Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

November 18, 2008 -

A great deal of blood has been spilled in the name of religion over the centuries, and the maker of a new board game hopes that parodying religious violence will bring him Earthly rewards.

USA Today reports that Playing Gods: The Board Game of Divine Domination is billed as "the world's first satirical board game of religious warfare," and includes playing pieces such as Jesus wielding a cross and a chain gun-toting Buddha (see pic).

Playing Gods was launched at DragonCon in September. The game's creator, Ben Radford, told USA Today:

Much of the world's violence is rooted in religion... [I wanted to] make more social commentary... [and] pierce the pretensions of extremist religious zealotry with humor...

 

[The game is] not anti-religion. It's anti-zealot, anti-people who kill for their beliefs, whatever those are.

Not surprisingly, Playing Gods is not without its critics. Prof. Carl Raschke, who teaches religious studies at the
University of Denver commented:

[The game] has no basis in historical reality and doesn't actually represent any religion. It just appeals to people who hate religion to begin with — the hip subculture of militant popular atheists. These people are fanatics, for the most part, themselves. Their thinking is rigid and hostile and not much different from jihadists who don't use their minds or study what they are dealing with. They start from their own dogmatic perspective.

 

Of course it is [offensive]. But it sounds too stupid to go far.

In an FAQ on the Playing Gods website, designer Radford denies that the $39.99 game is anti-religious:

The game is not anti-anything, except anti-boredom. Players can inject as much – or as little – real religion into the game as they wish. Players may pit Zeus against Cthulhu and Eric Clapton for control over the world, or pit Jesus against a Muslim figurehead. It's all up to you. I hope the game is taken in the spirit in which it was offered.


Comments

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

The guy doesn’t sound very mature, but I must say, his game sounds amusing. He’s right in that we need to be fiercely anti-zealotry, among the religious and non-religious alike. And, we need to learn to be calm and take deep breaths when we see things that offend us (though provocation is still a cheap tactic).

Anyway, I hope it’s a good game. I’m Christian, by the way. So, I hope the game is pretty explicitly silly; that is, it’s aware of the irony of Buddha holding a machine gun, etc. Maybe then we’ll all realize the irony of fighting religious wars on behalf of religions that teach peace (like, say, all of them).

http://tinarussell.wordpress.com/

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Dude, your repeating yourself.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Lol, first time I've seen comments go completely out of bounds visually.

I'd play the game.  It is something I find funny.

[The game] has no basis in historical reality and doesn't actually represent any religion. It just appeals to people who hate religion to begin with — the hip subculture of militant popular atheists. These people are fanatics, for the most part, themselves. Their thinking is rigid and hostile and not much different from jihadists who don't use their minds or study what they are dealing with. They start from their own dogmatic perspective.

 

Of course it is [offensive]. But it sounds too stupid to go far.

Stupid ideas go far.  I don't think ALL religion is stupid.  Some ideas presented by Religious Extremists(lets call them what they are) are completely foolish.  I think this guy has forgotten about some of the stupid things many various religions have convinced people in human history.

Gods used to control everything.  Not one God but multiple Gods.  Thats how it used to be to the masses.  If a volcanoe went off then it was a God that made it do that, if a country won a war it was because a god prefered them. 

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that if they sacrifice themself for a cause then they will be greeted by numerous virgins in an afterlife.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that other peopel are evil and should be killed for their different beliefs

Somehow some religous fanatics have convinced people that one God loves EVERYONE, yet still sends people to suffer for an eternity, then convinces them that he controls everything and you should give him your money.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people to harass others in various ways that don't agree with their set of beliefs.

Somehow some fanatics have convinced people that anyone that has a religion is foolish and should be rediculed on a regular basis.

Is it safe to just say there are just a bunch of crazy @$$#0|3$ that are not content with just beliving in something that they have to go and try to get others to agree with them.  Debating them is pretty much reducing yourself to their level and if you simply try to discuss it with them its a waste of time because they really aren't interested unless you plan on converting.

Why can't people just try following a religion and allowing people to initiate or at least end efforts of conversion.  Everyone is so caught up in what is right and what is wrong that they fail to admit that they both could be wrong or both could be right.  When you think about it, you ask yourself "who knows?"  Dead people might know something about it, but they're dead and not of much use for validity.  Even if you COULD converse with them after death how could you know they wern't just making stuff up?  Hell how could you proove that you can talk to dead people?

I guess my point is you should pick your religion and stick to it unless you have a change of heart.  Don't get up in everyones business trying to convert them to what you beleive in and don't get caught up in these fanatical pratices of using God as and excuse to do harm or to take advantage of others.  That is a cult mentality and no good will come from that.

But that won't happen, especially in America.  America was colonized by religious extremist.  Can't really argue with that unless you think killing people in the name of God isn't an extreme religious practice.  Luckily I have some good proof of that since they kept fine records of all the people they burned and hung publicly.  Things have chilled out but if you read the news even poorly you can still see it exists in a few places.

Anyway, I like the designer's answers.  They clearly give him the high ground and make those that are angry seem foolish.  I want to read the rules then think about buying the game... but not until I read the rules unless someone tells me it is an amazing board games.  There are plenty of silly games that are successful so I think Prof. Carl Raschke is ignorant on what kind of games do well.  I could start listing successful games that have done well but I might get tired and I'd probably leave out a great deal of them.  A game doesn't have to be smart, it has to be fun.  Actually some times I prefer completely rediculous ideas in games.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Lol, first time I've seen comments go completely out of bounds visually.

I'd play the game.  It is something I find funny.

[The game] has no basis in historical reality and doesn't actually represent any religion. It just appeals to people who hate religion to begin with — the hip subculture of militant popular atheists. These people are fanatics, for the most part, themselves. Their thinking is rigid and hostile and not much different from jihadists who don't use their minds or study what they are dealing with. They start from their own dogmatic perspective.

 

Of course it is [offensive]. But it sounds too stupid to go far.

Stupid ideas go far.  I don't think ALL religion is stupid.  Some ideas presented by Religious Extremists(lets call them what they are) are completely foolish.  I think this guy has forgotten about some of the stupid things many various religions have convinced people in human history.

Gods used to control everything.  Not one God but multiple Gods.  Thats how it used to be to the masses.  If a volcanoe went off then it was a God that made it do that, if a country won a war it was because a god prefered them. 

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that if they sacrifice themself for a cause then they will be greeted by numerous virgins in an afterlife.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that other peopel are evil and should be killed for their different beliefs

Somehow some religous fanatics have convinced people that one God loves EVERYONE, yet still sends people to suffer for an eternity, then convinces them that he controls everything and you should give him your money.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people to harass others in various ways that don't agree with their set of beliefs.

Somehow some fanatics have convinced people that anyone that has a religion is foolish and should be rediculed on a regular basis.

Is it safe to just say there are just a bunch of crazy @$$#0|3$ that are not content with just beliving in something that they have to go and try to get others to agree with them.  Debating them is pretty much reducing yourself to their level and if you simply try to discuss it with them its a waste of time because they really aren't interested unless you plan on converting.

Why can't people just try following a religion and allowing people to initiate or at least end efforts of conversion.  Everyone is so caught up in what is right and what is wrong that they fail to admit that they both could be wrong or both could be right.  When you think about it, you ask yourself "who knows?"  Dead people might know something about it, but they're dead and not of much use for validity.  Even if you COULD converse with them after death how could you know they wern't just making stuff up?  Hell how could you proove that you can talk to dead people?

I guess my point is you should pick your religion and stick to it unless you have a change of heart.  Don't get up in everyones business trying to convert them to what you beleive in and don't get caught up in these fanatical pratices of using God as and excuse to do harm or to take advantage of others.  That is a cult mentality and no good will come from that.

But that won't happen, especially in America.  America was colonized by religious extremist.  Can't really argue with that unless you think killing people in the name of God isn't an extreme religious practice.  Luckily I have some good proof of that since they kept fine records of all the people they burned and hung publicly.  Things have chilled out but if you read the news even poorly you can still see it exists in a few places.

Anyway, I like the designer's answers.  They clearly give him the high ground and make those that are angry seem foolish.  I want to read the rules then think about buying the game... but not until I read the rules unless someone tells me it is an amazing board games.  There are plenty of silly games that are successful so I think Prof. Carl Raschke is ignorant on what kind of games do well.  I could start listing successful games that have done well but I might get tired and I'd probably leave out a great deal of them.  A game doesn't have to be smart, it has to be fun.  Actually some times I prefer completely rediculous ideas in games.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Lol, first time I've seen comments go completely out of bounds visually.

I'd play the game.  It is something I find funny.

[The game] has no basis in historical reality and doesn't actually represent any religion. It just appeals to people who hate religion to begin with — the hip subculture of militant popular atheists. These people are fanatics, for the most part, themselves. Their thinking is rigid and hostile and not much different from jihadists who don't use their minds or study what they are dealing with. They start from their own dogmatic perspective.

 

Of course it is [offensive]. But it sounds too stupid to go far.

Stupid ideas go far.  I don't think ALL religion is stupid.  Some ideas presented by Religious Extremists(lets call them what they are) are completely foolish.  I think this guy has forgotten about some of the stupid things many various religions have convinced people in human history.

Gods used to control everything.  Not one God but multiple Gods.  Thats how it used to be to the masses.  If a volcanoe went off then it was a God that made it do that, if a country won a war it was because a god prefered them. 

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that if they sacrifice themself for a cause then they will be greeted by numerous virgins in an afterlife.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people that other peopel are evil and should be killed for their different beliefs

Somehow some religous fanatics have convinced people that one God loves EVERYONE, yet still sends people to suffer for an eternity, then convinces them that he controls everything and you should give him your money.

Somehow some religious fanatics have convinced people to harass others in various ways that don't agree with their set of beliefs.

Somehow some fanatics have convinced people that anyone that has a religion is foolish and should be rediculed on a regular basis.

Is it safe to just say there are just a bunch of crazy @$$#0|3$ that are not content with just beliving in something that they have to go and try to get others to agree with them.  Debating them is pretty much reducing yourself to their level and if you simply try to discuss it with them its a waste of time because they really aren't interested unless you plan on converting.

Why can't people just try following a religion and allowing people to initiate or at least end efforts of conversion.  Everyone is so caught up in what is right and what is wrong that they fail to admit that they both could be wrong or both could be right.  When you think about it, you ask yourself "who knows?"  Dead people might know something about it, but they're dead and not of much use for validity.  Even if you COULD converse with them after death how could you know they wern't just making stuff up?  Hell how could you proove that you can talk to dead people?

I guess my point is you should pick your religion and stick to it unless you have a change of heart.  Don't get up in everyones business trying to convert them to what you beleive in and don't get caught up in these fanatical pratices of using God as and excuse to do harm or to take advantage of others.  That is a cult mentality and no good will come from that.

But that won't happen, especially in America.  America was colonized by religious extremist.  Can't really argue with that unless you think killing people in the name of God isn't an extreme religious practice.  Luckily I have some good proof of that since they kept fine records of all the people they burned and hung publicly.  Things have chilled out but if you read the news even poorly you can still see it exists in a few places.

Anyway, I like the designer's answers.  They clearly give him the high ground and make those that are angry seem foolish.  I want to read the rules then think about buying the game... but not until I read the rules unless someone tells me it is an amazing board games.  There are plenty of silly games that are successful so I think Prof. Carl Raschke is ignorant on what kind of games do well.  I could start listing successful games that have done well but I might get tired and I'd probably leave out a great deal of them.  A game doesn't have to be smart, it has to be fun.  Actually some times I prefer completely rediculous ideas in games.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

if religion causes violence so does democracy.

Hiroshima, Nagasagi, Korea, Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan...

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Radford just contradicted himself with the "it's anti-zealot" and "it's not anti-anything" comments, but I'm supporting the anti-zealot part of that because I believe that what deific power is out there has better things to do than demand obeisance and slaughter from mindless sycophants or need to remind us what is right and wrong when we have our brains for that (God-given, if that's how it's preferred).

It makes me feel sorry for all those people who are stuck with nutjobs like that because they share the same faith.

Seriousness aside, this is a satire, and satires aren't supposed to be taken seriously, they're meant to be fun.  All this is like telling someone how impossible it is for Ash to use a chainsaw like he did in Evil Dead.  We know that and we don't care, because it's awesome.  Besides, where else can you see Buddha with a chain gun?

 

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Radford just contradicted himself with the "it's anti-zealot" and "it's not anti-anything" comments, but I'm supporting the anti-zealot part of that because I believe that what deific power is out there has better things to do than demand obeisance and slaughter from mindless sycophants or need to remind us what is right and wrong when we have our brains for that (God-given, if that's how it's preferred).

It makes me feel sorry for all those people who are stuck with nutjobs like that because they share the same faith.

Seriousness aside, this is a satire, and satires aren't supposed to be taken seriously, they're meant to be fun.  All this is like telling someone how impossible it is for Ash to use a chainsaw like he did in Evil Dead.  We know that and we don't care, because it's awesome.  Besides, where else can you see Buddha with a chain gun?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

I hope there's a Lucifer the Lightbringer character.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

This is an extremely high post count for a non-JT topic.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

And covering everything from the story topic to 80's movies, quantum physics, just for starters. What a story!

Note: Unless I'm confusing stories Jackie boi did show up.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

He did show up, but he's getting pretty obvious and boring now. Poor guy must be bored out of his skull.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Well that and he kinda got lost in the noise of debates on religion, atheism, and morality.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Want!

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Wow....so much debate over a game.  The game does point out that no major religion has really been spread without war.  Face it, war is a part of human life and will always be.  If you do not like the game, don't play.  If you do, then play on.

 

 

I bring you...corn!!

I bring you...corn!!

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

"I bring you...corn!!"

You also win the Internet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Agreed. I really want some corn.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

About time something like this came out.  The majority of the world needs to wake up and stop clinging to their ridiculous Bronze Age beliefs.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Without those "bronze -age beliefs," you wouldn't have a basis for any sort of worldview or law.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

That's not entirely true.  Enlightened self interest and philosophy can account for sociatal laws.  Check out the writing of Epicurus and Socrates.  Basically, that which hurts society is bad, and should be forbidden, as society advances humanity.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Ignore this, second page spillover is doing funny things to the reply threading.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Philosophy can account for sociatal laws, but you have to remember that Greek philosophy came from ancient Greece. They weren't exactly logical atheists there.

You also have to figure out what hurts and what helps society. Viciously murdering thousands of poor people could help society as a whole by cutting back on the ammount of money it spends on Wellfare. How do you decide if that's right or wrong?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

 And yet many of the ancient Greek philosophers came to question the existance of their gods.

 

As for what helps and hurts society, you have to look beyond just the first step.  Wiping out thousands of poor people would create a hostile environment, where those on the lower end of the pay scale would always fear that they were next.  Such feelings breed hostility, and open rebellion.  The key is to create Just and Equitable laws.  Either the law applies to everyone, or it applies to nobody at all.  There needn't be a religious aspect, merely enlightened self interest.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Except common sense right? Last time I checked I didn't need the bible to figure out killing someone is wrong.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Who says that killing a person is wrong? Why should it be? Common sense, aside from being uncommon, is arbitrary. I could argue that there are too many people on the planet causing too much damage, which would make killing people a logical step and a potential solution.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

And what would be your basis for determining who lives and who dies? Random chance, or weighing up their actions on the subjectively determined basis of whether they have led a good or evil life?

Note "subjective" as opposed to "arbitrary". Either way, we determine these factors from our upbringing, surroundings and other societal influencors. Whilst I can cinceive oif a socitey that encourages random killing, we do not live in such a society and so the point is moot.

Bronze belief system play a part insofar as they play into the tapestry oif the socity in which you find yourself, not because they are neccessarily true or not. It's all relative.

-- teh moominz --

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Blablablablabla. Learn to think for yourself for a change. Read the bible.

You don't need some kind of higher moral code as a basis for your moral code for the simple reason that you don't have one, even if you're too absorbed into your religious belief to be aware of it.

Have you for example heard, that some people believe, that women shouldn't submit to their husbands? Now where did that come from?

To me, your whole premise seems absurd. If an absolute higher moral code existed, wouldn't that imply, that moral codes of different societies should all be the same and never change? Or did the others just "get it wrong"? And who says, they did and not you?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Honestly, if someone doesn't know that murder is wrong until religion tells them otherwise, then I think thats someone society can do without.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

How do you know murder is wrong?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Because its murder.  And I didn't need a religion to tell me that.  And do you think that there should be people walking around in society whose only barrier from murder is because religion told them not to?  That concept is scary as fuck.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Nice circuitous logic there. If we take that logic of "murder is wrong because it's murder" as valid, then the arguments of "homosexuality is wrong because it's homosexuality" and "lefthandedness is wrong because it's lefthandedness" are true as well.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Wow, that's specific. Aren't atheists supposed to have logical, scientific reasons for things? You seem to be assigning some sort of mystical value to human life.

And no, I don't think that the only deterrent against murder should be religion. However, I fail to see why we have laws against murder (or anything else for that matter) if we don't have some sort of higher moral code that our government is basing its laws on. We're a bunch of mutated primates that have developed higher cognitive skills. Why not just go with the good ol' natural selection that got us here?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

This is where you fail at understanding "Atheists".  In not having a religion I'm not bound to what others believe.  I am not so much an "Atheist" as much as I am just me.   But likely this is just a weakness in the term itself.  Rather than athetism it should just be called "people".

This, by the way, is why atheism isn't a religion.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Uh huh... right...

Anyway, you failed to answer my question. Why shouldn't we just let natural selection run the show?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Natural selection is not 'stronger guy kills weaker guy and flourishes' it's (in a nutshell) 'stronger guy is naturally better off than the weaker guys, stronger guys flourish, weaker guys die off on their own'. You're making the same mistake Hitler did in thinking that for natural seleciton to work the stronger must kill the weak (which by the way is one of the really dumb arguments creationists make against evolution).

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

The problem there is that one means of determining who's the most "fit" is who survives best with the available resources. Remove the barriers of morality and laws, and other people's wealth and property gets considered an available resource.

Also:

"So I have thought of evaluating the value of life based upon its potential to benefit the world.  What about bums who live off the system?  They aren't helping.  Kill them off without remorse? Nope, because their genes still hold potential, and current children could also hold that potential, but otherwise may not without said father/mother. Philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, as well as theologists do a whole lot for the world with just their ideas, so that holds value too.  Killing one person, effectively eliminates a whole chain of potentially infinite potential to benefit mankind as a whole.  Basically, as long as you have the potential to be useful to somebody, your life holds value based upon that, as opposed to an abstract concept that you really can't identify the basis of, besides saying that its what you were told/led to believe growing up."

The problem with that is, that for a number of people, their greatest genetic potential to pass on is average intelligence, and something bad like paranoid schizophrenia. The lives of people like that start losing value fast once their own contributions to society drops to "bum on street". Likewise anyone that's sterile takes a hit to the value of their life.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Right.  In fact natural selection doesn't favor the "strong" it favors the "fit."  In other words, those traits that are more beneficial to the current environment are those that are favored.  As such, there is no such thing as something that is ultimately stronger than another.  An aryian race of superhumans, while certainly strong, would be no more fit than anyone else.

Also consider that natural selection's effects have been greatly diminished since our early days.  After all, if natural selection were still important than people who's genes happen to give rise to physical or mental mutations would be deemed inferior, produce less or no children, and therefore we wouldn't be seeing as many children with downs and whatnot.  But we all know that isn't the case.  People go against nature once they organize themselves in a way that protects them from it.  Thats not to say its gone.  The ability to drink milk is a pretty recent (recent in the kind of huge scale that evolution has) evolutionary addition.  By default we used to be lactose intolerant.

Also, I thought of how I can still be a moral individual and condemn murder without looking at things from a religious morality.  Granted, this view is still very much in the works (I only started thinking about it seriously once I took the basic ethics class in college last year), so I would appreciate some constructive criticisms.  If you see a legitimate flaw, point it out for me. 

First off, throw out the notion that a person's life has any innate worth whatsoever.  Individually we are just animals that can think, aka sentient.  If we can't think, or don't possess the potential to think, we have no worth.  Now, we got where we are because we evolved together as social creatures that worked together and competed with one another for protection and survival.  One could go on to say that because of that, we condemn killing those (at least those nearby) because it would hurt the group as a whole.  But that is pretty vague, and might not apply to all situations. 

So I have thought of evaluating the value of life based upon its potential to benefit the world.  What about bums who live off the system?  They aren't helping.  Kill them off without remorse? Nope, because their genes still hold potential, and current children could also hold that potential, but otherwise may not without said father/mother. Philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, as well as theologists do a whole lot for the world with just their ideas, so that holds value too.  Killing one person, effectively eliminates a whole chain of potentially infinite potential to benefit mankind as a whole.  Basically, as long as you have the potential to be useful to somebody, your life holds value based upon that, as opposed to an abstract concept that you really can't identify the basis of, besides saying that its what you were told/led to believe growing up.

This outlook can even be applied (maybe with some modifications, it is still in the works) to other topics like euthanasia.   In the case of someone who is brain dead without hope of recovery, they have lost all value unto themselves, because they no longer hold the potential to benefit anyone.  In fact, seeing as it costs money to keep them alive, they are a detriment on society.  It could be argued, though, that the ethical controversy surrounding the terry schiavo case in itself gave her life some intrinsic value after said brain death, as ethical controversy itself actually causes people to grow and change as a whole.   **This last part is not intended to start any other debates, its just an example of how one might apply this idea to other ethical issues, please don't blow it out of proportions or take it out of context.  I know that this kind of thing is a big topic, or even a personal one, with many people.**

Even if you aren't religious, not many people can really explain why they feel that life has value without resorting to, "it just does."  It's not pretty, maybe even downright cold, but I think its a good start for some morality regarding human life based on something different than a religious upbringing, or even a religious society.

Wow, long post.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Because the consensus from all people, both religious and atheist, is we've decided otherwise.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

I doubt you have the consensus of all the people, just the majority. What do you do when the majority changes its mind? Does that make it right?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

 Enlightened self interest.  The majority need only keep this in mind, and such an eventuality will never take place.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

That's a great theory until murder is in the best interest of the group and thereby yourself.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Still its irrelevant.  If you need religion to tell you murder is wrong.  GTFO of society. 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

You're a brilliant debater. If you can't tell me why murder is wrong, why should I believe that it is? Seems to me the only reason it's wrong is because you say it is. Unless you're the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, I don't think your opinion counts for much.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

I don't see how you can say this. Without religion people would still feel huge grief and sadness when people die, they would still try all they can to prevent their loved ones from dying. People know that death is a tragedy, therefore killing of people by other people is not encouraged to avoid tragedy. In order to prevent this people in a community would maybe even make up LAWS about it. I don't see why we need any religious text to teach us something like that.

 

 

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

So we should base our laws upon vague, arbitrary feelings? That's going to get us a long ways.

Besides, if humans are hyper-intelligent monkeys, we should be encouraging natural selection. It got us this far; why should we stop it now? Because people feel sad when someone dies? That's simply holding back the logical, natural process of evolution.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Murder causes a lot of pain, a lot of suffering in people and that's real. It also causes pain and it ends a precious life they may only have one of. That's why murder is bad, not because most religions say it is.

It's illogical to push any religion's morality onto the populace as the true morality for one simple reason.

None of the religions are proven (even agnosticism if you take that as being 'we'll never find out') so with that in mind it's very possible that some or all of the moral codes of any religion were made not by an all-knowing being but by man. And as such it's possible that those moral codes don't work.

Or to put it in another way, consider the possibility that some parts of [insert holy book here] were added later by man and not God for whatever reason (and it doesn't have to be an evil reason either). You may not believe that's so but with that in mind it makes a bad moral standing point for all of society.

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Look, laws are created in a society to protect the citizens of a society. Therefore it is never right to slaughter the poor as you claim in your poor example. NEVER right, even if it's overcrowded, not enough food to go around, because the society is created so the citizens can live in it and give them protection.

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

But why? If you don't have some sort of moral code, you have no way to judge right or wrong. Any sort of personal moral code is arbitrary and has no hold over everyone else. You may think it's wrong to kill people, but someone else might think it's fine. How do you judge who is right without a higher moral code to go to?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

You do make a very good point, personally I feel that most people use their own arbitrary moral standards to discuss what laws should be in place, so that the laws generally refelct the moral majority of the community. Most people are against killing for reasons other than a higher moral standard so it is often outlawed. I realize how flimsy that sounds, I mean if the moral majority was in favor of killing would it suddenly become right? I wouldn't think so, but then again that's my personal moral opinion. Even with religion though people can't agree on what is moral and what isn't. Some people read the bible and get a different message than others. Who's to say what the right message is? Some things are pretty direct, such as the 10 commandments, but a lot of religious passages could be interpreted many different ways. So I have a question for you, if there is a higher moral authority, how do we figure out what it is exactly?

Re: Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence

Excellent, I seem to have conveyed my point. I think that there is a danger that a society that bases its laws on personal morality can be swayed to something immoral. Hitler managed to do it; there's no reason someone else couldn't. If morality becomes arbitrarily based upon the morality of the majority, definite right and wrong cease to exist. Murder could become right if the majority decides it is.

You also raise a very good question, one that I don't have a good answer for. I suppose we would have to take the morality that everyone agress on like the Ten Commandments and use those. As far as Christianity goes, having a better knowledge of theology helps to determine the universal laws from the culture-specific. In the case of the Israelite law, God gave the Ten Commandments while the laws found in Leviticus and elsewhere are human laws based upon the Ten Commandments meant to give a better idea of how to folow the big Ten. If it were a Christian-based law system, I'd say go with the Ten Commandments as the base and work out the specifics from there.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttps://twitter.com/IGLevine/status/457552538343325696 The Lutece Twins show up in some of the most unlikely of places.04/20/2014 - 2:44pm
Andrew EisenAs it happens, Chinatown Wars is the only GTA game I've played.04/19/2014 - 10:43am
Papa MidnightWith GTA5 (to date) failing to even provide indication of a PC release, I'm realising that this might be the first GTA game that I have not played (outside of Chinatown Wars) since the series inception.04/19/2014 - 8:14am
IanCSo im guessing a bunch of edutainment games, which a lot of people elsewhere are going gaga over, dot count as classics? Okay. If you don't mind me, i have a sudden urge to play Putt Putt....04/19/2014 - 6:15am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/18/playstation-99-cent-sale-discounts-tokyo-jungle-super-stardust/ Weekend long PSN flash sale. So much stuff is 99 cents for the rest of the weekend.04/18/2014 - 5:59pm
Adam802http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/18/5627928/newtown-video-game-addiction-forum04/18/2014 - 4:14pm
Matthew Wilsonit is a video talking about why certain games/products/consoles do well, and others do not. he back it up with solid research.04/18/2014 - 3:56pm
Andrew EisenI'm not keen on blind links. What is it?04/18/2014 - 3:45pm
Matthew Wilsonthis is worth a whatch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXcr6sDRtw&list=PL35FE5C4B157509C904/18/2014 - 3:43pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician