciousness right there, that brain activity.

"But someone could still say that God created the big bang"

Ok, but why god? Why not some other aspect. The creation of the universe is something extremely massive and compressed, but also extremely simple. The lowest entropy state. A homogeneous mix of electrons, protons, neutrons and other subatomic molecules. No complex molecules. No layers, it's not really something that a consciousness would create as it is so simple.

I'm sorry, but of all the theories in the running for the cause of the big bang... this is not one of the big contenders. It just doesn't make any sense.

Just because science hasn't answered a question doesn't mean ANYTHING is possible or plausible.

I'm saying this as someone who is religious. Organised religion "problematizes" religion much more than video games ever could.
However, religion isn't the catalyst for violence that people think it is. It's just the justification, the real catalyst is human nature, our human need for conflict and the way we define ourselves and the way we define the world around us through conflict. I don't really believe that I skip class because I worked 4 shifts in a row, I know I'm actually doing it because I'm lazy, but when I'm lying in bed I justify it through work. It's the same with religion.

Look at the crusades. The Pope didn't put his support behind it because he thought there was sound religious reasons, he did it for money and land, the same reasons every other war has ever been fought. They would have happened with or without religion, religion was just an easy way to assuage the peoples concern. Just like Bush used WMDs to assuage people's concern over Iraq. It happens, we are selfish creatures that thrive on conflict. Eliminating the justifications will never change that, and so it will never stop the violence.

ReiverCorrupter:

Well, you're still defining things as rational and irrational, so you haven't evaded my point entirely. The question remains as to whether the "rational atheists" necessarily live up to their namesake. You can have the abstract notion of rational atheism, but by calling yourself a rational atheist you seem to be making the same sort of pretentious presumption to which I was originally objecting.

Another worry occurs: someone could arrive at the doctrine of atheism rationally, i.e. through well supported empirical arguments, and still be completely irrational when it comes to politics. So yes, if 'rational atheism' is defined by using rational methods to arrive at atheism, then it is, by definition, incompatible with fanaticism regarding atheism. (Putting aside the question as to whether anyone actually lives up to the ideal of rational atheism.) But this doesn't preclude it from being compatible with fanaticism in other regards.

You seemed to be asserting that anyone who is a fanatic in regard to non-religious subject matter cannot be a rational atheist.

Like I said, I didn't invent the terms or their definition. If you want to ask someone why they went for the rational/irrational definition, ask Daniel Guerin (well unfortunately he's dead, but he popularized the dichotomy) or Daniel Dennett. Modernist atheism has also been deemed 'new atheism' which serves to complicate things even more considering the movement is made up of both groups. I'm using these terms because they're deemed the norm in secularist history, I'm not arguing that either is rational or irrational, just that those are what the terms are called. You wouldn't ask me to explain how a realist is a realist or if a constructivist is constructive if we were talking about international relations.

RaikuFA:
He forgot SMT2 where you try to kill God. He'd have a field day with it.

Or pokemon where you can capture God to do your bidding(mostly killing innocent wildlife) by proving your schnauzer can beat him in a fist fight.

I love how convenient it is that these videogame naysayers so conveniently ignore centuries and centuries of literature doing the exact same things. It's like they live in their own little bubble where the world is still stuck in an era before written language.

Blind Sight:

Waaghpowa:

I am agnostic, simply because both the theists and atheists have yet to provide sufficient evidence to sway my position on the existence of a God(s). As such I will remain agnostic until one side can provide such evidence to conclude the existence, or non existence of a God(s).

Frankly, as I've said before, atheists don't have to prove anything. They're the negative aspect of the burden of proof analysis. One does not have to prove that dragons do not exist, that's the base position to hold until such evidence emerges that confirms their existence. Asking atheists to 'prove' that there is no higher being is like asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts or the Loch Ness monster. You will never get a satisfactory answer because it is not the base position's responsibility to gather proof, it is the positive claim that requires evidence. This is simple empirical deduction based on a true/false position, not two binary positive outcomes that have to justify both sides.

I should give an example of what I think of in my head.

Theist: God exists because because all things come from him (or something, I can't think of a good argument from their side)

Me: Our existence or the existence of other things isn't necessarily proof of Gods existence.

Atheist: God doesn't exist because we understand how things work on an atomic level!

Me: Understanding how something works isn't necessarily proof that there was no creator. For all we know, if there is a god, he designed it as such.

To be fair though, you are correct in saying that Theists are the ones that must provide evidence to prove their side. Generally speaking, they tend to have the weakest points that don't involve quoting some interpretation of scripture from a thousand years ago and even then that doesn't hold up much. Atheists don't necessarily have to prove anything, but it's still not entirely convincing to me.

Hang on... He said that Oblivion shows religion in a violent light?
Ok, the Mythic Dawn cultists following a Daedric lord are certainly a violent light of religion, but what about the 10 divines that are not shown in a violent light or Akatosh who helps end the conflict? If anything, I'd say Oblivion shows religion in a positive light; that gods exists and they are there to save us from hell. I never really got far enough into FFXIII (thank god) to see the religious motif, all I saw was some guy whoring all the power to himself for some stupid reason that was hard to follow. Assassin's Creed is way too easy because it is a very realistic reflection of how much of an asshole the Catholic Church was back then.

Kimarous:

Treblaine:

Kimarous:

And how would you know? You don't read the bible. And no, it doesn't.

Don't act like you're an authority on the matter, because you clearly aren't doing your homework.

Day-age interpretation? Oh this is ridiculous. I know enough about the bible to know it is very specific on many matters that are just scientifically impossible! Now they have to be interpreted inflating a day to be either a million years or a billion years? Why would god be so cryptic? Isn't it far more likely genesis like the rest of the bible was just completely made up back when they had no idea that science of the future would totally catch them out?

I haven't read all the work on homoeopathy to know that THAT is bullshit.

Here's an explanation of how that reasoning works.

Not that I expect someone who denounces everything religious as "bullshit" to bother understanding it.

Homeopathy isn't religion. It IS bullshit, though.

Why are you trying to force this clearly false claim of universe-creation with actual science, it won't fit. And the time-scales set by scientists are based not on the earth being creased by a giant creator but by natural scientific forces.

Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

This is unbearable. I never thought I'd see someone try to scientifically defend genesis on Escapist forums.

Waaghpowa:

Blind Sight:

Waaghpowa:

I am agnostic, simply because both the theists and atheists have yet to provide sufficient evidence to sway my position on the existence of a God(s). As such I will remain agnostic until one side can provide such evidence to conclude the existence, or non existence of a God(s).

Frankly, as I've said before, atheists don't have to prove anything. They're the negative aspect of the burden of proof analysis. One does not have to prove that dragons do not exist, that's the base position to hold until such evidence emerges that confirms their existence. Asking atheists to 'prove' that there is no higher being is like asking someone to prove there is no such thing as ghosts or the Loch Ness monster. You will never get a satisfactory answer because it is not the base position's responsibility to gather proof, it is the positive claim that requires evidence. This is simple empirical deduction based on a true/false position, not two binary positive outcomes that have to justify both sides.

I should give an example of what I think of in my head.

Theist: God exists because because all things come from him (or something, I can't think of a good argument from their side)

Me: Our existence or the existence of other things isn't necessarily proof of Gods existence.

Atheist: God doesn't exist because we understand how things work on an atomic level!

Me: Understanding how something works isn't necessarily proof that there was no creator. For all we know, if there is a god, he designed it as such.

To be fair though, you are correct in saying that Theists are the ones that must provide evidence to prove their side. Generally speaking, they tend to have the weakest points that don't involve quoting some interpretation of scripture from a thousand years ago and even then that doesn't hold up much. Atheists don't necessarily have to prove anything, but it's still not entirely convincing to me.

Ah, I see your position much better, well the theory of skepticism/atheism really comes down to two words: "Prove it." In terms of academics I don't know anyone who suggests that they know there is no God because we understand things on an atomic level (in fact saying that last part of the sentence is just plain stupid, we don't fully understand plenty of reality). Of course there's also plenty of examples of people attempting to argue on the grounds you're presenting, but beyond the argument that 'we understand all this, there's still plenty left to understand, but we have found no evidence of god(s)' it's a pretty poor defensive point.

Everyone. Please, shut your word-holes. This started as valid theological debate, and has quickly spiraled down into petty arguing. Settle down, or I'll be forced to...say something mean.

Er... well yeah, video games pretty much tie everything to violence these days, since non-combative games don't sell that well. Or at least don't tell as compelling stories.

Must remember the original post here, and the inflammatory "style" preferred. All the student wrote (in the typically over done style of a university student) was that video games often link religion to violence, and that made people think critically of organised religion.

Those are facts. That might be an unpleasant fact for some, but to me, it's just a mild observation made by someone looking to get a good grade.

Jinxey:
Does anybody else realize just how the comments above such as "Well duh religion is violent", "religion is racist", "religion is a pox upon society" kind of tie in to the point the student was trying to make.

As a game designer and a catholic I actually agree with him quite a lot. It's hard to find a plot line in a video game that has a religion where that religion isn't all that's wrong with the world. Think about it, who are the good characters of faith in video games? You know the people who are supposed to set a positive role model for faith? The only two I could think of were Yuna from FFX and Ashley Williams from Mass Effect. The role models in video games for people of faith are someone who was tricked into following a lie through her naivety(Yuna) and someone who, while capable, is not the sharpest tool in the shed (Ashley).

Seriously I feel like the internet has been unwittingly and unintentionally indoctrinated into this belief that religion is evil. Extra Creditz made the point that if game designers, out of sloth/laziness, portrayed all Arabs as extremists/terrorists that it would feed into the gamer cultural psych. Using that same point, if all game plots portray religion as an violent, bigoted, narcissistic entity couldn't that feed into the gamer cultural psych?

Gamers aren't immune to being indoctrinated in this manner; nobody is.

well... Starcraft 2 has a whole race of religious beings who are portrayed as good guys. the Protoss. hell, their basic unit is called the "zealot". But I am having difficulty thinking of a game where ALL religion is positive. Even in oblivion, the major pervasive state religion, are actually the good guys, but a small cult (study counted THAT as a religion?) are the bad guys.

but I think this article ignores a major thing about gaming, namely, can you name 5 AAA or well known indie games that include NO violent actions at all? I can't, although I exclude dress up games. You have cooking mama, farmville, and....? Everything in games is portrayed as being related to violence. Science too, how many games does an incredibly intelligent person star as the villain? and in most superhero comics/videogames, the main villain is sometime literally a scientist. Doc Ock, Doctor Doom, arguably lex luthor and the green goblin as well. Games are not picking on religion, they are just including it.

omicron1:

Evilpigeon:

omicron1:

While atheism itself has some rather vicious purges to its name

I'm genuinely interested, give me examples of atrocities done in the name of an absence of belief.

The wikipedia article on state atheism reads like a who's who list of incidents. The French revolution, Albania during the cold war, Cuba, North Korea... I'm not surprised they aren't more widely known, though - they don't fit with the narrative.

And here I thought the French revolution was a good thing.

Zachary Amaranth:

Jegsimmons:
and here come the non theist calling religion violent despite its just people who are violent and religion (well the big ones) are totally against it.

hell political ideology such as nazism and communism has cause more deaths in 100 years than religion in the past 1500 years.

how ever...yes they have a point in this study, but i think its only coincidence.

Funny you should mention the Nazis, since the Nazis' "political" agenda was largely driven by Hitler's religious beliefs. Not even really just Hitler.

I'd like to see your sources and numbers on that, though. Could be an interesting read.

yeeeaaahhhhh....no....hitler wasnt a christian. he even spoke against it.

Also, these were written by an atheist.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/godless-gross/the-body-count-issue-20100827-13v8a.html

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-san-diego/atheist-vs-christian-whose-killed-more-and-who-will-survive

Also, the fact that atheist regimes have killed so many in just 112 years when you have to go back hundreds upon hundreds of years to get those numbers on the religious side is worth acknowledging.

And if you say "Well they didn't do it in the NAME of atheism!" well true, but at the same time....they still fucking did it. Most religions teach AGAINST murder and killing, however just like these regimes, people will use what ever to achieve their selfish goals. Humans are just prone to violence and corruption.

I have been racking my brains to come up with how religion is tied to violence in Mass Effect 2, but I am not having any luck. Samara is a Justicar which has religious overtones, particularly in terms of her militant commitment to the Code of Justice, but she is not presented as any more violent than the Krogans who seem to be completely devoid of religious beliefs. The closest is the use of the term Heretic in regards to A House Divided, but that is a bit of stretch in my opinion.

Blind Sight:
Ah, I see your position much better, well the theory of skepticism/atheism really comes down to two words: "Prove it." In terms of academics I don't know anyone who suggests that they know there is no God because we understand things on an atomic level (in fact saying that last part of the sentence is just plain stupid, we don't fully understand plenty of reality). Of course there's also plenty of examples of people attempting to argue on the grounds you're presenting, but beyond the argument that 'we understand all this, there's still plenty left to understand, but we have found no evidence of god(s)' it's a pretty poor defensive point.

I merely used the atomic thing as an example. Again, I'm simply not convinced one way or the other because knowledge, as of now, is not finite. Claiming to understand the inner most workings of something doesn't necessarily rule out the supernatural and vice versa. It's part of the reason why I mentioned pantheism, that God isn't a person or thing, but laws of nature.

In video games religion is always either evil or just a set piece in the background. It's as cliche as having the guy with a funny accent be the villain. It gets a bit unnerving when you consider the message that sends as whole but individually its either a convenient way or telling story or a story crutch(you mean the church actually worships Satan? What a twist, nobody's ever done that before).

Jinxey:
Does anybody else realize just how the comments above such as "Well duh religion is violent", "religion is racist", "religion is a pox upon society" kind of tie in to the point the student was trying to make.

As a game designer and a catholic I actually agree with him quite a lot. It's hard to find a plot line in a video game that has a religion where that religion isn't all that's wrong with the world. Think about it, who are the good characters of faith in video games? You know the people who are supposed to set a positive role model for faith? The only two I could think of were Yuna from FFX and Ashley Williams from Mass Effect. The role models in video games for people of faith are someone who was tricked into following a lie through her naivety(Yuna) and someone who, while capable, is not the sharpest tool in the shed (Ashley).

Seriously I feel like the internet has been unwittingly and unintentionally indoctrinated into this belief that religion is evil. Extra Creditz made the point that if game designers, out of sloth/laziness, portrayed all Arabs as extremists/terrorists that it would feed into the gamer cultural psych. Using that same point, if all game plots portray religion as an violent, bigoted, narcissistic entity couldn't that feed into the gamer cultural psych?

Gamers aren't immune to being indoctrinated in this manner; nobody is.

Sigh. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved, but then somebody had to go and say something retarded.

You seem very adamant in your understanding of the student's "point," yet also make it abundantly clear that you did not actually read the study. At most you read the title of this post and the first few sentences. The student isn't trying to make any sort of "point," they're just observing a trend that happens to make for a good narrative. Also, you claim it hard to find a game with religion in it where religion isn't inherently evil. I counter with two incredibly obvious examples you have apparently overlooked: Assassin's Creed 2 and Skyrim. "But wait!" I hear you cry. "In Assassin's Creed, the Templars are the bad guys!" To which I reply...yeah. Welcome to the point. The Templars are the bad guys. The Templars are not, however, all of religion. They're simply one very vocal group. In fact, Ezio himself is portrayed as a man of faith, and he's a heroic badass. As for Skyrim...does this really need explanation? Seriously. The closest thing to "problematization" of religion in that game is the portrayal of crazy cults as...well, crazy cults. You'll note that almost all of the cast of good guys believe in the divines, and many are open followers.

Welcome to logic. I know, it must feel weird to have an atheist provide a logical argument in a discussion about religion and gaming, but hey. I'm a weird guy.

Treblaine:
Homeopathy isn't religion. It IS bullshit, though.

I was not trying to say anything about homeopathy. I agree that it's crap.

Treblaine:
Why are you trying to force this clearly false claim of universe-creation with actual science, it won't fit. And the time-scales set by scientists are based not on the earth being creased by a giant creator but by natural scientific forces.

I'm not "trying to force" anything. I was just proving that not all religious people are creationists.

BTW, love how you're like to say "clearly false" and "won't fit" without providing a specific rebuttal. Once again you're just shoving your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" without actually giving it consideration.

Treblaine:
Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

I'm not arguing the semantics of Adam and Eve. I was just presenting a different viewpoint of creation in general.

Treblaine:
This is unbearable. I never thought I'd see someone try to scientifically defend genesis on Escapist forums.

Yay, I got under your skin! ^_^

Well, I think the Geth are metaphors for Christians and Quarians are metaphors for Muslims, at least that's how I interpret it, one believing in a, in this case, race of all-powerful, immortal beings and invading the others home. Hell, I'm pretty sure Shepard is just Jesus, except he/she kills gods instead.

217not237:
Well, I think the Geth are metaphors for Christians and Quarians are metaphors for Muslims, at least that's how I interpret it, one believing in a, in this case, race of all-powerful, immortal beings and invading the others home. Hell, I'm pretty sure Shepard is just Jesus, except he/she kills gods instead.

So Muslims made Christians as slaves, then made a preemptive strike against their growing faith and got booted out of Mecca as a result, which the Christians are keeping pristine for whenever peace is made with the now wandering Muslims?

So much rage and insulting over a seemingly uncontroversial point. The guy was saying that organized religion is often used in video games.

However this can be said for anything. Look at government in games. Notice how the big bad government often tends to be an Orwellian superpower or official trying to make one? Are games anti-government or are they using a general image that most people can relate with?

Same with religion. No one is ever sent on a quest to stop the evil Overlord Jebadiah from living a peaceful life without the corrupting influence of technology. Its always draws from the darkest, most gruesome parts of religious history because that's what sells. Not many kids want to play being a practicing priest who is kind to everyone he meets.

A) a lot of recent popular culture has been doing that.
B) that's because religion is violent... how many people have been killed in the name of god?

Most of those games were made in the U.S, where we were attacked by religious zealots. So I think this is more of a product of the times than of video games themselves.

Father Time:
Most of those games were made in the U.S, where we were attacked by religious zealots. So I think this is more of a product of the times than of video games themselves.

If you read the last bit of the article, the study specifically highlight Templar and Crusader analogues, which are practically omnipresent. Those aren't Al Qaeda-inspired.

Here, let me sum up The Escapists reaction to this, "Oh indeed, how quaint."

And this is a problem because...?

No, seriously, that's my reaction. I can't be arsed to say that this is worrisome. If an organized religion came into control of something like a parasitic mind-controlling virus (Resident Evil 4) or some super space weapon stuff (Dead Space), I'd bet my soul that control would fall into the hands of the fanatics that would seek to destroy/control everything.

TheFPSisDead:
Who is the violent religious sect in Mass Effect 2???

Also, the Protoss in Starcraft would be another good example.

soren7550:

TheFPSisDead:
Who is the violent religious sect in Mass Effect 2???

The closest I can think of is Samara. "Find peace in the embrace of the Goddess *bust head open like a melon*"

That's about all I can think of. Oh, and "Dead Gods still dream" (something like that).

Actually playing through Mass Effect 2 right now. Just got to the Legion part and he refers to Seren/Soverign's Geth as Heretics. So the Geth are a religious entity.

Treblaine:

Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

So the Bible stating that Adam and Eve are THE FIRST humans created and doesn't mention God making any other humans automatically means that God didn't make any other humans after Adam and Eve?
You have to take Religion with a HUGE bag of salt 90% of the time but you also have to put some thought behind what some things in the bible state.

RaNDM G:

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

Nevermind the centuries of warfare, racism, intolerance, and bigotry spurred on by religious leaders. Videogames are the real problem.

LoL dude, you totally nailed it, and i love that you where the first to post after the OP.

thread closed guys, nothing to see here. :)

Blind Sight:

Ah, I see your position much better, well the theory of skepticism/atheism really comes down to two words: "Prove it." In terms of academics I don't know anyone who suggests that they know there is no God because we understand things on an atomic level (in fact saying that last part of the sentence is just plain stupid, we don't fully understand plenty of reality). Of course there's also plenty of examples of people attempting to argue on the grounds you're presenting, but beyond the argument that 'we understand all this, there's still plenty left to understand, but we have found no evidence of god(s)' it's a pretty poor defensive point.

No atheist suggests that they KNOW there is no God. This is a very annoying misconception. Any self-proclaimed atheist that claims otherwise is only being hyperbolic for effect, in the same way that you would tell someone that you "know" that Santa doesn't exist, which you certainly don't know with complete certainty.

We only suggest that, since we "understand all this, even despite there still being plenty left to understand," having no evidence of god(s) thus far, it'd be wrong to suggest their existence when we've got a billion theories of our own that explain things just fine.

Especially since any perceived "evidence" for a god could just as easily be some law of nature we haven't grasped yet...It's all semantics. Anything outside our measurable universe is, by practical definition, outside of reality and thus illogical to speculate on. Everything in our own universe has, essentially without exception, followed pretty damn specific rules.

If someone tried to seriously argue that we live in the Matrix, and, when asked to provide evidence, only provides something like, "well you don't know everything yet! You can't say that we won't find evidence one day, ergo I have an equal logical footing as you!" you would be right to think him illogical.

kouriichi:
"Joyful is the one who takes, and dashes his children against the stone."

Im so reminded of the guy who wanted to raise his kid as a wizard for 11 years only to have him run into a brick wall. http://i.imgur.com/y0k9N.jpg

Jegsimmons:

Zachary Amaranth:

Jegsimmons:
and here come the non theist calling religion violent despite its just people who are violent and religion (well the big ones) are totally against it.

hell political ideology such as nazism and communism has cause more deaths in 100 years than religion in the past 1500 years.

how ever...yes they have a point in this study, but i think its only coincidence.

Funny you should mention the Nazis, since the Nazis' "political" agenda was largely driven by Hitler's religious beliefs. Not even really just Hitler.

I'd like to see your sources and numbers on that, though. Could be an interesting read.

yeeeaaahhhhh....no....hitler wasnt a christian. he even spoke against it.

Also, these were written by an atheist.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/godless-gross/the-body-count-issue-20100827-13v8a.html

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-san-diego/atheist-vs-christian-whose-killed-more-and-who-will-survive

Also, the fact that atheist regimes have killed so many in just 112 years when you have to go back hundreds upon hundreds of years to get those numbers on the religious side is worth acknowledging.

And if you say "Well they didn't do it in the NAME of atheism!" well true, but at the same time....they still fucking did it. Most religions teach AGAINST murder and killing, however just like these regimes, people will use what ever to achieve their selfish goals. Humans are just prone to violence and corruption.

The problem with grouping atheist is saying they lack a belief in a god. In other words im being compared to ruthless murders because i lack a belief in a god. So because a lot of people in the world, christians included don't worship zeus and im pretty certain stalin didn't worship zeus. So then all the nonbelievers of zeus are responsible for more murders than the worshippers of zeus. You see the problem with these articles?

When people say christians are responsible for alot of atrocities through out history. We are pointing out a group of people who follow the same book and deity have had people within said group commit murders and genocide thinking their deity gave them permission to do so.

You see the difference here?

People who claim to follow the bible are just opening themselves to be compared to others who follow said text. Two guys join the kkk so they can run around dressed like ghosts are going to be compared to the group they joined whether or not they have all the same ideals.

Me and a lot of other atheists don't follow texts or any guidelines and thus have no way to be grouped like you christians.

Religion for centuries has been violent. When the catholic church had a major power in the world, people were tortured for having different views. Crusades and witch hunts were all the rave back then. Even now people are persecuted because of religious differences across the world. Though if people would just stick to their teachings through just about any religion and not be nick picky about their religious teachings, then there wouldn't be as much violence. Do video games "Problematize" religion, I won't get into it that much, but they do bring to light of what happens when those who are ignorant of religion try to push it.

 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