Controversial New Board Game Parodies Religious Violence
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.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/07/09 at 11:33pm
JDKJ: BREAKING: In photo-finish at the wire, House passes health care reform bill. Relatedly, in fit of pique, Austin Lewis kicks innocent dog.
JDKJ: BREAKING: In photo-finish at the wire, House passes health care reform bill. Relatedly, in fit of pique, Austin Lewis kicks innocent dog.
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"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."
I'm not a fanatic but I'm finding this idea rather amusing.
I'm not an atheist, but I definitely want this board game. Buddha with a chain gun = hilarity.
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Chain-gun Buddha FTW!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
"I am Heavy Weapons guy."
I'm an attention whore. So visit my DevaintArt and feed my ego. Feed the whore. http://keaton2008.deviantart.com/
I call bullshit. Religion is a tool that can be used to unite people for evil puposes, true, however the bulk of the world's violence stems from people trying to grasp power or an attempt to sate greed.
Why focus on the negatives of religion and ignore the postitives of it? Because people like Richard Dawkins make other's think smearing people's religion is awesome, that's why.
That being said, I want to play the game.
"Why focus on the negatives of religion and ignore the positives of it?"
That's not a very good question. It's not a serious discussion on religion, or a novel stimulating debate, it's a satirical board game. It doesn't have to be evenly balanced. And so what are you suggesting? That all things that comment on religion MUST contain positive views? That expressing a negative view is inherently wrong?
To be honest, I don't even see it as all that "negative." If it can get even one person to think of the absurdity of goig to war for religion, then it's a "positive" thing. Let's face it, history and current events show that religion clearly can be a catylist for violence. Even when the message of the religon is peaceful, belief systems tend to cause people to become angry if someone disagrees.
If you'll do me a favor and show where the media has showed a positive representation of a religious organization in recent years, I can show you dozens more where it represents religion as being the most corrupt thing ever or full of nothing but slack jawed idiots burning books and shooting people of a different hue.
It has become 'hip', as was stated, to hate or bash religion. I am not saying that religion has been nothing but sunshine and happiness for people, but it is also foolish to state that nothing but bad things come from religion. I don't want people to stop saying bad things about religion, but I would like for someone to start saying positive things every once in a while.
"If you'll do me a favor and show where the media has showed a positive representation of a religious organization in recent years"
Your comment is off base in so many ways, the only thing it reveals is your own bias.
Media reporting is overwhelmingly negative to begin with, so it's not like the pagans of the media world are unduly targeting religion.
Secondly, you really lumping "media" into one broad bucket? The Pope has a BIG communications platform. I can assure you all communication from that part of the media machinery will most certainly ALWAYS be positive.
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/
"Your comment is off base in so many ways, the only thing it reveals is your own bias."
What is my bias then, if you don't mind me asking?
Pro-religion, obivously. 'The media' portrays everything negatively, I don't know what you are complaining about
Wrong, I am not pro-religion or anti-religion.
I am pro-fair representation.
You're really callling for fair representation of anti-religious people also... especially claiming that Atheism/Anti-religion is common because it's a fad ("hip" was the term, I believe). I can assure you that I am against religion because I can see through bullshit, not because I am a hipster.
And I bet you that you have never truly studied religions outside of the Abrahamic faith and maybe Buddhism.
I will bet that you haven't even looked at the many faiths that don't have a deity, an afterlife, or even holidays.
Of course you have, what do I know.
The reason why I said it is 'hip' to be atheist, is the amount of people that get a chip on their shoulder from someone telling them how to live or shoving an opinion up their ass causes them to swing to the opposite side of the argument out of spite.
I'll believe, that you're not "pro-religious", as soon as I see you spout that "I bet you that you have never truly studied religions outside of the Abrahamic faith" at Christians. As long as you're not doing that, you're just another hypocrite.
I'll believe, that you're not "pro-religious", as soon as I see you spout that "I bet you that you have never truly studied religions outside of the Abrahamic faith" at Christians. As long as you're not doing that, you're just another hypocrite.
And FYI, I haven't "truly studied" religions "outside the Abrahamic faith". I suppose, this is because I haven't "truly studied" religions inside the Abrahamic faith either. I also haven't "truly studied" homeopathy and astrology. Now that I think about it, i haven't truly studied cooking either, so I guess, I'm going to starve now.
Then do something about it. I'm always facinated with people that complain about an issue that they obviously care about, but then expect someone else to act. If you think Religion is getting the PR-shaft (which is ironic, considering that the majority of the world belongs to one religion or another, even in the US), then get out there and start spreading the positive message.
And telling people openly in a public forum and in every other instance I come across that they should really examine what they say is 'doing nothing'?
What? Do you expect me to run a national campaign to promote my ideals? Sorry, I ain't got the time or the cash to even attempt that. One person at a time is the best I can do.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why religion gets portrayed badly. And that's the show.
Religion is the intellectual equivalent to the neanderthal; its time to evolve or die. Some churches try to evolved and adapt scientific understandings of the universe into their religious text while others hunker down and struggle to survive with illogical concepts and teachings.
Says a member of the Atheist religion... Take some time to consider your own beliefs and worldview before you criticize others'. Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on logic, and it has plenty of self-contradictory doctrines. Atheism is a relgion; it simply isn't formally organized and doesn't explicitly state its beliefs.
Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a haircolor.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Atheism has been recognized as a religion for a long time now.
Being totally firm in the belief that there is no higher power or an afterlife takes *GASP* faith, afterall. since there is no solid proof that it doesn't exist. No solid proof it does exist either, so once again faith comes into play for other religious minded folks.
Agnostics are probably the only *logical* people out there, by the Atheist understanding of logical.
*goes off to be all illogical and what-not*
Atheism has been recognized by a religion by the religioius yes. But really atheism is pretty much the default human setting. If you have never seen a god then there is no reason to think one exists hm?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
The default human setting is not atheism; it's belief in something. Ancient people created huge, polytheistic religions and modern man created atheism, also known as the belief in science. Like it or not, you believe in something; everyone always has and always will. The question is whether you'll admit that you have a religion or deny it.
Not having a religion is not something you have to deny. If you don't you don't.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Except that you do.
And what would that be?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Well, you've failed to demonstrate why atheism isn't a religion. You made one generalization that (incorrectly) assumed that atheism is the human default and have done little else than say "No it isn't" when told that atheism is a religion. If it's not, you should be able to show why. It has plenty in common with religion; you're going to have to come up with some good evidence that it isn't.
If you like, you can prove why atheism isn't a worldview. Religion gets a knee-jerk reaction out of some people, and worldview is almost synonimous since anyone who has a set of (religious) beliefs will invariably let those beliefs affect his view of the world.
I refuse to go into detail about something so intrinsically obvious. Sorry. But it would really be like writing a ten thousand word tutorial on how to walk. I really refuse to humor your ridiculous notion. Its pretty binary. You choose to have a religion or you don't. Its not the rocket science you make it out to be.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
If it's so "intrinsically obvious," you should be able to explain it rather quickly. I can explain my reasons for saying atheism is a religion in six sentences or less. With such a "binary," "intrinsically obvious," "its [sic] not rocket science" view, you should be able to explain very easily and concisely.
Or you don't have any real reasons and are just angry that someone called you on it...
Its so intrinsically obvious that I'm going to have enough basic respect for you not to have to explain it. To do so I would feel that I was condesending to you like a child.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I'm more insulted that you would refuse to enlighten me with your superior beliefs than I would be if you were simply condescending while explaining them.
If it's so obvious, just spit it out already and stop beating around the bush.
Enlighten you? Why? I really don't care what you believe. If you want to believe that lack of religion is a religion, have at it.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
I'd appreciate enlightenment because I, as a logical human being, like to see the arguments on both sides of the issue. I'd like to compare your reasons why atheism is not a religion to my reasons why atheism is.
And now the obligtaroy "The walls are crushing me." post. Thank you and goodnight.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
The walls, they are crushing me.
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
Thank you Brandon your a bad mutha in your own right.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Why are you persisting? Isn't it obvious at this point I'm not going to play your little game?
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
It is; however, I was hoping you'd be kind enough to enlighten someone you see as ignorant. I guess I just have to assume that I'm right and that you don't have any proof since you haven't presented any. Good day.
I don't see you as "ignorant". I ultimately don't care enough about what you think to label you one way or another. As far as proof, in this situation it is uneccessary.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Fair enough.
Shut down all the garbage smashers on the detention level!
i wonder how small the width of the post can become? please dont' ban me for this.
lack of belief in a religion is not a religion.
I believe Athiesm may count as a belief system(i don't know about religion) but agnostiscim isn't a reliogion for sure.
I am crushed at last!
Duude.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
If I may put in my two cents:
Atheism isn't a religion because all atheism is is "not believing in any gods". If "not believing in any gods" is a religion, then so is "not believing in Santa", and "not believing in Bigfoot". Atheism could be a part of a religion, such as Budhism, but it is not a religion unto itself.
Atheism doesn't explicitly believe in a particular deity, but it does place a lot of trust on logic and science, often to the point of making them deities of a sort. It also comes with a set of beliefs (for example: there is no god).
/Facepalm
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
Are you honestly putting religious dogma on the level of science? This, this is why trying to debate with you is an impossibility.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Not at all. I'm putting faith in science on the level of religious dogma. Science obviously does work (we have rockets after all), but some people place science as the ultimate solution to the world's problems and the only way to explain everything, making it into a replacement god.
Do you know what science is? I mean honestly.
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
Faith is a primitive word for imagination.
/Standing ovation
Finally someone explains it to them logically
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
As soon as you place a belief in an unsure or unknown element and accept it as true, then you have a religion. It isn't an organized religion, but it is a religion. Atheists firmly believes (this is faith) that there is no higher power or afterlife. Since it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that either of these two do not exist, then you have a belief in an unknown element. Just because you are not singing praises or sailing prayers to a sky deity, doesn't mean that you are without a system of belief.
If you go and redefine religion as a belief in an unknown element, and/or possessing a system of belief (which is pretty vague, ones personal values and ethics are also an example of a system of belief) then yes atheism would fall into that. So does $cientology, which while recognized as a religion by the government, we all know that it isn't. Also Pastafarians. However, thats not what we typically define religion, or atheism. So basically everyone here is arguing over semantics.
Besides, to say that all atheists "firmly believe" is a bit of a generalization too. On our side, you could say most people are moderate atheists, with only the strong being the ones who claim to know any better than anyone else. For someone like me, my statement regarding the existence of a deity is "I don't know, but I don't think so." A strong simply claims to know, and even worse thinks they can prove it. Those are few and far between, but unfortunately quite a bit more vocal than the rest of us. On a side note, its because of that I don't know part that agnosticism is not a valid position, and are in fact weak atheists or weak theists. This question is one of those times where it is not a false dichotomy to split it into two possible answers.
Also, belief in science isn't so much a system of belief anyway. Maybe in the scientific method, as there are some that would like to see that done differently, but science (the real, peer-reviewed, repeatable experiments kind of science, not that ID or young earth crap) itself is typically pretty factually solid, and even if it isn't in certain places you can bet it will be pretty soon. It's also pretty dangerous to define science as a set of beliefs specifically for atheists, because thats just a small step away from renouncing scientific fact in favor of a more personally comfortable (but wrong) religious view of how the world works/came to be. Science is for everyone, and isn't too often wrong, and even then it isn't wrong for long (or at least quickly becomes less wrong), because we change our models all the time as new information is discovered. For example, its entirely possible that if the LHC discovers something completely new, that we would have to rework our model of physics, and thats big.
"As soon as you place a belief in an unsure or unknown element and accept it as true, then you have a religion."
Really? Could you show cite a definition of religion that matches with that? I don't know of any definition of religion under which atheism would fall. I thought religion needed more than that. Stuff like rituals, moral codes and creeds. By your definition, believing in ghosts and horoscopes are, all by themselves, religions. So is not believing in ghosts and horoscopes.
"Atheists firmly believes (this is faith) that there is no higher power or afterlife."
I'll ignore the fact that atheism says nothing in regards to the afterlife. Atheists do not have to believe firmly that there are no gods, they need only not believe that that there are gods. There is a difference. If you don't believe in Santa, you could be called an asantaist. That doesn't mean you are 100% sure he doesn't exist, it means that you do not believe in him. Someone who had never heard of Santa could be called an asntaist, and likewise someone who had never heard of any gods could be called an atheist. It isn't a belief, it describes a lack of belief.
Faith != Religion.
Wiki: A religion is a set of tenets and practices
Show me the practices.
Atheism is as much of a religion as homelessness is a physical address.
The Wisconsin federal court of appeals disagrees with you. They ruled that prisoners could have an atheist study group because atheism was a religion protected by the First Ammendment, so the federal government at least classifies atheism as a religion.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Atheism has a set of beliefs (there is no god, etc) and trusts completely in science and logic. You have beliefs and a supreme whatsit. That's a religion.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Atheism has a set of beliefs (there is no god, etc) and trusts completely in science and logic. You have beliefs and a supreme whatsit. That's a religion."
I disagree with that definition of religion. Every form of a belief system has some sort of conceptual validatory mechanism. Whether it is an emotinal reaction, verifiability, a book, etc. This makes every form of a belief system a religion.
Using your same logic, solipism (the belief that only I exist) is a religion because it has a belief system and supreme whats it- experience or the conceptual 'I'.
I think your definition needs more precision.
As for why Atheism is labeled as a religion, I wonder that ymself, but I have been told that it was a move by athiests pressing for the freedom to believe in atheism. The constituion protects religion, but not belief systems directly, so labeling atheism as a religion gives more legal protection.
You used the term belief system. Isn't that just a euphemism for religion?
You can have a belief system without being part of a religion.
Arguably, believing in a god does not make you part of a religion.
Also calling yourself a Atheist doesn't mean you necessarily share any other beliefs with other Atheists I know an Atheist who thinks science is just as bad as Religion.
Humanism is a far better cadiate for being called a religion as it has more common elements with religions, such as ceremonies. But still has no real set of tenets that have to be abided by other than being an agnostic or athiest.
But religions still require, by most definitions, a belfief in being able to transcend our mortal consciousness and an other completely separate world, generally termed as the supernatural. Which nether humanism nor athiesm have.
You know an atheist who thinks science is as bad as religion? I would genuinely like to meet this person. S/he sounds very interesting.
He read the bible and decided it didn't really give any answers and assumed the same about science but wasn't particularly interested in finding out more. Although he described himself as an Atheist.
You could interpret it that way if you want, but I think that negates the idea of religion. Using that standpoint, it is impossible not to have a religion, as everyone has some sort belief system- whether it is 'it is good to help teh poor' or 'Jews are responsible for all evil in the world 'or 'I think apple pie is better than cherry'. I find this too imprecise to cover what is commonly meant as religion.
I get the feeling that that was to protect the athiests from assholes that would try and oppese them based on the the notion that because athiests have no religion that the religion part of the the first amendment doesn't apply to them
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
"Why focus on the negatives of religion and ignore the postitives of it? Because people like Richard Dawkins make other's think smearing people's religion is awesome, that's why."
Just because you insult thing that you don't understand doesn't mean that everyone else does, too.
He says "Much of the world's violence is rooted in religion", not most. So his statement and yours ("the bulk of the world's violence stems from people trying to grasp power or an attempt to sate greed") can coexist quite comfortably. And they do; you hit the nail right on the head.
I misread that at first, too. I've heard the old "religion is the root of all evil!!1" all the time. Less often now that I (and my peers) are older than when I was a schoolkid.
*facepalm*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
It is just a damn game! It doesn't have to be historically correct. It is as correct as many things in life, like our history books. They present the facts that people want to remember, and ignore the rest of history. While the game presents the features of entertainment, and drops everything else. It is only fair.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
...Players may pit Zeus against Cthulhu and Eric Clapton for control over the world...
It must be mine!!!!
I want it!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
"the hip subculture of militant popular atheists"
Militant atheist = an atheist that doesn't shut up and accept the status quo.
Militant atheist = pandralisk
-Gray17
Sure is, perhaps this guy could've put the flying spaghetti monster in the game.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
He may have. It'll be fun to see.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Brings back memories.
None of them good.
Militant Atheist = Bullshit buzzword invented by fundies to scare people into believing that the "Evil Atheists" are trying to put Christains in concenration camps and/or rounding them up and killing them and/or forcing them into gay sex and/or voting for Obama/Antichrist
It is nothing more than bullshit fear-mongering in the same vein as: radical Islamic, Militant Gays/Gay milita, Axis of Evil, Militant feminist, oh and didn't Jacko once refer to militant gamers in one of his rants.
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
I take it you weren't around for pandralisk?
Pretty much any article was an excuse for him to start on an anti-religion rant. Generally said rants included at least half of the following words:
img92.imageshack.us/img92/2329/pandraliskbingoht0.gif
Attempts at debate, scholarly discourse, or getting him to stay on topic, were generally met with a reaction comparable to Jack Thompson's response to the same things. He couldn't change his mind, and wouldn't change the subject.
He's just one example, though I've run across others occasionally.
So, no, "Militant Atheist" isn't a buzzword created for fearmongering. It's a description of a certain kind of atheist, that is a jackass about it, rather than be scholarly, or indifferent.
Likewise there is such a thing as radical Islamists. If there wasn't, the World Trade Center would still be standing. Similarly fundamentalist Christians exist, can they can be as much a bunch of douchebags as pandralisk was a jackass.
Nearly anything can have it's extremists. That some people are falsely accused of being extremists does not mean that extremists don't exist.
-Gray17
Exactly, someone who questions things instead of taking them as is. Typically caused by logical thinking.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I've not see any militant atheists to be what I'd call logical.
Certainly the atheist I saw calling the Virgin Mary, 'a slut that got knocked up by a Roman soldier then made up story about an angel and the son of god'(to paraphrase), was what I'd call militant, and not being what I'd call logical. The logical atheist or skeptic would conclude that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and his followers made up a bunch of stuff about him after he was dead.
The militants aren't those that "questions things instead of taking them as is." or engaging in "logical thinking". You're thinking of scientists and scholars with those. The militants merely attack that which they disagree with, don't believe in, etc.
-Gray17
Yeah my bad... all militants are bad though. No matter what religion or cause they support. Even if they support finding the cure for cancer or aids, the fact of being militant is bad. Though a physical militant is far worse than a vocal one, and I still have yet to hear or see a story about that.
Most atheist are calm and go with the flow though. Many of them still go to church just because they support the lessons that religion teaches to their kids, even though they do not believe in God. My dad went for years as it was just the thing we did on Sundays, and hadn't believed in God longer than I have been alive.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
True, all militants for any religion or cause are bad.
Keep in mind that I'm not attacking atheists in general here. I know that most of them calm, normal, and so forth. What I'm challenging is the idea that there isn't a small subsection of them that are militant. I'd imagine what Prof. Raschke had in mind was people like pandralisk. "Rigid and hostile" thinking, and not using his mind or studying what he was dealing with certainly would describe him fairly accurately.
Though I disagree with Prof. Raschke that pandralisk's sort is the only ones this game would appeal to. It sounds to me like it'd appeal to a moderately sized range of people that either aren't religious, or don't take religion very seriously.
-Gray17
I started writing an article related to this last night, it was based on homosexuality, but my main point is. Why can't we just go to the basic rules of live. Not hurting each other, each other's property, or freedom of speech within reason of location and time , and beyond that it is our own individual lives to do as we wish. If two guys boink each other up the rear it doesn't effect my life one bit. It wouldn't effect if I go to heaven or not either. It is what I do in my life, and that effect what happens in my afterlife, if I believe in heaven. If I am going to help someone, especially by bringing my religion into their lives, then it is only fair to do so by their request. If they ask to learn more about my beliefs, then that is fine.
But why do we have laws that follow these beliefs when it doesnt hurt anyone. If a guy wants to chop off his own arm, then that is his choice. The hospital has no right to reattach it if the man doesnt want it back on. If it is mentally unstable because he didn't take his meds, then it is his fault for not taking the meds. It is too bad he lost his arm, but it is a lesson lived and learned from.
We have no right to protect people from their mistakes, even parents who do a bad job at raising their kids.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
The problem with your argument is that political correctness tends to shoot to the other extreme and start trying to silence religion for the sake of being non-offensive. I'll follow your example of homosexuality because I know some good examples, but the idea applies to many topics.
For example, a Canadian paster was sued for saying the homosexuality is a sin. According to Christian doctrines, it is a sin, but he got sued for expressing his beliefs because they hurt someone else's feelings. If things were fair, he'd be within his rights to sue homosexuals because their practices offend him, but that isn't the case. Christians are also forced to deal with pro-homosexual teachings in schools, but they're not allowed to have their own ideas taught in schools because they're "intolerant." Homosexuals don't appreciate being told they're sinning (which is a perfectly understandable reaction) but that doesn't give them the right to silence other people with lawsuits.
My view is that if you want to go do something that is against my religion, go right ahead, just don't expect me to condone it or allow my kids to be taught that it's okay. You have the right to do what you want, and I have the right to say I don't approve and don't want my children to be taught that.
We should not be allowed to sue each other because of hurting one another's feelings. Verbal assault is one thing, but just saying something not even directed at you and a whole other world.
You have every right to raise your kid how you wish, that is your life, and as long as that child is living in your house, you are responsible for that child, therefore they have to follow your rules, which gives you full freedom to teach or punish them however you want that isn't harmful to the child within reason. (no beating a child, but spanking is within reason)
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Try telling that to anyone who disagrees with Christians. You can do pretty much whatever you want to Christians because everyone knows they're the univeral religious punching bag. You don't want to offend Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any other religion, but you can do and say whatever-the-hell you want to and about Christians. Same thing applies to white people and men.
True... Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and other people, other than Scientology, normally keep to themselves for the people I have met, and don't push their religion as much as Christians. Though I wouldn't say all Christian groups do that, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witness, and other groups within the religion sure as hell do, and that makes all Christians look bad, and makes other people hate them. Christians are the most vocal about the age of the Earth being a young Earth, homosexuals being wrong, and other things too.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
But, if you understand Christianity, the point is to spread the news. Many Christians also don't hold to a young Earth view; views of creation are varied and are probably the stupidest thing Christians get hung up on. It's not a belief so much as an opinion, and it's a rather irrelevant one at that. People who waste their time preaching old earth/new earth stuff need to get a hobby or start preaching something relevant.
Homosexuality is another story. Christians believe it's wrong, and under the US Constitution, they're allowed to think that. Everyone is allowed to have beliefs and opinions; if you don't like it, don't join.
I'd also argue that Christians are no more vocal than many atheists and other groups are. Everyone proclaims their views whether they're religious or not. That's the beauty of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. I think Christians just get more attention because their message tends to be very strict and politically uncorrect, making them newsworthy and a good punching bag.
And, on a side note, Jehovah's Witnesses shouldn't be classified as a Christian group. Their beliefs deviate too far from every other Christians group. Most Christians would consider them heretics or a cult.
Same goes with the Pentecostals. They are claimed as a cult by most Christian churches because of their ways.
I agree, they are no more vocal than other groups, but those are many other groups versus that one group though, haha. I respect the ability to withstand it for this long with all of those groups against them. Young and old Earth is very relevant to most of the sciences, if not all. Though most, if not all, of the sciences say it is an old Earth. And with the wanna be God complex some of those guys have, I would think they would be going in the direction that would get them closer to power, which if the young Earth would be true or well supported, would be the direction they would go...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Lets consider that statement about religious sects demonizing one another. When was the last time a Chemist threw liquid N2 on a Physicist and recited the periodic table in Latin? Or an English major set the Mathematics department on fire for speaking in tongues?
Honestly now...
Pentacostals are different from most Christian groups, but they at least hold to the idea of Christ as the Son of God and the entire Trinity doctrine. If you want to determine Christian and non-Christian, those are the two issues to look at first. I also haven't heard any Christians from other branches claim Pentacostals aren't Christians, although you can get huge debates over the speaking in tongues stuff.
The reason I say old earht/young earth is irrelevant is because most Christians who fixate on it are trying to make the Bible scientific, a rather stupid and pointless thing to do. The Bible isn't a science book, and trying to read it like a modern science textbook doesn't work. People trying to extrapolate how the earth was created and how old it is from the Bible are missing the point of Genesis. The point is that God created, not when or how.
If I made the mathematical association that God = Evolution by Natural Selection do I win a Nobel Peace Prize?
Probably not.
Definitely not
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
"But, if you understand Christianity, the point is to spread the news."
And if Christian evangelists understood empathy or personal freedom, they would not bugger you at your doorstep about going to hell.
"For example, a Canadian paster was sued for saying the homosexuality is a sin. According to Christian doctrines, it is a sin, but he got sued for expressing his beliefs because they hurt someone else's feelings."
Actually, it doesn't state that. The Bible mentions homosexual sex as a sin, not homosexuality. One is an action, the other is an identity. It's the difference between being a thief and stealing something.
Dawkins - militant or not?
Yeah.
The guy asked a church to pray for a terminal ill child to be healed, when the child died he pretty much rubbed their nose in it. Seems kind of militant to me.
I agree with a lot of what Dawkins says, but you're right, that sounds like a dickish thing to do. But I was looking and I can't find any info on it. Do you have a link to an article about it?
I believe the idea was to raise awarness about the ineffectuality of prayer to hopefully get people to get medical help rather than just praying over it because there are some frankly loony groups of people do just that
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
Wow, never heard of that before. I agree that Dawkins is militant, but at the same time I respect his views, because I agree with much of what he says minus the parts about destroying religion and whatnot. For instance, I do agree that one should never disregard science and medicine in favor of a religious, or really any kind of differing belief, like psychic healing or homeopathy. Never. When people do that, bad things happen. For example, a girl killed herself somewhere in the middle-east (I think) a while back because she thought the LHC was going to destroy the world, as the sensationalist media and the religious leaders constantly claimed, despite all of science's assurances to otherwise.
Yeah and then they'd have to get LHC working long enough in the first place.
By the definition earlier you said that a militant atheists was someone who argued with out making much sense and got heavily off topic.
Dawkins doesn't really fit that bill he makes mostly consistent arguments and never gets off topic he does have a habit of ranting a bit.
I guess my argument would be that he wasn't because he makes valid arguments even if he does state them very forcefully.
I hate it when people try to equate religious fundamentalists with vocal atheists as if they were somehow equivalent. One group has people who strap explosives to their chests and then try to kill as many people as possible with their own suicide, and the other writes books.
Frankly anyone whose only argument is "oh those atheists are just like other fundamentalists, so don't listen to them!" gets immediately labeled as a tool.
Wrong, a militant Atheist will go out of their way to call people who have a religious faith 'illogical' and 'stupid' and, in the case or Richard Dawkins, go to a church to have people pray for the health of terminally ill child and when the child dies essentially laugh at the people who he led in prayer and chastise them for worhipping something 'stupid'.
A militant atheist is also someone who acts down right offended when someone does have a religious faith and treats them as if they are some kind of enemy.
Religious extremeist are, indeed, bat-shit insane, but to say that 'militant atheists are just vocal' is really kind of a weak statment.
Religious faith *is* illogical. That's why a leap of faith is required. Simply stating so isn't offensive, merely well reasoned.
Bashing on Dawkins doesn't endear you to people you might disagree with you. It just reminds me how grateful I am to live in a place where publically proclaiming religious belief is more likely to draw concern than commendation.
Lastly, Russel's Teapot. The onus is always in the part of the believer to prove a theory, not the reverse.
To better phrase this in a way that makes the most sense and cuts to the core of my beef with 'militant atheists':
No one has the right to shove their personal opinions of faith up my ass and attempting to do so in an insulting manner just pisses me off. This applys to anyone, including Atheists, but they (just as all the other faiths) never view that they are shoving their opinions up my ass, they merely want to 'help me realize the truth.'
I will just debate with you, and if you want to shove the bible up my ass, then I will shove my research up yours. I am not much for opinions unless I am just having fun joking around. Like my opinion that the FSM is more logical, but that has no facts behind it and is more for shits and giggles than a serious conversation.
My favorite part is disproving religious people who say the bible says homosexuality is wrong. Which is all fun and games, but the original text never says that in the new or old testiment. It was put into law by a roman ruler, and the church adopted that belief 1200 years later around the time the church actually adopted marriage fully, which marriage was not originally part of the church, and the church thought it was a personal matter that it had no place in. That is just the facts though. I enjoy listening to people that want to go on about what they believe ignoring the historical facts and believe in an altered bible, especially if they are going off of one that includes the word homosexuality or homosexual in it at all, because that was an agenda based translation that didnt happen until a while after the King James version of the Bible, which is the best english translated version in relation to the original text, but still didn't have enough research put into it to say what the orignal text does in a clear manor.
That is just me though. I enjoy debates about carbon dating and Jesus riding dinosaurs as well.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I bet he would ride an Anklyosaur. Those things are awesome.
As I said, I just don't like for people to shove their opinion of religion up my ass. I get it hard core though, I am a Taoist so the Abrahamic faiths call me a 'sinner' and the Atheists call me 'illogical'. Maybe it is because I have seen how identical the bashers from each side can be, is the reason why I get upset when I see Atheists act like they can do no wrong when it comes to chastising others for having a different belief than them.
See, the people who do not follow debate with the ability to admit when they are wrong... that is just wrong. You have to admit when things are stated that prove you are wrong. It happens, like when I said carbon dating was a fully valid science in a debate about how old the Earth is before, which I was wrong partly because animals that breath underwater have different carbon levels due to different things in water, but if the animal was a land animal, and water covered the animal, then the carbon dating would still be correct. Though other factors can still mess up carbon dating, it still fits within a certain range, and that is why other dating methods are used as well to check each other. You can never get a finite date the animal was alive, but you can typically get a logical range.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Wait I thought it said so in Leviticus and Romans (although Leviticus also says you shall not eat pork which almost all Christians promptly ignore).
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
The book of Leviticus calls eating shirmp, laying with a man as with a woman, and laying with a beast as with a woman an abomination to God.
It never says a woman cannot lay with a woman though, so technically lesbians have the go ahead.
I always knew God supported hot girl on girl action =P
That is the most commonly quoted line, but even the King James is off on its translation that makes it appear to be talking about homosexuality. The Amplified Bible was the first to include the word homosexual, EVER. Then the New Living and other Bibles written after words followed suit without researching it.
Still a bad translation but more true is: And with a male, lie down not in beds of a woman: obscene it is.
I haven't seen the raw translation for a while, it is hard to find with all of the church sites up talking about it. There was a person who knew Hebrew that gave me the word for word translation on a forum once. It was decently clear that it was about prostitution or rape, and had little to no connection with homosexuality. It sounded like it was sex of the unwilling. Meaning that someone was having sex because they had to not because they wanted to or being raped.
If I find the better translation I will post it.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Never been a big fan of the King James Bible. It's kinda hard for me to take it (The translation not the actual materal) seriously when it was, for all intents and purposes, a homework assignment in translation and done rather poorly in some instances.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
What if my faith is a well-reasoned and informed decision on my part to choose to believe in something, even insofar as I recognize it to be irrational? (In other words, I'm not taking offense at your statement of the irrationality of religion; I'm offended that you don't seem to think we should ever do irrational things, whereas I believe that's part of living in the real world.)
---
The Mammon Industry
Debating religion to begin with is irrational, because it doesn't go anywhere in the end, but at least if both people or all parties are going into it to learn more about the other side(s) even if they will not change their view, it is a chance to learn, which I feel is one of the most important things you can do.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Reminds me of that old joke: a priest, a rabbi, and a buddhist walk into a bar, and a few hours later they leave again, each having gained a deeper understanding and wisdom of the others' distinct spiritualities.
---
The Mammon Industry
To recognize a belief as irrational would cause a logical person to adjust said belief until rationality is obtained. To resist would indicate that said person was indeed not a logical person and therefore not sentient. All specifics aside, it is counter productive to force and issue that one knows is incorrect, obviously not the path of least resistance, therefore unnatural.
You never see the apple firing off into space when it is removed from the tree, why must this person try and do the same?
You haven't seen that before? Wow dude, you are missing out.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Well, the problem I've got is a pair of conflicting conclusions: I recognize that my beliefs are irrational, but I also recognize that my life sucks without awesome things to think about, which means I should stick to my believin' guns so that my life is groovy. But I don't think I can get any deeper into it without becoming an issue-forcer (and believe me, I'd enjoy it less than you would) so yeah I'ma drop it here.
But yeah, this is why I invented the rocket-propelled apple harness.
---
The Mammon Industry
If Dawkins is militant, so is Ghandi.
And for that matter, Jesus himself
..............Whah-huh?! Explain, please!
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Ghandi never pushed his religious views on anybody.
Techincally, Jesus never shoved his views down anyone's throat in the Bible. He did put foot-to-ass on some people that were running a business out of a church and screwing people out of their cash, though. You aren's supposed to abuse people's faith for monitary gain, so he beat the shit out them with a cat-o-nine-tails and ran them off. It really makes me wonder why more people don't follow suit and beat the shit out of all these televangilists that do the same in this day and age.
Dawkins, however, has freely shoved his opinion up the asshole of people. He is a collosal dick to people that do not think the same way he does. I do have to say though, he is not they typical Atheist. Most Atheists are like every other religious person, they have their personal beliefs and live comfortable with those beliefs and do not force them on others. The MILITANT Atheists and other MILITANT Fanatics are the ones that give their respective faiths a bad name.
"Dawkins, however, has freely shoved his opinion up the asshole of people."
How exactly? By writting a book? By giving lectures? By making the occasional TV show? No one is forcing you to read or listen to what he has to say. I wouldnt say that televangelists are shoving their religion down my throat, I know how to use a remote. Dawkins doesn't want religion outlawed, he doesn't want to force you to believe what he does. Of course he'd like to convince people he is right about some things, but I'd hardly call that shoving his opinion up their arseholes.
It's because his views and delivery are so intresting that it is impossible to turn off. He just sucks you into a void of intresting that is impossible to escape from.
Yeah right. Beating the crap out of people isn't "shoving your views down someone's throat", but writing a book is.
Wrong, a militant Atheist will go out of their way to call people who have a religious faith 'illogical' and 'stupid' and, in the case or Richard Dawkins, go to a church to have people pray for the health of terminally ill child and when the child dies essentially laugh at the people who he led in prayer and chastise them for worhipping something 'stupid'.
A militant atheist is also someone who acts down right offended when someone does have a religious faith and treats them as if they are some kind of enemy.
Religious extremeist are, indeed, bat-shit insane, but to say that 'militant atheists are just vocal' is really kind of a weak statment.
did they ever strap bombs to their chest, did they ever bomb an abortion clinic, did they ever stone disobediant women to death, did they kill Mattew Shepard? The answer to all of those questions is No. Yes they talk yes they write books and yes they can be kinda dickish but they don't kill people for their religion.
you state that the above poster is wrong yet all you do is support his claims that militant atheists are just vocal and write books.
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
Wrong, a militant Atheist will go out of their way to call people who have a religious faith 'illogical' and 'stupid' and, in the case or Richard Dawkins, go to a church to have people pray for the health of terminally ill child and when the child dies essentially laugh at the people who he led in prayer and chastise them for worhipping something 'stupid'.
What's called "illogical" and "stupid" is the tendency of religious people, to mindlessly believe baseless claims without any evidence whatsoever. Do you really want to know, how belief originates and propagates? How people come to "know" about completely inaccessible things like any supposed afterlife?
Judging by all the "Oh-I-didn't-know-that"s, there are now several readers of this comments section - including you -, that "know", that believe, that Dawkins had a church perform a prayer experiment, without ever seeing the tiniest shred of evidence.
In reality, he didn't. Some other guy did, and the Templeton Foundation - despite claims to the contrary not really a non-religious organization - paid for it. Dawkins merely wrote about it in his book. So is this, what a "militant atheist" is to religious people? Someone who talks about the inconvenient results of failed experiments? Just what is "essentially laughed at" really? Anything more substantial than "any criticicism"? Anything more substantial than the claim, that he went "to a church to have people pray" itself? And which side is doing the smearing just now?
Keep in mind that "religious fundamentalists" encompasses more than suicide bombers. I'd certainly rate someone like pandralisk as the same as religious fundamentalists, only at the opposite end of the spectrum. Irrational hatred, unable to carry on civil debate about the other side's beliefs, shunning those that believe towards the opposite end of the spectrum as them.
-Gray17
Pandraslisk was a hatemonger for sure, but calling him irrational is a bit wide of the mark IMHO.
Hatemongers like that, I'd call irrational by definition.
-Gray17
No, that was a pretty good description of Pandralisk. Most people will agree that being a hatemonger automatically makes you irrational.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091
No that's just what your bronze age power hungry religion wants you to think. It's just a grand scheme to control people etc. (I guess I can't do a good pandralisk impression anymore).
I remember whenever there was a story about a religious person or group complaining about a game we could always dread another long pointless rant from pandralisk.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Gah, am I the only one who found him entertaining? He was like Bizarro JT.
JT had like a TV bad guy mentality going for him whereas pendralisk was more of a freaking pest, all he did was rant and moan on and on and on about the bronze age religion that controls us all or whatever.
I don't remember who had this as their signature but it said 'a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject'. That's pandralisk. Jt could at least change the subject once in a while. Sure he posted a bunch of off-topic press releases and all but still.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Oh, yeah. I remember those times. Heck, he would even rant in any article, somehow relating it back to religion, then we'd all tell him to zip and then Dennis banned him so he couldn't spew his hate here anymore. That was a good day when that happened.
Prof. Carl Raschke just took the words right out of my mouth. I'm far from the most religious person but those fanatical militant atheists iritate the hell out of me.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
At least a militant atheist wont go into a holy war, haha. Sorry had to throw that out there.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
LOL, that just reminded me of the two parter episode of Sout Park where they had the three different atheist groups at war with one another.
"It could have been, should have been worse than you would ever know"
Hahaha, Go God Go, Season 10... "Whatever he wants to call himself after the sex change."
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
So someone who mocks religion for going to war with each other is a militant atheist? Funny I don't know how you can deduce this guy's religion right now anyway (unless he said it somewhere I didn't read).
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Hear, Hear
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
"Muslim figurehead"? What a sad state of affairs the world is in...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
If you say the M-name they come blow up your dog.
Joke's on them, I don't have a dog! Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed.
And for good measure: Jehova. As in "that meal was good enough for Jehova!"
---
The Mammon Industry
Where's your goldfish? Not in it's tank?! ONOES They struck!
Truthfully, when it comes to bashing Muslims, JT takes both cake and presents. You should see what he said about Mohammed as quoted in his Wikipedia article. It was comments like those that once gave me the desire to trade him to Al Qaeda in exchange for them getting off our backs.
(Thanks to Dennis holding the BanHammer over my head, I was able to abandon the desire. Thanks, Dennis!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
I kept two goldfish in a tank once.
It was surprising enough when they got the treads rolling, but I had no idea they could fire the gun too.
---
The Mammon Industry
*rimshot* He'll be here all week. Remember to to tip your waitress.
AH HA! That explains why my Iguana smelled of diesel fuel and cordite, he must have been running the cannon!
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
They get up in arms when you draw a picture of him, its only a matter of time before some super-conservative members of Islam freak out about people saying his name.
Yeah don't say Bloody Muhammad 5 times into a mirror or he'll show up and suicide bomb you.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Nice. Have a cookie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
Nice but I prefer THIS
I prefer bible man, haha
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
naah, too much violence in it for me and there is a bad ending with the main character that dies at the end - much better to play VGs...
If he doesn't intend the game to be offensive, then why does he refer to one of the characters as "a Muslim figurehead?" He must have chosen to be a little bit sensitive, or else he'd have just named the character Mohammed. (It could still be sensitive and parodic in that context: just make the character model a big ol' question mark.)
He also snubs Australia during a period when it's more important than ever to get the land down under involved in the question of off-kilter gaming, given that they're trying to get an 18+ certificate added to their rating system.
In short, I am thoroughly offended on behalf of polytheists everywhere. (At least, I'm 90% sure I represent the entirety of the multi-god faction here at GP. I'm not above evangelizing, though! Join me if you're into a spirituality that devotes equal time to Amaterasu and Roberto Luongo.)
---
The Mammon Industry
Because (to the best of my knowledge) actual physical depictions of Mohammad are a big no-no in the Islamic faith. Remember the hullabaloo about the Dutch(?) cartoonist several years back? If he had called the figure Mohammad, that could have invited some serious reprisals in a decidedly non-verbal format.
Which proves that fear still rules. Threaten violence, even ironic violence, and you'll get your way.
Hmm, that discussion on PETA yesterday is starting to make more sense now. Threaten to blow up buildings, and everyone will stop using rats for research. Maybe violence really is just an acceptable "tactic."
*facepalm* Where's Saladin when we need to confirm information concerning Islam?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
Even if the majority of Islamists are peaceful, we've been shown in recent history that there is still a strong group of Islamists that think violence is justified. Even for a simple depiction of a religious leader. And if they threaten to toss rocks and incendiary devices at embassies or newpaper offices, they'll get their way, because we're all chicken-shit and bow to fear.
The maker of the game clearly wasn't concerned about offending the religious. Yet when it came to Islam, you get a "Muslim-figurehead." Probably because the makers don't want a molotov crashing through their window.
"Even if the majority of Islamists are peaceful..."
A-f***ing-men. Saladin is definitely one of those.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
Exactly my point. He's all cool to take the task to other religions (Buddha with a chaingun? C'mon, he'd use a more balanced weapon) but he singles out Islam by making the choice to back off, jut because it has high-profile followers who are more "extremist."
I know some Christians (though admittedly only through other, more christian Christians) who would happily take a hatchet to this guy for his depiction of Jesus. How come their offense is worth less than a Muslim's offense, or more than my offense? I guess I'm not really offended, just surprised that he wouldn't want to take it all the way.
---
The Mammon Industry
I like to think of myself as a Christian (a lax one, maybe - Kevin Smith had the good point of 'people kill for a belief, but an idea...'), and I think Jesus with a cross ready to beat the holy spirit out of somebody is awesome.
Remember the hullabaloo about the Dutch(?) cartoonist several years back?
I do. I also remember, how certain Imams added their own offensive Mohammed depictions, which were a great deal worse than the real cartoons. This was never about religion alone, not by a long shot.
I am as anti-religion as they come, but this board game will do nothing to get its point across. The Faithful certainly won't play it, and most of the audience that will are already in the anti-religion camp.
I'm not even sure the militant Atheists will even bother- they are too busy being offended at Christmas decorations.
Christmas is more commerical than religious, atleast where I live. Sure you can buy those nativity scenes and crap, but I've never seen them set up in public.
I do, every year, but I live out in the rural.
And besides, Christians stole Christmas from other religions, they just kind of took various ideas from others and turned into their own.
Christmas was never really exclusively religious. Most of the imagery is fairly recent (trees, holly, yule logs, etc. are all late additions).
The date is timed to coincide with saturnalia* (which makes sense - best way to get a holiday recoginzed is to have it on a day that people are celebrating *anyway*) and some of the traditions are still similar to that (eating, wearing silly hats, etc.).
Christians decided to attach meaning to that date and celebrate it as the date of Jesus' birth**. That's fine.. it even eclipsed the original holidays to become the main focus of celebration. However if you want to celebrate Cthulu day or Dawkins day or something on that day go ahead.. nobody's stopping you.
* OK a couple of days after
** And even then not exclusively eg. Massachusets banned christmas in 1659 as they saw it as purely pagen.
"** And even then not exclusively eg. Massachusets banned christmas in 1659 as they saw it as purely pagen."
Its stuff like this that keeps religious people in such low regard. And that county in Texas enacted the law to officially make the telephone greeting "heaveno" because they thought "hello" was associated with hell.
Seriously, did the short bus stop infront of the courthouse and let everybody off or what?
I thought it was called the Winter Solstice. December 25th is the Winter Solstice, a big day for the pagans and the followers of Mithra.
You know who Mithra is, right? The son of the Main God of Good in Zoranastranism. Born in a cave, from a virgin, on the Winter Solstice. Birth attended by wise men, he was called a lion, the word, and was known as a teacher and a healer. Dude was even killed on a Friday and ressurected on a Sunday and told his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life. All myths from around 1000 BC to 800 BC and were brought over to Rome by the Persian Army.
The guy seems familar doesn't he?
The Winter Solstice is Yule. As for Mithra yeah does sound somewhat Familiar.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Actually, there's apparently some scholarly debate on the accuracy, and validity of those claims about Mithra.
Regardless, Tony's right that Christmas didn't get it's date set at December 25th until much later. The Gospel's didn't give a time of year, so when it came time to pick a date, they picked one that would keep them competative with other religions and celebrations.
-Gray17
I think all of you are missing the point:
Is the game addictive? Are we going to have to put everyone who plays this through some sort of addiction detox center?
I don't know... it looks kinda addictive. Maybe a little. Better not chance it. If I like it I might get addicted. I better just stay home and self flagellate.
Oh boy, I want to say something so bad... I would have Amen4u on my ass for it so bad though since it is so insensitive to that situation... Well, you can guess from there...
It isn't the parent's fault though, it is the game's. Just keep that in mind. When are we going to blame wars on the Bible then?
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Mmm... personally? I'm religious (solitary eclectic Pagan), and I'm fascinated with it.
Why do I like the idea? Religion shouldn't always be taken so dreadfully seriously. If your religion doesn't allow you to occasionally laugh about it, and some of the silly people/things in it, then you oughta consider whether it doesn't have a serious case of adultitis. I don't mean you should be laughing in church randomly, but I *do* mean that people shouldn't get all up in arms when somebody makes a joke about their faith, at least not when it's not mean-spirited.
Any game that features a chaingun wielding Buddha can't be all *that* mean-spirited.
Politics, Religion, and Particle Physics http://dttaboos.wordpress.com
Just dont include anything about Jesus sucking pole, and I think everyone can joke around and enjoy it unless they have a cross stuck up their butt. If God doesn't have a sense of humor, then there are a lot of things that happen in this world that he doesn't really control at all.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
If He didnt have a sense of humor, how do you explain the platypus? Or sex? Giraffes? Jack Thompson? Seriously, the Big Man knows his funnies.
I think leading people to believe that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time is humor enough for me. I can just see a human riding on the back of one, more importantly, Jesus...
Hi-ho-dino, AWAY!!!
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Are you kidding? Dinosaurs are obviously the biggest joke of all. They never existed; God just shoved a bunch of bones in the ground and thought, "Ha, this'll screw with 'em!" Of course, he probably said it in Hebrew...
I wish the Vagisoruas Rex still existed... Best sex ever... haha.
That would make an evil God though...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
By the same logic I could argue that "God" is a cruel, cruel diety. How else do you explain the platypus? me not getting sex? Giraffes? Jack Thompson?
Well, maybe he doesn't want you to pass your genes down another generation, haha. I can't justly explain JT though... I think Satan created him, or FSM did to piss off God.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
B-b-but! Only militant religion-hating hip popular atheists can approach religion irreverently! Some professor said so!
But seriously, I totally agree with you. I grew up with a Catholic background, and Roman Catholicism is a very defined, fallible organization with a pretty inflexible doctrine. It makes for much hilarity (in that "if you don't laugh, you have to cry" sort of way).
I can honestly say I really want this game :D. I know what is going on my christmas list.
The creator says it's not about religion? The name of it says otherwise. I have an idea. Let's come up with a game in which the goal is to kill him. I'm sure he'll find it amusing. Oh, wait, I made that point once, which nobody here got. Jack Thompson
yeah, because you know someone offered to donate money to charity (Something you never did), and not to mention that you are a raving psychotic still.
That and it sounds like your bitter that you came up with the idea to make a game that involves killing, and then other people made the game, and then donated money to charity in your name.
The only point you've made here is how much you won't listen to reason.
Actually, the FAQ says that there's a blank playing piece included for you to put on a picture of your favourite unrepresented deity or even yourself, so you could indeed tape a thumbnail pic of Mr. Radford to it and then bring your creator-destroying dreams to life. Heck, c'mon up to Canada and we'll give it a whirl.
---
The Mammon Industry
We got it, but the underlying point was pretty stupid, John.
He didn't say it wasn't about religion. He said it wasn't anti-religion, it was anti-zealot.
To put it more simply, it's anti-people like you that can't laugh about anything religious.
-Gray17
Jack, shut up. I'm surprised you haven't gotten the BanHammer yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collin Griffin, A.K.A. Shadow Darkman, Sane Human Church-Goer, And Jack's Not.
Will you be donating another $10,000 to charity? Oh wait, you lied the first time. How Christian of you.
Well, by definition omnipotent tends to mean you can't kill it. While I would find it amusing to have a kill-god game.
I think the idea of a game where the point would be to kill me would be VERY amusing. I'd play it. The end boss (myself) would be pretty tough!
You fail.
Jack needs attention. Go back to your god-forgotten conservative blog.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
You're only bitter because unlike the game you proposed you can't demand royalties from this one.
ANd the only reason you proposed that game was because you believe gamers will imitate anything, meaning soemoen would do your work for you of whiping the industry out.
ANd giving the imagery you had in mind for the game, you're a sick man.
"The creator says it's not about religion?"
Uh, no. No he doesn't. Can't you read?
"I have an idea. Let's come up with a game in which the goal is to kill him. I'm sure he'll find it amusing."
That's a great idea! You could even offer to donate money to his favorite charity if anyone makes such a game!
Andrew Eisen
Mr. Thompson, please learn to read the english language. He said that it wasn't about ANTI-RELIGION, not that it wasn't about religion at all.
Do we need to send you back to elementary school to learn basic reading?
The creator doesn't say it's not about religion.
Read the article before replying, idiot.
No, you didn't, you fucking asshole. There was no point to be made; you presented a clear challenge with a clear reward. When several people came forward with different solutions to your challenge, you pussied out and said that it was "satire". This man created a board game for two sole purposes: to mock religious militants and their actions, and for others to have fun. The game he created was satire.
The differences between you and him? His game was actual satire while you just fucking pussied out. And when you did pussy out, Gabe and Tycho of Penny Arcade, out of the goodness of their hearts, donated their own money (out of their own pockets) to the ESA Foundation in your name. And when you got wind of this, what did you do, Mr. John Bruce Thompson? You tried to accuse them of racketeering and have them arrested, which failed.
So no, Mr. John Bruce Thompson; let's not come up with a game that kills someone like this game creator. If all that's gonna happen is you trying to sue or defame someone, then we should just cut out the middleman now and simply call you a colossal asshole and move on.
You are a despicable man, void of compassion and understanding. Take the time freed up by your disbarment to reflect upon your life: maybe you'll discover that your previous actions were deplorable and that you should strive to become a better person like either of the three men I mentioned...
...Yeah, right. When that happens, the entire universe will change its color scheme to photonegative and all the water in the seas will turn into orange-flavored gelatin with little chunks of fruit.
Long rant made short: piss off, you stinkin' wanker.
Game on, brothers and sisters.
LOL at rant
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
Perhaps I should make a game where the object is to kill Tack Jhompson. I'll put a legal disclaimer that any resemblence between characters in the game and real people is purely coincidental. Title it "Charity's Revenge", where you're a charity worker who was pledged $10,000 from Tack when some nebulous goal is met, but then Tack doesn't pay out. This causes your character to snap and "go postal". Base the gameplay off the Hitman series.
I'd play it.
(Please note that this is not a threat to anyone real or fictional, living or dead. It is merely a modest proposal)
Jack you are well and truly a psycopath
United we Stand, Divided we fall.
To the other readers, this is a plea. Don't feed the troll! /\
You're tryin' to hold back the walls of Jericho against Joshua, man. ;(
---
The Mammon Industry
Topical humor ftw.
Seconded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
*Puts the trumpet up* Awww I wanted to see the wall fall.
BTW Thirded. JT showing up makes it happy hour!
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
"JT showing up makes it happy hour!"
Ya damn right!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
Troll, what troll, I see no troll? Oh wait, I ignore people with mental problems.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
We're not feeding the troll; we're bitchslapping it and telling it to STFU with its acidic speech.
---
XBOX LIVE GamerTag: Harry Miste | Steam ID: Harry Miste | PSN ID: HMiste | EYE. HAVE. YOU.
I wonder if there will be a blank piece representing atheism or an agnostic view.
That would be priceless. I'd buy the game just for that piece.
If I somehow get this game, I will take an old checker peice to act as such if not.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I think someone said there was a "Blank" piece you can use to represent a religion/belief/diety not included in the set. Good idea when you think how many paths of Paganism there are.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
You can use a sharpie on wooden checker peices. Then you can add wicka or whatever it is called...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
.........It's Wicca. And the Wiccans are not the only form of "Paganism" There are for example the Reformed Druids, also some pagans have altars to gods or goddesses from Greek, or Egyptian pantheons. Hence the Blank piece, most likely an androgynonus figuine with a blank face.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
True, Wicca is not the only form, it's one of the best known. A close friend of mine is one, and there's no religious bashing going on BECAUSE we're friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
FFS, let them eat cake.
You need to sympathize with the athiests though, have you ever tried to debate a blindly religious person before?
Athiest:
"According to what we have seen in the Universe, there may be a chance there was never a beginning and that the Universe is perpetual in nature."
Christian:
"Bible says different so you're wrong."
Athiest:
"But the astrophysicists have seen the Universe accelerating in every direction, suggesting that..."
Christian:
"God did it, all praise Jesus."
Athiest:
"... put down the fucking bible and think for yourself."
Christian:
"HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED"
Athiest:
"God damn it..."
That is exactly how most my debates go with this one guy, but he says that since he got the Holy Ghost, that he knows the Bible is right, and so are his beliefs no matter what I say. He tries to debate with logic for a short while, but then when he has no more excuses, he always falls to that.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
*facepalm* People like your one guy and Derovius' "Christian" need to be sat down and slapped. Those who think they have to force their religion on others must also pay this penalty, just like people like JT who believe that what they say is right simply because it was them that said it.
Now I know that was uncalled for, but the thing is, it's true, and not because I said it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
The guy is a womanizer and egotistical as all hell, but I wouldnt physically harm him over it all. Beyond that he is a good guy. I start the debate over half of the time, but also state that if you dont want to talk about it feel free to let me know, I am fine with backing down, I just enjoy debating, especially when at work. It keeps my brain from freezing over. I just enjoy going through the logic of it all.
I don't have friends that know enough about evolution and other scientific things to be able to get into conversations about that stuff. (oh how I love string theory, and parallel universes...) So I am stuck debating the never ending debate. I enjoy the debates about game addition with people like Amen too, problem is people talk about psychology without thinking it all the way through or with any education on the subject... I will admit that I am wrong when I am, but ignorance is just insane... It must be blissful to be so ignorant to never question anything in life.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Parallel Worlds! (Watch the videos depicting "Zomodok" (I think that's how it's spelled) playing LoZ:PW for the joke.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
I say explain Hawaiian islands, the fact that we can see other Universes (far beyond even 1 million light years away), that no none religious person supports a 6000 year old Earth while religious people debate between each other about that, the fact that there are footprints on many layers of the grand canyon, since he says that Noah's flood caused it, how Egypt didnt record Noah's flood in their history at all, and even build pyramids in that time (going off of the belief that Noah's flood covered the whole Earth), Chinese history dating back to long before 4000 BC in well recorded history and calenders, maybe even back to 6800 BC, and much much more.
He can explain some things within the reason of logic, but fails to come even near the rest of it. Dinosaurs are another story as well. If the Earth is even 10,000 years old, I don't believe that the size of Earth can accommodate for all of the life for all of the fossils we have found.
Then the homosexuality debate he agreed that I was right that the Bible was mistranslated, but still sticks with the belief that homosexuality is wrong, even though there is no reputable proof in his Bible about it being by the word of God.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Well, having had a little experience on this topic, most religious folks will tell you that when God created the universe, he created it with light already on the way from distant stars. I've yet to see a rebuttal for the Chinese historical record, however - I like that one, BTW.
Then he took into consideration the gravitational affect that would be played on the light on the way to Earth to the very finest detail. Which I could understand why he did that, but there are other things that make it seem like the world isn't as young as many religious people want to proclaim that do not have that kind of barring of the understanding of the world or universe that make me think that he was trying to make people believe that the world is not that young if it even is.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Dude, English is a terrible language without breaks; periods are your friend :(
Ops, and commas... Thoughts come out directly sometimes...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
"the fact that we can see other Universes (far beyond even 1 million light years away)"
You sound like you mean galaxies there, not universes.
-Gray17
Haha, yeah, I did. That is why I get for thinking about string theory and parallel universes while posting...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
...the fact that we can see other Universes...
There is only one universe, as it is literally defined as everthing that physically exists.
I believe you meant galaxies
[/nitpick]
EDIT: Wow! Nitpick ninja'd...
haha, you can mathmatically calculate other universes given string theory.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Fair enough.
Things like that sometimes make me wish I had majored in some advanced theoretical science. I'd love to get to the point where I could math up a new dimension...
Too bad imaginary numbers killed that for me.
But holy crapola, have you seen that Hubble picture of like the hojillion galaxies out there?
And think, with all of those galaxies in that tiny area of the sky, how many solar systems are in each galaxy...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
heh, yeah there's a buttload of 'em. And people say there's no proof of extraterrestrial life. What do you think the odds are of Earth being the only planet with living beings on it?
That was basicly my argument about ET's: "If you look at it in a completely logical manner, it is mathamaticly (sp) impossible that we are the only sentience in the universe, not even taking into account life-forms all the way down to single-cell organisms, or lifeforms that live in enviroments that are dangerous to Terran carbon-based life. If your religious, it is the height of arrogance to believe we are the only world he created that has life in some form."
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Absolutely agreed... Anyone that can look at that picture, stop and think for even a second, and tell me there is no chance in hell of there being life else where... yeah... even intellegent life.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Or that all that sparkly stuff is just glitter on Gods ass.
*facepalm*
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
I always wondered, considering the descrpitions of heaven if the angels might not be a little Fabulous.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
"Mathmatically impossible" is a very strong term, and I wouldn't use it here. "Extremely improbable" - yes. "Impossible" - no, not really.
didn't string theory merge with super gravity in membrane theory? all these theories, too many to keep up with.
------------------------------------
I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.
M-Brane theory, I was calling it membrane theory for the past couple months until I was watching TV the other night with captions on so I wouldnt wake up my girlfriend. I was like what? Alright, I guess it is M-Brane...
But yes, I believe it did.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Reminds me of a pysics question:
1. Please define the universe and give two examples.
A. Infinity
B. Doughnut
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Mathematically, infinite space is represented as a torus. So a "donut" (i.e. torus) is actually infinity.
Therefore, 1/2 for you sir.
Sounds like high school all over again to me... partial credit for partly right answers
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
at least the question isn't an all-or-nothing type
岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」
Or the kind where you lose marks for the wrong answer. Damn nazi profs.
Athiest:
"God damn it..."
At which point the Christian starts complaining about the Atheist taking the Lord's name in vain; rather than bring up the logical inconsistancy of the Atheist calling upon God to condemn/curse something.
-Gray17
Heh, I was going to say something about that in the original post, but I thought it was a good topic for future discussion. Perhaps this is why we find it so hard to get rid of religion, its embedded itself into the way we communicate with each other.
"I'm in heaven"
"God damn it"
"Sweet Jesus"
"Oh hell"
Yeah, once something has worked it's way into the language, it gets hard to fully get rid of the concept. Particularly when it gets tied up in insults. Take bastard for example. Nowadays no one really cares about the marital status of someone's part. However, since it's a common insult, that definition will be hanging around forever, even as other definitions get added to match the use of the word.
Similarly even if you don't believe hell exists, telling someone "go to some place where you will suffer eternally" just doesn't have quite the same ring as "go to hell".
-Gray17
I find "Go to Tarturus" gets intresting reactions.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
Reminds me of all the idiots who say evolution is from the devil.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Jack, if you're going to start that again, you could AT LEAST provide the name of a charity for Penny Arcade to donate the money to. I mean seriously, welching on a deal AND not providing a place for well-meaning people to cover your crass mistake? That's SO 2005.
To assist in the conversation, there are a few types of Atheists - mostly, Gnostic and Agnostic.
A Gnostic Atheist says there is certainly no god or gods. Little different from a Gnostic Theist, who says there is certainly a god or gods.
An Agnostic Atheist says there is no evidence of god or gods, and therefore no reason to give the idea credibility.
An Agnostic Theist says there is no evidence to rule out god or gods, and therefore assumes their existance.
Millitant Atheists mostly fall into the Gnostic Atheist catagory. Agnostic Atheists (like myself) are mostly skeptics. Agnostic Theists are also usually skeptical, and are usually not clasically religious. Gnostic Theists are your classic religious people.
A little terminology goes a long way towards clarifying the conversation.
There is also the true Agnostic that says there is no evidence that there is or is not a God or God(s), therefore neither side has definitive proof, and continues to look at both sides of things with equal value. Which is why I do for the most part, but I side with no God for the most part in debates because normally people debate the God side with me. I have very little experience debating the God side period.
I have yet to stumble on crediable facts that prove a young Earth, only an old Earth being billions of years old, or solid proof that evolution is not real, especially since on a microbiological level it is fact, and other things.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
That would make you an Agnostic Atheist, methinks. Under the definitions I run with, a True Agnostic just doesn't care. Since you're looking for objective, emperical evidence, and there exists none of that for the supernatural (that I know of), you're not taking anything on Faith. The complete and utter lack of Faith (except, perhaps, faith that the universe is internally consistant) is what defines, in my mind, the Agnostic Atheist.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
Faith is just a synonym for "I don't know".
It also means 'I choose to blindly accept this answer/information for whatever reason'.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Not always. I blindly accept nothing, but I DO accept the possibility that I may be Incorrect (or Correct if you want to get technical) in my choices. It's the people that BELIEVE they are 100% absolutely correct and there is NO possibility they are wrong that scare the bejeebus out of me.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
The folks who deal with 100% absolutes (a.k.a. the Zealots, on either side) scare me, too.
Agnostic is I don't know, or we can never know.
I have no faith but I'd put money down on 'there is no God' if we were to start taking bets right now.
----------------------------------------------------
"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil
Again, I'd say you're an Agnostic Atheist. Like me you're not completely ruling out the possibility, but you're taking nothing on faith.
I'd put my money on 'there is no God', too.
Please note that I DO have plenty of religious friends. We agreed to disagree and we moved on. :)
I like Harry Dresden's view of Agnostic. "I'm Agnostic! Theological Switzerland thats me!"
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
It is weird with me, because I wouldnt say I have faith, yet you can see in some of my posts even I talk as if there is a God, because I do not rule it out by any means, and accept the possibility. Granted I think the Bible is as off as can be in many ways, but the concept of a superior being is not something I can doubt....
Maybe you are right though... I am not taking anything on faith because the term is illogical based on basic logic. It is like the under pants gnome situation. They gather the underpants, ?, profit. The '?' is faith in that formula. It is a jump of logic to reach the destination. On an advance form of logic, it could be qualified as logical for many people buy building a bridge separately from the two sides to meet in the end, making me think there is always at least a small gap, but if you never jump to the other side, you can never build that bridge... So with that logic, I would have to say you are right.
If you take string theory, then we have many unknowns that could explain the situation far better and prove either way, which is why I am still say that there could be a God and there could not be one.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Exactly - you're not completely ruling out the idea, but you've done your homework and can't give credibility to the classical religions. No Faith = Agnostic Atheist. You're skeptical of religion, and demand more than just, "It is written" as evidence.
The classical religions, IMO, don't really explain things all that well, and their holy books have numerous factual and historical errors that come to light when you examine them critically (Check out the Skeptics Annotated Bible on Google if you want a good start). I cannot believe them, or in them.
The words of Epicurus sum up my feelings on classical deities:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
To summarize, I'm open to the notion of a "god-like" being, but I've never seen any evidence to convince, or even point me, in that direction. Further, I've never seen any evidence of the supernatural. All evidence I HAVE seen points to both gods and the supernatural being fantasy. Until such time as evidence to the contrary is produced, I have no logical choice but to keep questioning.
Thanks for the Google search idea.
And very nice last paragraph...
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Oh dear, I just realized... I've just outlined D&D style alignment for real life, regarding religion.
"I'm Chaotic Good!"
"I'm Lawful Neutral!"
"I'm Neutral Stupid!" - "No, you're not."
"And for the last time, there is no 'Chaotic CUTE'!"
You win the Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
Ever played Xenosaga?
Actually no, but I hear good things about it.
Very good game, if you don't mind hour long cutscenes. But all in all the story is top notch and very thought provoking.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
I've played that, and aside from the story depth and cutscene length that could rival the Metal Gear series, I think that it's the only video game I've seen where Jesus is a player character.
Yeah, and the sexy android quoting scripture. What was her security password? "And ye shall be as gods." I think.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
It's interesting how we atheists/theists always seem to have different definitions for ourselves, including me. On the topic of existence of gods, there either are or aren't. There are literally no other choices, so its not a false dichotomy. The way it goes for me, like I mentioned in a post way further up, because neither side can actually show that they are indeed right (in other words, provide proof) the clause "I don't know" has to be part of any position regarding the existence of god, even on the theist side. As such, claiming to be a true agnostic (saying that they have no opinion because they don't know) is impossible because in truth no one actually knows.
Some use that same logic to claim that everyone is agnostic, but since agnosticism is not a valid stance on any subject with an either/or answer, that doesn't work. If you were to draw a line with atheism on one side and theism on the other, agnosticism would be represented by an infintismally small point. Therefore, its impossible to be agnostic. Neither side knows, those that do claim to are what is known as "illogical," "militant," and "fanatic."
I suppose there could be an exception to this, say perhaps someone just literally doesn't give a damn either way (which despite what ppl say I bet that most do in some small way or another.) They still wouldn't be true agnostic though, they just wouldn't be on the graph at all.
As for the actual non-agnostic positions, I classify them into weak, moderate, and strong. Strong are the crazies, moderates are the normals, and weak are the ones that aren't sure but still lean a little to one side.
Yeah, I will not hesitate to admit that there's always the chance that I could be wrong and that there is no God.
I want the solo player video/computer game version!
I haven't had the time yet to examine all the details of the game, but it sounds like the playable characters are the religious icons themselves against each other. Not religious icons attacking worshippers and innocent Humans/mortals?
Nor are the characters major followers taking their religious vengence on other worshippers or innocents.
Jesus with a cross (why do I imagine the cross lighting up and the song from the old animated Transformers The Movie called "The Touch" starting to play?) vs Buddha with a chain gun.
Let's face it, it would be far more violent if witch burnings, crusades, sexual torture to determine "demonic possession", Hunt the Homosexual, Racial genocide, and the inclusion of characters like Eric Rudolph, Fred Phelps, John Bruce "Jack" Thompson, Jim Jones, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, and other "minions" were included and you expanded the rules to include domination, abuse, suicide pacts, and others actions to reduce opposing worshippers and increase your own followers.
Quite frankly, the professor sounds like a very uneducated individual. By that very short statement of his, I'd say he's into revisionist history and misinformation, lies, and deceit as "moral" codes of education. Talk about corruption.
And as to negative stereotypes in the media, there's plenty of that going around. Not just religion. You'll note that every time an Athiest or even an Agnostic is brought up, they are "radical" or "militant", even for suggesting neutral viewpoints. Athiests and Agnostics are basically identified as satan worshippers. Let's also not forget that many acts that outspoken religious folks make tend to BE negative. Anti-homosexual references, advocation of abuse for various reasons, bigotry and hate against a variety of individuals. Usually, when it's positive, only local media carries those stories. That's because only the most sensationalistic of stories make it to the major news media. How many local news stories are there nationwide every day? Now, choose out of ALL those the positive local stories and try to fit them in to a single, national news story. The fact is, there are far fewer negative news stories, and they usually end up the loudest because they are easier to choose from.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
I want that game.
And I know the song you're talking about, "The Touch" - that's a GREAT mental image... except I keep seeing Jeebus "opening" his cross to "light his darkest hour".
And the mental image of Zeus hurling bolts of lightening to kill his opposition's followers is awesome. That'd be a fun strategy game, methinks, but hard to balance.
LOL - "Arise Christimus Prime!"
:: Christimus Prime points his finger at his hated enemy... ::
"This is the end of the road Buddatron!"
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
I actually laughed out loud on that.
I must say, it made me chuckle as well. Probably would have been a full laugh if I hadn't been at work at the time.
-Gray17
Hmm... *writes Mnementh's idea down*
If our game company idea actually gets off the ground, we'll get right to work on that.
I want the solo player video/computer game version!...
You mean Populous?
Actually, Age of Mythology with the expansion packs might be closer.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Hmm... Good call.
I object!
If Jesus has a cross in this game, then it should beWolfwood's cross from Trigun. That could take on Budda's chaingun any day of the week.
All of a sudden I got an incredibly awesome picture in my head. Jesus wielding Wolfwood's cross in one hand while juggling the many pistols concealed in the cross, firing each one as he catches it and tossing it up in time to catch the next one on the way down. That would be undeniably EPIC.
I think the bigger question is: Who still plays board games these days? How big is the market?
I do, occasionally. I think my wife and my brother and I would get a real kick out of it.
See for yourself.
Big enough to make them into computer/video games. Just like card games. Playing cards are still sold. Usually at the checkout counter aisles.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
when i buy this product and bring it over to my friends house... a lot of people will be playing