Heaven in a Browser

An Atlanta-based videogame development company has announced plans to create a virtual online faith-based community.

Universe of Faith (UOF) is being developed by Entertainment Arts Research, Inc. and is billed as the first of its kind, with plans to be a “catalyst of change” for the online Christian community. The $2.5 million project is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2010.

Entertainment Arts Research President Jonathan Eubanks, dubbed the “brainchild” of UOF, added, “My goals for creating Universe of Faith are to bring high production value to faith based media offerings, remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues, use modern technology to innovate on missionary and ministry outreach and create an experience that is engaging and fun.”

Browser-based, UOF promises to be an “intriguing venue for social networking,” with a “diverse and immersive experience for users to create a life beyond the tangible world.”

The project is being developed in conjunction with Legacy Group Global, an advertising agency that specializes in working with non-profits and ministries.

On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

165 comments

  1. Talouin says:

     "So explain to me how the Bible is a book of myths & stories? Oh wait, ummm are you going to tell me too that God is a bad God that kills people & lets the starving kids die every day of every year? Or why does God let wars happen like the one we are in right now?"

    My comments towards this issue would revolve more around the contradictions that lie within the bible.  I would also like to clarify that the bible is actually a collection of books and stories, hence the different book names such as "The Book of Revalations" or "Corynthians" (probably butchered the spelling of that…).  The four books of the New Testament are four books (Matthew/Mark/Luke/John) on the topic of the same story written in slightly different ways.

    "But I don’t believe in myths as in Zeus or Hercules. Why? B/c there is no one that captured what they were doing and wrote it down in a book."

    Just have to correct you here, people did.  Famous examples of such are written by the famous poets Hesiod and Homer. Examples of these works are the Illiad and the Odessey.  For a direct correlation, the manuscript "Theogany" would be the equivalent of the book "Exodus"

    "I have read stories of myths of the Gods & Goddesses. But since I have been reading my Bible since I was a child & could pick up a book, I found out at an early age the Bible is written by diff/ people before Christ & after Christ. So do I believe in it? Yes, b/c that’s my belief."

    I have personally read both the manuscripts of the greek gods and the books of the bible since I was a child and was able to pick up a book however I found out in my teenage years that one should not always blindly believe in what is told to them.

    Just so you do not confuse my intentions, I am not trying to make you lose your belief.  If your belief is healthy for you, brings you happiness and/or joy then keep it!  However with that said, what I would like you to take from this is that not everyone holds to your beliefs and not everyone should be held to your beliefs.  It is also healthy to question your beliefs.  If they hold up, your belief can only be stronger and under Catholic dogma you can repent (reconcile) the sin of questioning your belief and all will be forgiven.  If they do not completely hold up, your understanding of your beliefs will grow as your knowledge on the subject does.

  2. Talouin says:


    "Just realized that one of the posts I commented on is not yours Valdearg. My bad. It was Talouin. That would explain it being a bit more civil."

    For a second there I was wondering where you gathered a hostile nature from my posts.  It sort-of confused me.  

     "First, the seperation of church and state (in the U.S. anyway) was made to ensure freedom of religon. "

    One could make this argument, however the counterpoint is also that it was made to ensure freedom from religion.  However this vein of argument takes us nowhere so we would have to be forced to acknowledge each other’s interpretations as valid and move on.

    "As for our viewpoint being on a false premise, that is your belief."

    It’s actually not a belief, it is an understanding based upon available evidence.  There is a distinct lack of provable evidence available for me to lend credence to the argument for a soul.  I base a lot of what I know on what can be proven via observation.  I don’t necessarily count everything else out however that doesn’t mean that I will accept it without valid evidence.

    "We have gone from hate in the church to debating on abortion. I will not get into that argument or any other moral argument because it would never end until one or both of us got irritated and ended it. The thing about moral arguments is that most of them really can’t be logically reasoned into a conclusion. For example, which is more important: the unborn life or the mother’s choice. Both are important, there is just disagreement over what takes priority. I could counter your rape comment, but, again, the argument would never really reach a sound conclusion. Your offensive nature wouldn’t help either. If you want to debate belief, do it with sharpshooterbabe. I just checked. She has responded to your comment. Just don’t do it with me. Besides, I think there are better atheists I could have that arugment with."

    Firstly, I was simply using abortion as a point of how religion can affect law, even for those that do not share the same beliefs.  Not all religious people are against abortion, not all religious people are for it.  Catholic dogma states you have to be against it in order to be Catholic OR you must repent daily (most devout Catholics would do it weekly I imagine due to real world time constraints) for your sin of believing it is a right.  Loopholes are fun.  As per examples, there are several others I could have used but Valdearg was more vocal regarding them so I decided to go a different route.

    Also, as per atheists, I am closer to agnostic than atheist however I am aware that the two terms are mutually exclusive.  I am agnostic wherein if there is valid evidence for a god that can be observed and/or demonstrated I will accept it after my personal questioning.  I am atheist in the sense that I don’t give religion much of my daily thought as it does not have an impact upon my life in any major way.

    I would love a response from you on my second point.  I am just a touch curious on how someone can hold a viewpoint on contraception that kills many people due to the missions in underdeveloped countries where the education on issues may not be as varied as they are in the Western world.  There is a recorded incident of a sanctioned mission informing all of the villages within Africa under their jurisdiction/domain/dominion (I can’t remember what it’s called) that condoms actually INCREASE the chance of contracting AIDS.  It is my personal assertion based upon available empirical evidence that the viewpoint on contraception held by the Catholic church kills many people every year and causes many unwanted pregnancies every year.

  3. gellymatos says:

    Now hold on. Don’t generalize atheists like he is doing to christians. I know plenty of reasonable atheists. Many friends I currently have and have had are atheists. I often have discussions with them and they are perfectly understanding. They don’t whine and complain. They give a point, I give them my reasoning, and vise versa. Often, we do come to an agreement in our talks. Don’t stereotype or generalize any group.

  4. sharpshooterbabe says:

    You know you are right gellymatos. I have already specified my beliefs & yet he still wants a reason & logic from me, from you, from Ratros & others. But he isn’t acknowledging our beliefs, just arguing w/us. I don’t like to even argue w/atheists b/c their all not fun to talk to in a good way & they just whine & complain like Valdearg is. I stated my opinions on here & my beliefs like everyone else did. So I am done talking about it too. He can’t acknoweldge that other people have opinions on here.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  5. gellymatos says:

    Valdearg, I’m done. This is my last post on the subject. You’ve been nothing but insulting and offensive in this whole debate. How can you accuse anyone of hate and bigotry and then turn around and then insult someone of a different belief than you (albeit, someone who may have no idea what she’s talking about). If you weren’t calling me ignorant, it was a comment such as me being "dense".Then there is your lastest post. Sharpshooterbabe was wrong about you being a hypocrite and on the whole catholic politicians thing. Your response to her mistakes: being totally uncivil. In response to her , you called her uneducated. Her second, you said this: "Again, I forgive you for that idiocy. You seem to have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener, so I don’t expect you to properly understand any of the points I am trying to make." And you continue the insults on the shoutbox. And actually, she is right on one account. You are grouping all catholic leaders into a group. You still haven’t specified the leaders. You say to beware of leaders straying me and others away from our doctrine. Which ones? Name them. I really would like to know. And you just helped identify my earlier point. Those who stray from doctrine do not define the belief as a whole.

    "Okay.. And I don’t. Does that mean it’s okay for you to enact a law against it, despite the fact that I don’t believe the same as you do? How far would you go? Would you, if you adhered strictly to the Catholic doctorine, put us in Jail? Would we be executed? Would we be castrated? There are Catholic leaders who believe we should be punished in those ways for our lifestyles, and YOU follow those leaders. I keep telling you, PAY ATTENTION to what they are saying, teaching, and doing. You’d be surprised at how far your leaders stray from the doctorine, in order to teach thier hate and bigotry to the blind, ignorant masses."

    This paragraph irritated me a lot. First off, how can you say we are making a law, when your last point was the other way around. The law to legalize gay marriage is an example of putting something into law that we don’t see as right. I have no problem with it. Like I have already said again and again, that is what creating laws is all about(moral ones anyway). Everyone wants their belief turned to law. And what’s this rant on what we would do to insure catholic rules are in law are ridiculus.Who said we would even put all of our doctrine into law, let alone enforce them with such cruelty. The reason I gave our reasoning to our beliefs that we have tried to put into law was to get you to see our point of view. I don’t care whether you agree with the reasoning or not. Always try to understand the reasoning of a person who has a different belief than your own. I don’t see those who are pro-choice as those who support murder. I understand that, to you, the body of a mother should take priority from the fetus. I don’t think you have taken the time to look at our point of view. Notice how the only laws we really try to pass are on abortion and contraceptives. That is because we see the fetus as a person. Just try to undertand. I don’t care if you agree or not. We haven’t been getting our doctrine force to law. No law has been passed forcing no meat and forced Fasting on Fridays during lent. No law has been lobbied to force people to have Advent Wreaths.

    You said that we are trying to use legislature against homosexuals. Its actually mostly the other way around. Homosexuals are trying to make laws to allow it.

    "This sort of thing is the exact reason for the separation of religion and state.  Your viewpoint is based upon a false premise (or at least an unprovable premise).  You believe that the soul is bestowed upon conception.  It’s really hard to argue with an assertion based within mysticism without falling into pleas to emotion such as cases where a woman is raped and conception occurs.  I am saddened that you cannot see the devastation an unwanted child could bring to an individual and later in life to the child when they discover that they were unwanted."

    First, the seperation of church and state (in the U.S. anyway) was made to ensure freedom of religon. As for our viewpoint being on a false premise, that is your belief. We have gone from hate in the church to debating on abortion. I will not get into that argument or any other moral argument because it would never end until one or both of us got irritated and ended it. The thing about moral arguments is that most of them really can’t be logically reasoned into a conclusion. For example, which is more important: the unborn life or the mother’s choice. Both are important, there is just disagreement over what takes priority. I could counter your rape comment, but, again, the argument would never really reach a sound conclusion. Your offensive nature wouldn’t help either. If you want to debate belief, do it with sharpshooterbabe. I just checked. She has responded to your comment. Just don’t do it with me. Besides, I think there are better atheists I could have that arugment with.

    You still haven’t shown hatred or bigotry in the church by the way. Merriam-Webster describes hatred as an "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury" and as an "extreme dislke or antipathy. This sounds like your feeling about the catholic church, judging by your comments. It describes bigotry as "the state of mind of a bigot" or "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot", with a bigot being described as "a person who obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinion and prejudices". Again, this descibes you based off of your past posts. And you still haven’t show the church as either. I stand by what I said earlier: the catholic church considers hate the worst of any sins, due to what hate is and because it only leads to other sins.

    Just realized that one of the posts I commented on is not yours Valdearg. My bad. It was Talouin. That would explain it being a bit more civil.

  6. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Kindergardner?!?!? Lol Well I love English class & I get mostly A’s in college in English class so you are from what you think of me & how I read sentences & paragraphs. LMAO!

    When I was reading in your earlier posts you sounded like you were saying the politicians are Catholics. & since you keep talking about Catholics & you said you went to a Catholic church, didn’t like it & dropped it. & now it seems to you, everyoen is a Catholic including politicians. That’s what it sounded like. & oh btw I like to keep myself simple in what I say too. πŸ™‚

    It’s a book of myths, much like the old stories about Zeus and Hercules, or a collection of Native American myths about how the world is on the back of a giant turtle. I don’t know why you think I’m a hypocrite for learning about things before I bash them.

    So explain to me how the Bible is a book of myths & stories? Oh wait, ummm are you going to tell me too that God is a bad God that kills people & lets the starving kids die every day of every year? Or why does God let wars happen like the one we are in right now? B/c if you are going to ask me that, then you would on the borderline if not an aetheist. πŸ™‚ But I don’t believe in myths as in Zeus or Hercules. Why? B/c there is no one that captured what they were doing and wrote it down in a book. I have read stories of myths of the Gods & Goddesses. But since I have been reading my Bible since I was a child & could pick up a book, I found out at an early age the Bible is written by diff/ people before Christ & after Christ. So do I believe in it? Yes, b/c that’s my belief.

    & the reason why I think you are a hypocrite is b/c you do know about some of the stories of what you have said on here trying to make a point to the believers of people’s religions on here. & then you go & hate on the people that believe in the bible & their religion & that know the stories. So that’s why I think you are a hypocrite. Don’t like it? Oh well…..

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  7. Valdearg says:

    "So you are grouping catholic leaders into one group? Wow!!!! you know everyone doesn’t think like everyone & everyone has their own minds……."

    That wasn’t even close to the point I was making.. Thats okay, though. It’s clear you lack an education.

    "The thing that amazes me Valdearg is that in earlier posts you hate against the religions but yet you know some of the bible? That makes you a hypocrite."

    Just because I know the stories of the bible doesn’t make me a believer. It’s a book of myths, much like the old stories about Zeus and Hercules, or a collection of Native American myths about how the world is on the back of a giant turtle. I don’t know why you think I’m a hypocrite for learning about things before I bash them.

    "& how do you know that most politicians are catholics? Really? Are you assuming again. LOL!"

    LMAO.. I never said that. What I DID say is that there are more groups of Catholics lobbying to get legislators to pass laws forcing thier beliefs on others than there are athiests trying to force Christians to violate thier beliefs.

    Again, I forgive you for that idiocy. You seem to have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener, so I don’t expect you to properly understand any of the points I am trying to make.

  8. sharpshooterbabe says:

    It’s ok…..don’t be depressed you sound like a good person on here defending your beliefs. Like I am & others on here too. Just be happy that no one has to change your beliefs for you, only you can make that decision. πŸ™‚

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  9. sharpshooterbabe says:

    So you are grouping catholic leaders into one group? Wow!!!! you know everyone doesn’t think like everyone & everyone has their own minds…….

    The thing that amazes me Valdearg is that in earlier posts you hate against the religions but yet you know some of the bible? That makes you a hypocrite.

    & how do you know that most politicians are catholics? Really? Are you assuming again. LOL!

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  10. Talouin says:

    "Second, for those other three, you need to understand the catholic point of view on them. Catholics believe that all human life is sacred. To put it simply, we oppose ending or preventing life. To us, abortion and contraceptives end or prevent life. To us, to abort a fetus is to kill. For us and others, abortion and contraceptives are restricting the human right to live (it is also due to this reasoning that we don’t believe in the death penalty nor torture)."

    This sort of thing is the exact reason for the separation of religion and state.  Your viewpoint is based upon a false premise (or at least an unprovable premise).  You believe that the soul is bestowed upon conception.  It’s really hard to argue with an assertion based within mysticism without falling into pleas to emotion such as cases where a woman is raped and conception occurs.  I am saddened that you cannot see the devastation an unwanted child could bring to an individual and later in life to the child when they discover that they were unwanted.

    I could ask you to see the standpoint of those without your view however I don’t believe that would have any effect upon your viewpoint.  I instead ask you the following questions:

    1) Do you believe that a human being should have control over their own body?

    2) Do you believe that a human being should have the right to prevent their own death or at least lower the possibility of their own death?

    Now onto your position on contraceptives.  Are you aware that the Catholic church’s position on contraceptives KILLS many, many people every year?  The spread of STI’s like HIV would be much lessened were it not for anti-contraceptive campaigns initiated by the Catholic church.

    I believe that it would benefit you to watch the Intelligence Squared debate between Archbishop John Onaiyekan, Ann Widdecombe (MP British Parliament), Christopher Hitchens, and Steven Fry.  This debate’s topic is the question: "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?"  It is a great debate to listen to.

     

  11. Valdearg says:

    " I have already explained homosexuality. We see it as amoral. That is our belief."

    Okay.. And I don’t. Does that mean it’s okay for you to enact a law against it, despite the fact that I don’t believe the same as you do? How far would you go? Would you, if you adhered strictly to the Catholic doctorine, put us in Jail? Would we be executed? Would we be castrated? There are Catholic leaders who believe we should be punished in those ways for our lifestyles, and YOU follow those leaders. I keep telling you, PAY ATTENTION to what they are saying, teaching, and doing. You’d be surprised at how far your leaders stray from the doctorine, in order to teach thier hate and bigotry to the blind, ignorant masses.

    "You compare our actions to the hypothetical situation of Muslims and Jews forcing their diets. We aren’t trying to force all of our beliefs onto others."

    I think my brain might have exploded, here.. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU  ARE DOING WHEN YOU TRY TO LEGISLATE YOUR BELIEFS AGAINST US. You don’t believe it should be legal to live as a homosexual. I do. You try to legislate against homosexuals living happy lives and raising children. THAT’S FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON US! It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

    Ugh.. It’s this exact blind, unquestioning, and, frankly willfully ignorant behavior that makes people like you so insufferable. Try opening your frigging eyes and looking at some of the things your church leaders are doing. HOW can you NOT see that it’s hateful, and it is causing harm to people on a massive scale?!?

    You wonder how I can have so much animosity towards your religion… Ask yourself this, how would YOU feel if people were trying to make laws that restricted your right to enjoy your life with the person YOU loved. What if I was trying, and sometimes succeeding, in getting laws passed that made it illegal for YOU to raise children because you are Catholic? How would you react? I bet you’d be angry, too.

     

     

     

  12. gellymatos says:

    I think you ignored the first two sentences of my last post. I said it was wrong to threaten to stop giving charity and the church recanted their threat in this realization. You also took the third sentence out of content. I said the church was worried that it might(or may) have to give gay marriages. I never said it was true nor that I thought so. The problem the law had that, again, might, have caused this issue was certain language in the law about anti-descrimination possibly may have been used in to force it. I read the law myself, and I don’t think it is possible.

    Now as for me being dense. Really? Calling me dense. Is that really called for? I repeat: the act of not giving charity was an act out of fear of the new law and this threat was recanted when it was realized that the act was wrong. It was not hate of gays.

    As for whether it matters if it is it is local or not, it does. A belief or group as a whole is not represented by a minority who go against said groups principles. Allow me to use a gamer example similar to one that Ratros used earlier. If a gamer, or better yet, a group of gamers within the gaming community, decide to use violence to make sure games aren’t baned, should other gamers, who also believe that games shouldn’t be banned but don’t believe those tactics, be considered as bad as the ones that commited the violence. Are all gamers on a GLOBAL scale as bad. How about NATIONAL? So, no. A minority in a group cannot define the rest of it.

    Then there is the laws issue. First, I poked around, and the only formidable advocate of an adultery law I could really find was a certain John Ashcroft, who is a member of the Assemblies of God, not catholicism. Second, for those other three, you need to understand the catholic point of view on them. Catholics believe that all human life is sacred. To put it simply, we oppose ending or preventing life. To us, abortion and contraceptives end or prevent life. To us, to abort a fetus is to kill. For us and others, abortion and contraceptives are restricting the human right to live (it is also due to this reasoning that we don’t believe in the death penalty nor torture). I have already explained homosexuality. We see it as amoral. That is our belief. You compare our actions to the hypothetical situation of Muslims and Jews forcing their diets. We aren’t trying to force all of our beliefs onto others. We fight for pro-life because we see abortion as killing. Everyone has beliefs that they feel should be put into law if it isn’t already do to some moral reasoning. Do you understand? The reasoning for that is entirely different then our reasoning for what we have lobbied for. We don’t just blindly make rules. We do have some sort of reasoning behind it, just as everyone else has for theirs. As for restricting human rights, that in itself is contraversial since even many rights, such as the right of life, is debated. To those who are pro-life, those who are pro-choice are restricting human life. You simply gave what you think to be restricting human rights.

    Now what line do you suppose we draw, hmm? One that only your beliefs can be lobbied? Where only certain people can effect certain laws?

    As for my last question of my last post, I was not trying to hold you to a standard. I asked for two reasons. One, I noticed we may have digressed a bit from the original argument. Two, The comments I mentioned were on beliefs and practices of mine that you attacked. I was wondering why you seemed to have forgotten about them. In retrospect, it really was a question that I didn’t need to ask.

  13. Valdearg says:

    "but that the law may force the church to perform gay marriages when we don’t believe in it."

    WRONG, yet again. The law would NOT force the church to perform gay marriages. Perhaps you should do some more research? In fact, the law was written SPECIFICALLY to allow churchs to choose NOT to perform a gay marriage if it didn’t want to. If THIS is the kind of misinformation they are feeding you, it’s no wonder you’ve got NO clue what, exactly, your church does.

    "There is no hate involved. Thanks for jumping the gun there, Vald.  Also, this was a local act. The Vatican did not order the D.C. diocese to do anything. I am still not seeing bigotry or hate."

    How dense are you? The very fact that they were willing to throw thier charity work overboard because the DC Council was going to pass a law that prevented EMPLOYERS from discriminating against gays in the workplace, is hatred. They hated gays enough to threaten to stop helping others! That is a PERFECT example of bigotry and hate. It doesn’t need to be violent or angry to be hate. The very act of discriminating against gays is a hateful act.

    Also, it doesn’t matter if the act was local, national, or global. THOSE people are practicing a faith IDENTICAL to yours. THEY are who YOU are. THOSE leaders are representing what YOU believe. YOU, by the very fact that you practise the same religion, and continue to support this behavior day in and day out, are just as responsible for the message they are spreading as the people who are actually spreading it.

    "What laws do catholics try to "force" that restrict other groups"

    This phenomenon is most prevalent in laws of a sexual nature. Abortion, Laws against Homosexuality, laws against Adultery (more prevalent in the past, but there are those who still lobby for it)..

    Separation of church and state is there for a reason. What if Muslims tried to get a law banning the consumption or pork, for the good of society? Or if a jewish lobby group tried to ban the manufacture of non-kosher food, because they believed it was wrong?

    That’s exactly what many christian groups are doing, except to a more profound level. Christian groups are trying to RESTRICT HUMAN RIGHTS in order to force thier dogmas on those who don’t believe.

    There is a line that needs to be drawn when it comes to lobbying for laws to be passed. We are NOT a Theocracy.

    "By the way, you haven’t countered some of my earlier comments (catholic advise, heaven)"

    Probably because I don’t exactly feel the need to respond to every point you make on every little thing? You’ve not responded to every single point I’ve made, either, so it would be hypocritical for you to try to hold me to that standard.

     

  14. gellymatos says:

    The actions that the church in D.C. planned to do were wrong and were recanted. The church is still going throug talks on the subject. The problem the church has with the law is not only that it will allow gay marrige, but that the law may force the church to perform gay marriages when we don’t believe in it. That is why the church threatened the way it did. Again, the church later recanted. There is no hate involved. Thanks for jumping the gun there, Vald.  Also, this was a local act. The Vatican did not order the D.C. diocese to do anything. I am still not seeing bigotry or hate.

    As for the laws, I still don’t think you get it. Multiple groups and factions will try make laws based on their belief. That is politics. Also, your being vague again with the word "many". What laws are you talking about? What laws do catholics try to "force" that restrict other groups. I repeat, politics when it comes to laws is many groups trying to get their beliefs onto law.

    By the way, you haven’t countered some of my earlier comments (catholic advise, heaven)

  15. Valdearg says:

    You said you are a Catholic, right?

    "My church does not support hatred and bigotry"

    This is a LIE. Plain and simple. If you are a Catholic, you support hatred and bigotry, due to your support of Catholic leaders around the country.

    When Catholic Leaders threatened to stop providing charity work in Washington D.C. if they passed an anti-discrimination law, which would take away the church’s "right" to be discriminatory and hateful towards gays, and they literally gave thier hatred of gays the priority over the love of helping the poor, were you for or against it?

    If you were for it, you are just as hateful and guilty as they are, and will be ridiculed. If you were "against" it, but are still a practicing Catholic, by virtue of your continuing to support these leaders, you are also just as hateful and guilty as they are, and will be ridiculed. The only way to avoid being responsible for those harm that will befall those people that the Catholic church is threatening to abandon, because thier hatred of gays is so strong, is to LEAVE IT. If you do anything less, you are guilty by association, as well as a raging hypocrite, and will be ridiculed for it.

    "So if a catholic tries to influence politics, its wrong, but if an atheist does, it’s right?"

    If a catholic tries to influence politics in a way that would result in non-catholics being bound by law to adhere to some catholic dogmas that they don’t believe in, YES, it would be wrong. Just like if an Athiest were to lobby for a law that would FORCE catholics to perform actions that are in direct violation of thier religion.

    I’m against both situations, there. The thing is, there are MANY more laws being pushed by Catholics that would force me to live the way a Catholic would want me to live, than Athiests FORCING a Catholic to sin. In fact, I’m not aware of ANY laws that would FORCE a Catholic to sin, myself.

  16. gellymatos says:

    Wait, so if a friend asks for advise and I give some based on my beliefs, that’s wrong? As for our leaders, I do not follow any leader that supports hate. And what do you mean by "many". This is just more stereotyping. Yes, there are christian leaders who support hate. They are a minority. The problem is that they seem to get the most attention. However, I am not a member of any such church. My church does not support hatred and bigotry. As for the laws, that goes into politics. That ultimately is what politics is. Allow me to use the U.S. as an example. Do you know how many different beliefs there are in this country? A lot. Everyone tries to get laws based off of their beliefs passed. Athiests, gays, christians, conservatives, liberals, etc. all try to get their beliefs made into law. So if a catholic tries to influence politics, its wrong, but if an atheist does, it’s right?

  17. Valdearg says:

    "I am just sick of all the intolerence I get being a christian."

    You might face less intolerence if you did less of this: ""I may give advise based on my faith, but that’s it." That’s probably the most irritating part of most Christian religions.

    On top of that, you are responsible for what your church leaders do. I just said this in another post, but if you have a leader that practices hate, like MANY Christian Leaders do, and you support that leader by following him and being part of his church, then you are just as responsible for every instance of religious hatred and bigotry that was caused by that leader. If you want the intolerance to stop, join a church that doesn’t practice hatred and bigotry, and doesn’t try to get laws passed to force non-believers to follow thier dogmas.

  18. Ratros says:

    lmao, I apologize for that.  That would be the last thing I want.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  19. Baruch_S says:

     I don’t think it’s a question of "if;" it’s a question of "how much." Of course, if enough atheists flame them, they might unite in one gigantic flame war…

  20. gellymatos says:

    I can see it now: "Gamer sues Sony for his Clinical Depression". Honestly, where do these guy get off doing stuff like that.

  21. gellymatos says:

    First off, a lot of what I said was not just directed to you. It was at the other posts commenting on catholicism, such as the "strict" comment. And actually, my point on homosexuality was that catholics don’t (or shouldn’t) see it as bad as hate or a lot of other sins. What I said about them not going to hell was an exaggeration of sorts to try to show our point of view, and that was my bad. However, there is some truth to it. Many christians, especially the catholic church, feel that they don’t know who is going to heaven. We don’t try to predict who is. The only ones we assume to be in heaven are saints. Other then them, we really don’t try to make those predictions. The reason I said especially the catholic church is because that we believe that works are as important, if not more so, than faith. I do know the tenants of my faith. And if you don’t like our beliefs on homosexuality, abortion, and contraceptives, fine. You have every right to leave the church if you don’t agree with our beliefs. I respect your beliefs, as well as those of others. I don’t try to force my faith on anyone else. I may give advise based on my faith, but that’s it. I am just sick of all the intolerence I get being a christian. That was the point of my previous posts.

  22. Valdearg says:

    Like I said before, I grew up Catholic.

    I can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that half the crap you just said there was wrong.

    First of all, I never accused Catholics of being the strictest, however, they do have plenty of rules and dogmas that must be followed if you are to be allowed into Heaven. I think, personally, the worst of these dogmas happens to be the restrictive attitute towards homosexuality, chastity, and contraceptives.

    Not only are most of them not exactly based in biblical law (Barring homosexuality, though, don’t get me started on that argument..), the last one is downright irresponsible.

    Your assertion that Catholics don’t see homosexuality as a sin that takes you straight to hell is wrong. If you practice it, you are going to hell. If you COMPLETELY cease the practice of it, and repent for your sins, you MIGHT be forgiven.

    Frankly, you might want to study your religion more, before trying to correct me on the very rules I experienced punishment for, and, consequently, why I left the religion.

    I think that one of the above posters hit the nail on the head when they said "I sincerely doubt that many "practicing" Catholics/Christians/etc truly know the tenants of their own faith."

    Good luck in the afterlife, bud. It’s pretty clear you aren’t quite matching the Catholic definition of Heaven worthy.

  23. Rodrigo YbÑñez García says:

    On its website, Entertainment Arts Research states that its goal is, “to become the worldwide leader in video games that serve the African-American, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean markets by 2010."

    It´s not gonna happen. Religion + Games are not exactly the cleverest combination. Plus, I don´t think churches in latinamerica are precisely in touch with any kind of technology.

    They usually use their time to bash on videogames and the internet.

     

    My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  24. Ratros says:

    *sigh*  This whole debacle depresses me.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  25. Father Time says:

    I wonder if there will be any friction between the different factions of Christianity in the site.

    —————————————————-

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

  26. GoodRobotUs says:

    As I stated earlier about the polarisation of forums, when one particular denomination is in the ascendant, they tend to be intolerant of other denominations, alas.

  27. gellymatos says:

    Allow me to make somethings clear. When I mentioned what I listened to, I probably should have been more specific. There are songs by these groups I don’t listen to due to content I may find offensive against my faith (or because the songs suck). The metal bands I mentioned have plenty of songs that I find no problems with. As for Queen, just because we see homosexuality as a sin doesn’t mean we have some sort of deep seated hatred for them. The church considers hate much worse than homosexuality. We don’t see it as some sort of sin that takes you straight to hell. We have no problem with Queen. Freddy Mercury was a great singer. The church has nothing against him. His music was never offensive to us. Then there is the comment on our church being restrictive. Why does everyone accuse us of being the strictest. The only things we are strictest on is on homosexuality, chastity, and contraceptives. We have no problem with evolution (which I learned in a catholic school). The ones who are protesting against gay rights(specificly the ones who say such things as "God hates Gays" are mostly a protestant. Jack Thompson and those like him are largely protestant. To be even more specific, he is presbytarian. As for opposition of witchcraft in the media, that is, again, a protestant thing, specifically the Evangelists. The church has no position on the book. We have Harry Potter books in the libraries of catholic schools. The church’s only concern with witchcraft in the media is that some people might take Harry Potter in some sort of literal sense. Even then, we aren’t that concerned. As for Valdearg, faith is supposed to be part of a catholic’s life, not something that is secondary to it. If by affect your life you mean that as someone outside the church, catholics have tried to control you, that isn’t something catholics do.

    What really annoys me is that you guys are truly are no better than Jack Thompson in certain aspects. You are criticizing me for what I believe in on the basis of sterotype. I thought this site would have members who truly believed in intolerence. Apparently I was wrong.

  28. hellfire7885 says:

    Fuck it. After seeing all the heated debate on this site today, that heavily explains why I generally keep my own beliefs to myself.

    My only explanation will be, that many, MANY cultures have myths and legends that intersect and share many similar traits, andi n cases involve creatures that some cultures could never have seen in the time those legends were first written. Those legends had to emerge from somewhere


  29. Talouin says:

    I recommend you review the Catholic interpretations of your bible and review Papal dogma on this subject as you are simply incorrect. 

  30. sharpshooterbabe says:

    OMG! I can’t believe I’m reading this. In my bible as long as you don’t practice witchcraft, necromancy in real life in this real world or practice being a Pagan Or if you use a Ouija Board which is a no no……then you are fine. Geez yall have a huge imagination of religious people lol…….makes me laugh so much.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  31. sharpshooterbabe says:

    It doesn’t matter what music a religious person listens to b/c its something to listen to……what you think religious people should all be nuns? LMAO………you lack the knowledge of putting yourself in other peoples shoes. You are very closed minded.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  32. Valdearg says:

    πŸ˜€

    Any faith that is less restrictive than Catholocism is a step forward, I suppose.

    I’ve always said I’ve got no problem with people worshiping things I don’t believe in, as long as they don’t let thier faith affect my life. That’s where most of my animosity comes from.

  33. Talouin says:

    What sort of games do you play?  If they are games with any form of witchcraft (magic) within them you are considered to be supporting the notion of witchcraft which is against the Catholic interpretation of The Bible.  Unless you attend reconciliation every single Sunday and repent for your sin you cannot claim to be a practicing Catholic.  

    I sincerely doubt that many "practicing" Catholics/Christians/etc truly know the tenants of their own faith.

  34. Valdearg says:

    Lol..

    You know that you aren’t exactly a very "Good" Catholic if you listen to Ozzy, GNR, and Queen, right? Same if you play video games. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and those sentiments were quite prevalent where I was raised.

    So, yeah, you might consider yourself a "religious gamer" but you might want to see how Catholic Leaders feel about what you are doing.

    PS: Make sure you beg for forgiveness in Confession for listening to music you like and participating in a hobby you enjoy. Those are grave, grave sins in the Catholic Faith. If you don’t, you might as well join me in my trip to hell.

  35. johnmarkley says:

    "On top of that, consder that, at its core, almost every Christian faith in the world takes the bible as literal fact. Catholocism is one of them. Whether or not it’s parishoners do is irrelevant, by the way, because Catholic Dogma suggests that the bible is true, and that what it says is exactly what happened in the ancient world."

    This is astonishingly ignorant, on the same level as "All atheists are nihilists" or "all atheists worship Rama, who they believe to be an avatar of the god Vishnu."  You are like someone who notices that the Soviet Union was an explicitly atheist regime that killed millions of innocent people and repressed religion, and concludes that therefore all atheists lack respect for human life or want to oppress and persecute Christians.  Catholicism takes the Bible as no such thing; the idea that the entire Bible must be considered literally true as history, with the cosmos going from nothing to an Earth with human beings in six days and so forth, is a predominately Protestant notion, and hardly universal there either.

    This is not obscure knowledge; even a cursory examination of the subject would have made it plain, had you bothered to make one instead of relying on crude stereotypes.  You’re quite right to say that it’s more rational to believe claims that are "plausible, tested, and verified."  Try actually acting that way instead of just talking about it.

    Check out my video game humor and commentary blog, Pointless Side Quest!

  36. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Just like everyone else does? & why do I have to explain myself to you? Are you demanding why? I don’t have to explain myself to no one, & not the likes of you! All I can tell you is I don’t go by logic or reason to explain my religion or why I believe in God or Jesus. I believe in my heart & soul & for a fact there is a God & there is Jesus. You think otherwise. If you want more of a "reason" or "logic" well tough shit.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  37. sharpshooterbabe says:

    So now you’re just grouping religions together again…..Well I’m sorry but I don’t pray or worship a God or Goddesses that is of trees, stones, the wind, the earth, the fire, the water & so on. That would be Pagan. I am not Pagan. I do worship one God, that is God & my savior is Jesus Christ.

    & from what I read, you are going by science b/c that’s what you believe. Just like Ratros, I am the same as him. I believe what he believes, not me being a mormon, but me being a Christian. & Catholics have so many loop holes in their religion that I won’t go there, b/c its ridiculous to talk about. Yeah I am glad they have a Bible & ministers & pastors & alter boys & so on. But they add & take away in their bible. I won’t do that in my Bible. The diff between you & me is you go by science. I go by the Bible. You won’t change my opinion about the Bible. Neither will I change your science of what you believe. Wouldn’t you have a religion of scientology though? Or is that diff from what you are talking about? This is why science & religion don’t get along.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  38. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I laughed at your post. The only reason you are saying this to me is b/c again I am giving my opinion, which is going against your opinions & thoughts. When I read your post, you whined through the whole thing about a single person. I also laughed at your post b/c I, one single person, can make you irritated & mad & upset at what I say. I think that’s funny & that I penetrated your "skin of words". Oh whats wrong? Can’t take my opinion against your opinion? Too bad!

    Also, before you accuse me of calling all religious folks stupid, let me clarify. I’m speaking strictly about you and your idiocy. I’ve had plenty of intelligent debate with religious individuals about thier faith. They’ve provided well thought out, relatively intelligent, and very clear points about why they believe what they do. Despite the fact that thier ideas and points are almost always flawed in some way or another, I can still acknowledge that they are smart individuals.

    But w/you saying how other people have given their well thought out & intelligent & very clear point & ideas which again their ideas are their opinions…..& to you how it seems flawed in some way or another…….& "smart individuals" has nothing to do w/religion. You’re just adding shit in to make what you say seem more common sense to your view…….but yet now I am confused b/c you said that their points & ideas are flawed? So what is the flaw in them & what they are stating what they believe? Really? I mean again this goes back to someone not agreeign w/you or coming up w/a legit "logic or reason" for religion or a God or the Bible or Jesus.

    The only thing I see wrong here is that you sound like an unhappy person, that probably gets upset easily when someone doesn’t agree w/you. & also people that "get under your skin" like I am……Which again I think is funny b/c now I know how to push your buttons. LMAO!!!! πŸ™‚

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  39. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Actually I did have fun posting it & too bad that you didn’t read it b/c it is info that you don’t read b/c I am going against what you said. πŸ™‚

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  40. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I see your point on what you said about this:

    And when defining religions as "good" or "bad" solely on their beliefs, it’s an issue of preception.  One person’s "good" is another’s "bad".

    But I label a religion as "bad" when they commit actual bad acts or support actual bad acts in the name of their religion.

    But when you said: From my perspective, no true, honorable, ethical, intelligent "God", or Supreme Being, would advocate commiting acts that, to varying degrees, amount to verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse of others.  Nor would any such being advocate covering up such acts.  Nor would such a being consider "morality" to include lying to and deceiving others. 

    This I can understand a lot of people thinking this in their own opinion. But in my religious beliefs, I have found that not all people have God in their lives. Which is true, b/c they of course murder, rape, molest, commit adultry, fornification & more. Some say that they have done these acts to people & yet still believe in God & Jesus……but in my opinion that is between God & that person what they do. I have no right to judge them & I won’t ever do it. Will i want to judge them? Hell yes! But not my place to judge. But I do believe in the devil & evil & good & light & darkness……however you want to say it. I do believe that the bad or evil has gotten ahold of the bad people that commit crimes & either haven’t found God or doesn’t want to. I can’t change them. They have to be willing to change themselves.

    Yet, from the preceptions of those who DO believe that such a being would advocate such acts, everyone else is "bad" and their beliefs are "bad".

    I don’t think this is true though. It is your opinion you are thinking this. Other people may think it true, but since you say that. I have a story now. My dad was in the VA hospital about 6 months ago, now in nursing home, which to some people means the end of the road. At the time of being in the hospital, he had tunes down his throat & tubes in his arms & some in his legs, b/c of course all the medicine. I was praying to God about it a lot. I would hope that NOT any of my family would be in the hospital & NOT have a good relationship w/my dad half my life, I tried to have one w/him in the hospital room in a short time. My brother at the time was in Fort Stewart, GA & the Red Cross had contacted him. Well it was weird how he was contacted to see out father. The docs told me that I should call them & tell them to call my brother only if my dad got worse. I said ok. I told my mom & my friend at the time that was w/me to support my family. & my dad did get worse to where he had a 103 degree fever. There was a lot of praying to God before that moment & the day he got into the hospital. Well my mom told me he got worse, she said she had to call my bro to tell him too. & she told me to call the Red Cross to have my bro come home. I never did & forgot to b/c I was tired from the stress & making the decisions for my father. Well the next day my bro showed up in the room w/his best friend & I broke down & cried. My mom & my friend were there & my aunt & btw my uncle is a preacher too, he was there & there was a hospital minister that asked my age & my brothers age. We told him. He said we were very young for this to happen to our father. We told me we knew. So he prayed w/us. His prayer brought everyone in the room to tears, we held hands praying & my dad started crying. The nurses gave him a sedative for the pain & his eyes had this goop on them & yet he was crying. I asked why. My friend said it’s b/c everyone in the room is praying for him. He was being a funny smartass tho, but it turned out nice. & my mom asked me if I called the docs to tell the Red Cross for my bro to come home. I said no, I didn’t. My mom said that she heard my voice saying that I called the docs to tell them to tell the Red Cross for my bro to come home. I still said no. She was dumbfounded. She she compared phone calls made out to my friends phone then to my phone. They said you didn’t make the phone call then, who did? I said idk. She saw that my friend & my mom called each other, but not calling her to let her know, b/c I never did. & now I know why. It was a miracle & we think it was an angel that called & sounded like me to tell the docs to tell the red cross to tell my bro to come home. & now I know why an Angel did, b/c now my father is down in Waco, while my bro is in Belgium for the next 3 yrs & I am up in Euless. My dad is still in the nursing home too & my bro wont be home for friends/family for another year to visit. That’s why I think it has happened that way. & so all our prayers did get answered.

    So God is NOT bad & neither are the followers that believe. Currently my dad is in the nursing home still. My father wanted to die & if he had waited 2 more days in his apt, he would of been dead. He had the spuer germ aka the staph infection that ate at his muscles & cartiledge & has never ate right. Only junk food. & now he has no cartiledge, he can’t walk, neither can he raise his right arm up high enough. But now he has a new take on life, whether he wants to walk again & make ammends w/God is his decision.

    & to answer your question of whose religion is correct……..I think that depends on the person answering that. For me it would be the religions that do good & believe in God & Jesus.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  41. Valdearg says:

    I’m going to make it clear that I didn’t read your post, and you wasted your time posting it. Way to go. I hope you had fun.

    Wall of texts aren’t going to be taken seriously anymore.

  42. Valdearg says:

    Ok, now I regret wasting my time in responding to your first comment..

    You are clearly uneducated, and can’t seem to convey a clear thought into text. In fact, I think by reading that, I literally was viewing a trainwreck in action.

    You are exactly the kind of uneducated, unintelligent, and gullible individual that would spew that kind of nonsense in defense of religion.

    Also, before you accuse me of calling all religious folks stupid, let me clarify. I’m speaking strictly about you and your idiocy. I’ve had plenty of intelligent debate with religious individuals about thier faith. They’ve provided well thought out, relatively intelligent, and very clear points about why they believe what they do. Despite the fact that thier ideas and points are almost always flawed in some way or another, I can still acknowledge that they are smart individuals.

    YOU, on the other hand.. are not. You’ve got the writing ability of a 4th grader in the special needs class, you can’t put together any semblance of a point before shooting off and writing down the next thought that rambles through your head, and you’ve got a habit of making your posts painful to read due to the broken flow of words and lack of paragraphs.

    In conclusion, I’m truly surprised, given your previous posts, that you can even READ, let alone manage to peck your keyboard in such a way that words actually appear. So, do me a favor. Don’t even THINK about posting again until you learn even BASIC Communication skills, and can put your thoughts out in a well thought out, well structured manner. Until then, I’m done even acknowledging your existance.

  43. Valdearg says:

    I wasn’t planning on justifying that stupidity with a comment, but I’ll bite.

    Why not use Logic and Reason? Thats EXACTLY why I believe what I believe. It’s more logical to believe that things that are plausible, tested, and verified are more correct than thing that can’t be. What’s more logical? That the world is only a couple thousand years old, or that it’s millions of years old? Well, given the MOUNTAINS of evidence that support the latter suggestion, it’s more logical and reasonable to believe it. Yet, many religious individuals believe otherwise.

    Now, for another. What’s more logical? That god created everything at the beginning of the world, in 6 days, and that, that predators and prey existed in perfect harmony because God managed to magically suspend all biological needs of all creatures in the garden of eden, until Eve, who was LITERALLY made from a bone god ripped from Adams body, decided to defy God’s will? Or that the world has slowly formed and changed over the past 100+ million years, that creatures evolved and slowly adapted to those changes over time, and as time passed, only the strongest of those creatures survived, passed thier genes on to thier offspring, and so on, until we arrive until our modern age.

    Keep in mind, mountains of scientific evidence support the latter suggestion, yet again. Not to mention, the process of Evolution is literally being used today by many individuals in this world. They use it to breed new species of pets, like dogs and cats. (Labradoodle? Yep, Evolution at work!) They also use it to create new species of plants, mostly through cross polination and playing with the genes. The Grapple (Grape + Apple) comes to mind, here.

    What’s more logical? To believe the one of THOUSANDS of different creation stories in this world, or to believe the one that has the most evidence to support it?

    On top of that, consder that, at its core, almost every Christian faith in the world takes the bible as literal fact. Catholocism is one of them. Whether or not it’s parishoners do is irrelevant, by the way, because Catholic Dogma suggests that the bible is true, and that what it says is exactly what happened in the ancient world. If science has effectively gathered enough evidence to, in my mind, completely disprove several MAJOR aspects of the bible, then why should I believe that ANY of it is exactly as it was written?

    To add to even that, if you need more, you need to recognize that most religions have similarities in thier dogmas. Christians, Pagans, Native Americans, and Muslims all have a creation story, for instance. Yet, why does a Christian pass off the other beliefs as false, while treating thier, equally questionable, beliefs as unequivocably true? Why is it that we call ancient polytheism, like the roman or greek religions "Myths", implying that they are false, yet we can’t call the similarly structured and presented stories in the bible the same?

    You ask why I believe what I believe. It’s because I questioned what I was being taught, looked on it with an unbiased eye (back then, I was literally trying to find out the truth), and realized that it all didn’t add up. The teachings of religion require such suspension of logical thought that it was impossible for me to believe the stories they were telling me in Church.

    Now, why don’t you give me the reason YOU believe in whatever religion you practice, despite the LACK of evidence to support your beliefs. Oh, and you can’t use "I have my own reasons" or "I just have faith." Explain to me in no uncertain terms what PROVES the existence of God to you, in your mind. What evidence do you have that makes you SO certain in your beliefs that you feel the need to defend them here?

  44. nightwng2000 says:

    I name the Vatican for their acts in the name of their religion, not merely for their religion.

    And when defining religions as "good" or "bad" solely on their beliefs, it’s an issue of preception.  One person’s "good" is another’s "bad".

    But I label a religion as "bad" when they commit actual bad acts or support actual bad acts in the name of their religion.

    From my perspective, no true, honorable, ethical, intelligent "God", or Supreme Being, would advocate commiting acts that, to varying degrees, amount to verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse of others.  Nor would any such being advocate covering up such acts.  Nor would such a being consider "morality" to include lying to and deceiving others.

    Yet, from the preceptions of those who DO believe that such a being would advocate such acts, everyone else is "bad" and their beliefs are "bad".

    So, from the standpoint of religion, whose is correct?

    The site in question is Christian in nature.  The Vatican has passed itself off, and more to the point has been ACCEPTED as, the moral authority for Christianity, not merely Catholicism.  Typically, everything trickles down from them as it applies to Christianity.  We’ve seen that as it applies to Baptists, for example.  When deciding who is, or who is not, appropriate for reaching certain levels within the hierarchy.

    Yes, other religions do have their own issues.  The Muslim religion, for example, has its own problems.  Not only in preception, but in power when it comes to government enforcement of beliefs.  We’ve seen how other religions have negatively affected government enforcement and legislation in just the recent year.  An issue of a woman having reported rape versus a claim of marital infidelity.  The issue of a naming of a Teddy Bear.  And there are other religions which have been known to advocate a number of abuses against others in the name of their religion.

    But, here in the US, the most noted religion is Christianity.  And it is that religion which has been used to deny citizens their Rights, and even justify various abuses against others.  And those justifications have not only come from the citizens of the US and politicians in the US, but from external sources as well, including, but not limited to, the Vatican.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  45. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Oh & btw Valdearg we the believers have been giving logical reason including myself. You using the word logical means reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind. So basically we believers have been giving logic to reasoning of believing our religions or beliefs. B/c we believers are agreeing w/other religions or the bible. Like myself. So I have been giving logical reasons b/c I am agreeing w/another religious person. πŸ™‚

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  46. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Exactly thank you, b/c I would like to know too where he is getting is assumptions from. Really I would like to know. B/c you haven’t said anything in your comments except what you are typing. Come on buddy tell us……& don’t say logic & reason. I mean we believers have already told you especially me & the ones defending the religion are in some little way agreeing w/the believers, b/c we believe in our bible. Where is your logic & reason coming from? You haven’t said it yet! So come on say where you are getting your logic & reason.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  47. sharpshooterbabe says:

    You know how you are making assumptions? You know what they say about people who make assumptions? They are an ass. LOL!

    & b/c you are assuming on anything & everything you believe in based on logic & reason & b/c you chose the word "assume" means it’s your opinion. Just b/c me & others on here don’t believe in your belief of logic or reason doesn’t mean we are insane……lol…..it’s our decision to believe. So answer me this: Does that mean that the insane made a decision to become insane & are now in insane asylums? OR is it b/c they have something wrong in their head as in a little retardation & they went insane? OR Were they born that way & just mutilated animals growing up? Hmmm Can your logic & reasons be input into these questions? IDK……..But that must mean that a lot of people in the South like myself must be insane & OMG especially the Holy Rollers which I don’t believe in them b/c they are nutty to begin with. Or what about Budhism? Or Muslims or Jews? & other religions? Are they insane too? Well the Muslims that think the Americans are infidels of course…..but they are going w/their religion & want all the virgins in heaven. But that still means the believe…..So answer me are all those religions & more that I didn’t name insane? B/c if so, you are far from grace & I feel sorry for you. You know why I say that b/c it’s logic & reason why I feel sorry for you. I mean you are saying the same thing about religion so why not make a decision & I say you are full of logic & reason.

    & how can the bible be ridiculous & insane?!?!?! Lol! I laugh at you again. I am writing this w/a smile on my face too. Oh & even in MW2 the voice talking throughout the most half of the game says Cain was killed by Abel. Oh look that’s in the bible. So why would they put that in there? Oh don’t tell me b/c you will say the game is a story. Oh & there is a reason why, but it’s not the reason of what I’m thinking b/c it differs from yours tremendously.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  48. sharpshooterbabe says:

    So you are naming off the Vatican what other religious groups are there then that are bad? B/c I would like to know. I don’t watch much TV b/c it is way toooooo bias. I am on the net a lot & get my news from internet. I am good too & I will stand up for what I believe in, but when I do, all hell breaks loose & I get a lot of crap from aetheists or non believers or people that believe in the "big bang theory" which I laugh at them. I seriously do…..lol LMAO! So basically the good people are damned if they do & damned if they don’t.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  49. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I don’t like other religions that change the bible around. There are sooooo many loop holes in the Catholic religion that it’s not funny. & comign to confess the sins of the flesh in a booth w/the Father is absurd. I can confess my sins to my Father (God) in my prayers during the day or at night!

    But b/c of other religions that branch off from Christianity & start preaching differently from the original Christian religion, then that’s when things get complicated.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  50. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I see what you’re saying & what the other guy is saying too. I grew up in the church of christ church. Aka Christianity. About last year I did question my Christianity b/c I thought bad thoughts of guys in a naughty way or bad thoughts about people & why I was judging them in my head when I’m not supposed to judge others, or otherwise I will be judged the same in front of God. But I cussed & still do & talked to this woman that used to work w/me & told her what was going on. She was from a non-denominational church…..but she asked me if I believe that Jesus is my savior? I said yes. Do I believe in the Holy Spirit & God & faith & have it too? I said yes. She said then you shouldn’t think of yourself as not a Christian b/c you are a Christian. I mean from when I was born I grew up in the church, yes meaning going to sunday school & listening to my preacher preach which he is pretty funny too. Anyways, I got baptisized when I was 13 yro. It my choice, my decision. To answer your Q, it every person’s choice & decision if they want to believe or not. I can’t make them. But now I work in the DFW Airport (Tx). & some man watched the demo I was selling then said that I had a beautiful smile. I thanked him & he said you know Jesus loves you? I said yes I know. Then he asked me if I believe? I said yes. He asked me when I was baptized? I said 13. & his mouth went agape. He was shocked. I said what’s wrong? He said you got baptized at an early age. He asked me why? I said b/c from an early age my parents took me to church, I studied my bible. Read through my "child" bible at the time & went to church a lot. & I told my mom I wanted to be baptized. She asked me if I knew what I was doing? I said yes. She said ok & I was baptized in front of a small audience. My mom cried of course. B/c that’s when all the sins are washed from the flesh. & all the Angels watch & cheer & hooray. Call me crazy I don’t care. But I told the guy that it was my decision & I loved God & Jesus. It’s a part of me & it’s b/c of my parents that took me church at an early age. Now it’s a part of me. I told him a lot of people have told me they don’t believe & I want to cry for them. B/c I do pity them. I really do. He was awestruck & he said he didn’t believe until he turned 36 yro then he started believing. So he was an aethiest. He asked me what compelled me to do it? I said I read in my bible & my parents have told me that if I don’t believe my soul will go to hell & God can do whatever he wants w/it. & I want good in my life not bad. Plus I was also born on Christmas day same as Jesus. So I have always been happy & I love it.

    So to answer your Q, it is people’s personal beliefs. No one doesn’t have to prove a point to anyone. It is no one’s business to know why or how they are choosing what religion they are or want to be. But I’ll tell you one thing, I do NOT like & hate the child molesters who are the preachers. They are nasty dirty men that need their penis’s cut off.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  51. Sajomir says:

    "While trying not to get too insulting, It’s my opinon that to a belief in such a ridiculous story borders on insane. I think that every person who truly believes in these mystical spirits and magical angels, all guided by the magic man upstairs is, at least in that little way, insane. It’s the only explanation."

    So everyone who doesn’t believe as you do is insane? Before assuming anything does or doesn’t "make sense," where are you getting that credibility from? You seem pretty certain your views are accurate, where do you get that authority?

    Don’t say "common sense."

  52. Ambiguous says:

    1) You’re mixing descriptions for 3 entirely different concepts: big bang "nothing could happen to nothing" abiogenesis "life was born" and evolution.  Furthermore, you’re descriptions are wrong about all 3.

    –  Simply put, abiogenesis is the study of how living things could have arisen from nonliving matter. There are also many more theories behind how it happened besides the "primordial ooze", each of which bringing something different to the table.  There are those favored more than others, but to quote only that one as if it were the only one shows ignorance.

    –  Evolution is the study of how living organisms change over time.  It also explains why there are so many species, so you really shouldn’t be asking that question. 

    –  The big bang theory actually doesn’t deal with the beginning of the univese either, it simply describes its expansion mere moments after that.  As for how it started, we don’t know.  The best we can do is make educated guesses, hypotheses.

    As it stands, we have no way of observing (recreating) the actual beginning, so we have no significant way of studying it.  Some hope the LHC will rectify that, but it may take something much bigger than that.

    2) You’re right, it is insane to dismiss a theory that cannot be disproven.  However, your assertion, im guessing, is based on misinformation.  A theory in science is a detailed model that explains an observable, testable phenomenon: a fact.  Since any god is neither observable, or testable, it cannot be construed as a fact to meet the requirements for a theory to explain it.  As such, this is why religious beliefs in a creator are deemed unscientific. Science makes no comment about religion.  Any scientist worth their salt will completely ignore the topic on scientific grounds.  They may express opinions, but they do so as a person and not a scientist.

    You are right in saying that "our science can’t explain everything" if it is interpreted in the sense that our current knowledge of science is too limited.  I can, however, say with confidence that even if we don’t know now, someday we will.  To quote a line from Tim Minchin (see storm, its good) "Because throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be… not magic."  Personally, I think that trend will continue.

    If you’re going to bring science into this, at least have an understanding of some of its basic principles, and of the actual workings of the various theories you want to use.

     

  53. Baruch_S says:

    Yeah, that’s your assumption. To you, it makes sense to live that way. Not everyone starts from that same premise. You’re not going to agree with them, and they’re not going to agree with you. You’re probably better off, though, if you can respect that and avoid belittling their beliefs. Just recognize that you each start with different base assumptions and agree to disagree.

  54. Ratros says:

    There right there.  Who says I believe in any of that crap?  Who says that’s what my belief is?  You lump me together with what your told and not with what is true.  Just because some believe in it, doesn’t mean that all believe in it.  I said I was Mormon, but I never said what my beliefs were.  You’re jumping to conclusions, is that logical?

     

    Moving on, you say it’s crazy to believe in something like an ultimate being?  Well is it any saner to believe that nothing could happen to nothing and thus life was born?  That’s one of the basic theories of evolution ya know.  We all came out of the primordial ooze, so why are there so many different species?  Questions without answers, our science can’t explain everything.

     

    It isn’t logical to think that you know everything, and it is insane to dismiss theories that you cannot disprove.  The lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, it just makes it more likely.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  55. Valdearg says:

    you’ve managed to say a whole ‘lotta nothing in that comment.

    Where, exactly, do you think I’m working with what I’m told? Where does that differ from what you are working with? It may be insulting to some, but to me, it is absolutely nuts to believe in something as crazy as you do.

    Note: Especially Mormons, who, despite all archaeological evidence to the contrary, seem to think the book has a literal interpretation of the history of Mesoamerican culture, prior to the discovery of America by Columbus. To put it nicely, when many, many scholars and archaeologists can point to proven inaccuracies in your religious text, it’s not exactly sane to continue to believe it.

  56. Ratros says:

    Valdearg, you silly little man, you’re not even working on logic or reason.  You’re working on what you’re told, as many others are.  Further more, calling people insane for what they believe is very insulting.  Before you make statments about logic and reason, you should try to better understand what they are. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  57. Ratros says:

    I’m sick, so I’m not even going to clarify myself.  Nightwing, the loudest are always the easiest to hear.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  58. Valdearg says:

    The only "assumptions" I have made are that anything and everything I believe in must be based on Logic and reason. It doesn’t make sense to live any other way.

    It’s very hard to respect the decisions of someone else, who chooses to ignore intelligence and logic in order to worship some mystical being who’s very existance would defy all sanity.

    While trying not to get too insulting, It’s my opinon that to a belief in such a ridiculous story borders on insane. I think that every person who truly believes in these mystical spirits and magical angels, all guided by the magic man upstairs is, at least in that little way, insane. It’s the only explanation.

  59. Baruch_S says:

    That’s because your entire worldview stems from certain base assumptions that differ from the base assumptions of a relgious person. When you view the world from completely different standpoints, you can’t really expect to see the same things. Their reasons would seem absurd to you, and your reasons for being an atheist would seem silly to them. You’ve essentially reached a stalemate where all you can do is yell at the other person for being absurd.

  60. Valdearg says:

    If, by "biased judge" you mean "Based in reality", then yes, I wouldn’t think they were good reasons.  Like I said, it seems no stauch religious person can provide LOGICAL reasons for thier belief.

  61. nightwng2000 says:

    Again, you only reference the news.

    I also mentioned those that have more of a direct impact such as those affecting the government through legislation or blocking legislation and those in religious authority, such as the Vatican which has covered up a great many acts of abuse in the name of religion and advocated a great many acts in the name of religion.  That’s far more than just being heard in a news story.  That’s actually writing or advocaing "law", whether religious doctrine or what is supposed to be secular NEUTRAL legal systems in government.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  62. Baruch_S says:

    Okay, I’ll agree that some of the leaders are definitely bad, but you have to remember that Christianity is very fragmented. The views of the Vatican or the more wacky Evangelical leaders probably don’t even accurately represent the views of many of the members of their churches, much less the entirety of Christianity.

  63. Baruch_S says:

    Or perhaps the news knows that the "bad" religious community running around with the "God hates fags" signs make for a better story than the ones giving away free meals on Thanksgiving. They’re not silent or passive; they’re just not as sensational and newsworthy as the psychos.

  64. Baruch_S says:

    Okay, how many intelligent, educated Christians have you questioned about this? I’ve talked to a good number, and I can tell you this: many people have very good reasons for believing. I’m not saying you’ll think they’re good reasons (you’d be a biased judge, after all), but they do have reasons.

  65. nightwng2000 says:

    "certain people"

    The ones who are winning the votes on those propositions.  Propositions which should have never existed in the first place.

    The ones who actively affect legislation, like those I mentioned.

    The ones in authority, such as the Vatican, who cover up the overwhelming abuses of individuals, including children.

    No, I’d say it’s YOU who is ignoring what’s going on in society.  If it’s true that the majority are "good", then where are they?  If the majority are so overwhelming, why aren’t they standing up to groups like the Vatican and denouncing them sufficiently to either gain control over them or erradicate them from the religious community?  Phelps alone may have a small voice, but there are plenty in other segments of the religious community that support similar beliefs.

    Perhaps that majority of "good" religious folk are staying silent.  Not only leaving the "bad" religious community to receive the media attention but also to leave them with the power to legislate and dictate, doing the harm to society as a whole.  One has to wonder if that makes the "good" religious folk all that "good" after all.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000

    is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  66. Valdearg says:

    Then why can’t any of them provide a logical explanation as to why they believe? You can’t say they truly have questioned thier faith unless they can explain why they believe.

  67. Valdearg says:

    While not ALL religious PEOPLE are what Nightwing described, the INSTITUTION is, and the LEADERS of those who follow are.

    An organization is only as good as those who lead it. When the prominent religious officials, especially those of the Catholic church, show intolerance and teach hatred to those who follow them, it shows.

    Just because the little old blue-haired lady is sweet as sugar doesn’t mean that the religion she follows encourages discrimination and hatred.

    When I bash religion, I bash the INSTITUTION and it’s LEADERS, not those who follow, unless they show the same hatred thier leaders do.

  68. Baruch_S says:

    I’m sorry, but your entire post stems from the erroneous premise that religious people don’t question their beliefs. Plenty of very intelligent people are firm Christians who have considered their beliefs and stuck with them. If you want an example, check out Dr. Francis S Collins. He’s a Christian who formerly led the Human Genome project and is currently the director of the National Institute of Health, and he was a staunch atheist well into his adult life. You can’t simply assume that religious people don’t question their beliefs. I’m sure that some people–maybe the annoying ones that you’re talking about–have followed blindly and never really thought about what they believe, but plenty of others do.

  69. Baruch_S says:

    Well, I think you just proved my point by demonstrating exactly what happens when anyone mentions religion on the Internet…

    Did you even read my post or the stuff you just posted? You just did exactly what I said would happen in the online community. You come in here and stereotype every religion person based on the behaviors of the ones who happen to get media attention, and you manage to ignore every single good or helpful thing religion has ever contributed to the world. On top of that, you demonstrate no understanding of the religion itself; you merely provide a one-sided list of the things certain people have done. Come on, you’re better than that, Nightwing.

  70. Valdearg says:

    tl;dr.

     

    Nah. I’m just kidding. I read the whole thing, and you are 100% right.

    Of course, that doesn’t matter to the religious folks, here. A history of abuse, both phsyical and mental, as well as an atrocious human rights record for folks who don’t believe in the same thing the church does, is not enough to make these people question thier faith.

    Like I’ve been saying, they lack the basic desire to find out why they are the way they are. They just are perfectly fine accepting an utterly fantastical story as the truth and yelling at anyone who questions why they think some magical guy in the sky runs the show here on Earth. It’s a sickening level of idiocy. This is made even more sickening by the fact that if these people were to actually QUESTION what they are told, the Church wouldn’t have the stranglehold on American Society that it has, and, I think, the country would be MUCH better off than it currently is.

     

  71. sharpshooterbabe says:

    Actually Ratros is right. It takes two to tango buddy! So i.e. if you do evil & ratros does evil then both are bad. A good ex. for the pot calling the kettle black comment. & second, I agree w/Ratros, maybe not hsi religion, but him. It sounds to me since you are saying you are persecuted & so is Ratros so am I & everyone else on this forum that is going against each other b/c of persecution. So it is the other way around. Religious people are getting bashed for their beliefs as well as people like you & others that don’t believe are getting bashed for not believing. So Valdearg you are in the wrong to be telling Ratros that. You are in the wrong mindset. You are belittling him b/c of his beliefs.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  72. Ratros says:

    1.  What are you being persecuted against?  You should be more clear on this fact.  You speak of persecution, and mention gay advocacy, does that mean your gay?  I don’t see anyone persecuting anybody else here, except maybe you for the way you are attacking those who are religious.

     

    2.  Don’t throw out words like YOUR and YOU.  You can’t say that it’s your church since there are many of us of many different religions and beliefs.  You should also know that many religions have different sections and are not all grouped together. 

     

    3.  You called people crazy for their beliefs.  That’s judging somebody no matter how you try to sweeten it.

     

    4.  Believe it or not, you are on equal grounds these days, and a lot of people (except for the religiously crazy) are against the vatican. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  73. Valdearg says:

    You see, It’s my opinion that there is something fundamentally wrong with believing in a crazy story without any evidence to support it.

    I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t completely judging people on whether or not they were religious. I think that particular ASPECT of thier life is crazy, but I know there’s more to most people than thier religion.

    I also made it clear that when I attack religion, I am attacking the LEADERS and the INSTITUTION that makes it ok to hate people who don’t follow the rules your religion sets out for you. The only thing I added to that was to call out those who would enable these hateful leaders to continue to lead, and there is truth to that statement. If you continue to practice in a religion where the leaders and the institution carry hateful and bigoted attitudes towards those who don’t follow the same rules they do, you are just as responsible for the hate as those who would practice it.

    Finally, I’d assert that I am among the persecuted, here. I am part of the group YOUR church hates. I am part of the group YOUR church is attempting to silence and eliminate. I am part of the group YOUR church is attempting to discriminate against and prevent us from achieving equal rights.

    YOU are enabling them to do that. YOU are the persecutor. I am the persecuted. It’s not the other way around, nor will it ever be. To use the Pot and Kettle saying is to imply that we are on equal ground, when it comes down to it, and that is invariably false. Until we are no longer being persecuted by YOU and your religion, I won’t stop bashing people like you, because it’s WRONG for you to discriminate against people like me, and I won’t hesitate to say it every time.

  74. Ratros says:

    You truly are a sad little person.  You speak out against churches attacking others for their ways of life, yet on this forum that is exactly what you’re doing.  Most of the people here who are religious don’t hate gays, don’t support the vatican, so on so forth, yet you call them insane, stupid, and so on.  A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  75. Valdearg says:

    I’ve already made it pretty clear in other posts that when I say "Mormons" and the "Mormon Church" I am referring to the institution and it’s leaders. Now, some of that does trickle down to it’s followers, since by following and donating money to the Mormon Institution, you are enabling thier hate and bigotry, therefore, the followers are plenty guilty in the matter as well.

    You may not be an outwardly evil person. You may not physically practice hate. However, if you follow a church that does, you are enabling it, and you are just as deserving of ridicule as the leader spewing hate from the pulpit daily.

  76. Neeneko says:

    Only in countries that have a Abrahamic background.

    The dichotomy is pretty heavily socially embedded, but in general it comes from social constructs rather then neurological.  The Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity and Islam) have dichotomy built into their mythos.  Other religions may or may not.

  77. Baruch_S says:

     It’s not a problem in many European countries, though. We could adjust our Congressional voting to be proportionally representative and  therefore more friendly to a large number of small parties. It wouldn’t necessarily fix the problem with electing the president, but it would allow more diversity in Congress. Of course, we’d need to get a change through Congress that would hurt the power of the two major parties, so it probably wouldn’t happen easily.

  78. Baruch_S says:

    Depends who you ask. Many Christians don’t consider the LDS to be Christian because they have some major doctrinal deviations from most other protestant groups.

  79. Adamas Draconis says:

    The problem with that is that they make SUCH a big damn deal over a candidiate’s religion/belief system. You will never hear a candidate say "I’m an (Atheist,Pagan,Wiccan,Muslim,etc)" because if they do, people will spend so much time,energy,and money saying that "Such and such cannot represent you/us because of his/her beliefs" That you’ll never find out what the person stands for or wants to DO in government.

    Am I a religious person? Yes. But I believe that unless someone asks about it, it’s none of their buisness.

     

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  80. Adamas Draconis says:

    I’m not arguing but for clarification. I’m assuming by "Sub-groups" they are counting seperate Congragations? Like the Chruch of Christ a half-mile down the road is one, and the one in the next town over is a seperate sub-group, even if they are under the same "Umbrella"

      Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  81. Ratros says:

    *sigh*  I went with a race for a better picture.  More has a group of people that share a common characteristic or (in the case of religion) belief.  But if you want I can make another example.

     

    A plumber rips you off, does that mean all plumbers are con artists? 

     

    Or even better.  A gamer goes and shoots up a school.  This must mean all gamers are nutjobs.

     

    I was making a statement about absolutes.  Just because one part of a large group of people are nuts does not mean that all of them are nuts, yet some people like to caterogize them as that way.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  82. F__ked up says:

    Race is Not Equal religion

    You cannot choose your biological race

    You can choose your religion

    A better argument would have been

    If a Plumber shoots a guy are all plumbers evil?

    You can choose to be a plumber like you can choose your religion.

    but then argument there would be does the profession have the same belief and value system that religion does? which I dont think it does.

    So then the Best argument would be

    If a Lobbyist Shoots a guy are all Lobbyist evil?

    You can choose to be a lobbyist like you can choose your religion

    You can choose to promote the lobbyist belief like you can choose to promote religious beliefs.

    Then arguement becomes can you generalize all lobbyiest and generalize all religious people the same?

     


    I am a critical thinker not a dumb ass inbred conservative or a jackass liberal

    Pedophiles are the new Nazi / Communist. Labeling someone a Pedophile will get them blacklisted even though there is no evidence.

    Murder is not a crime when done in self defense, a time of war, or when done by court order (death penalty). People cry murder when fetus are aborted. How about when the mother could die? The mother is 13 years old? The mother was raped? The child is a product of incest? Is foster care really the best answer for children who’s parents cant take of them? How many children actually end up in foster care when their parents are dead beats?

    A 14 year old is child when they have sex but is an adult when they commit murder?

  83. Ratros says:

    *sigh*  Valdearg, let me give you a clear picture of what you’re doing.  A black man shoots a person.  Does that make all black people bad? 

     

    Also does ignorance make one stupid?  Just because I know not of a law that has little to nothing to do with me, does that make me stupid?  It seems to me that you are attacking people who disagree with you, much like others are saying that religious groups do.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  84. Valdearg says:

    Wow…

    Either you are a troll, or you are truly ignorant of Modern political history. Either way, I’m done treating you like an intelligent human being, becuase, clearly, you aren’t.

    Prop 8 was the voter initiative that recently overturned California’s Gay Marriage law. Your church leaders were the spearhead of the movement to restrict the rights of hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings through misinformation, hatred, bigotry, and lies.

    The mormon church was the biggest organizer and fundraiser for that initiative, and were so succeessful in spreading thier hateful message across California that they convinced voters to TAKE AWAY rights given to thier friends and neighbors.

    Personally, Mormons are about as sickening as Catholics when it comes to spreading Bigoted Hate to it’s followers.

  85. Ratros says:

    What’s proposition 8, and what do we Mormons have to do with it?

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  86. Valdearg says:

    Not to mention the human mind is hard-wired for dichotomies.

    Black/White, Good/Evil, Dem/Repub..

    We as a species tend to separate things like that relatively often. It’s actually quite interesting.

  87. Neeneko says:

    Even if you elimited the two main parties, they would reform within a few decades.

    The problem is mathmatical.  A two party system is a natural consequence of how our voting is structured.

  88. nightwng2000 says:

    Uh, LDS ARE Christians.  Just as much as Baptist, Catholic, etc are.

    And, of course, when I’m referring to religion, I’m including other religions as well.  It’s not focused only on Christians, although, in the US, the claim

    And, of course, there have been many other Propositions and legislation along these lines.  Proposition 8 was just an example.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  89. Baruch_S says:

    True, it didn’t apply to Prop 8, but that also wasn’t only Christians. The Church of Latter-Day Saints was a big player in that.

    I would prefer to at see a proportional representative government to what we have. Then we could at least get members of numerous parties in Congress and have more parties that better represent individual beliefs.

  90. nightwng2000 says:

    That doesn’t apply to voting on propositions (such as Proposition 8 in California).

    Even so, I’d prefer to eliminate the party system altogether.  It has been the power of the two main parties over the election process, even in the media, that has prevented the US citizens from being able to properly vote, or even research, all the candidates that actually run for President or other positions.  In the last election, there were actually over 30 Presidental Candidates.  Only a couple that weren’t part of the two main parties had any exposure to the US citizens.  The rest were unknowns.  Quite frankly, I don’t see those individuals as having lost the election.  I see them as being DENIED the opportunity to lose.  Simply because the power structure of the two party system prevented the general population from being able to equally compare all the options, even against the two main parties.  Heck, even a Pagan ran for President last election.  I suspect he would have lost if he had been equally viewed with all candidates, including McCain and Obama.  But he was DENIED the opportunity to actually lose. 

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  91. Baruch_S says:

    We’re getting closer to the heart of the problem. A big issue is that America only has two political parties. A Christian has to choose between two parties, and each party has its own problems. A tolerant Christian can find himself in a tight spot since, no matter which way he votes, he’s going to end up supporting a candidate who goes against his beliefs in serious ways. We need more parties so we can accurately represent the beliefs of both religious and non-religious people.

  92. nightwng2000 says:

    Then you should be speaking out, very very publically, against all those religious leaders who reference the whole of Christianity and the one Church, including but not limited to the Vatican itself.

    When a vote in favor of a legislation that is supported based on religious beliefs is won, the argument is always that "Christians are the majority" and that it was "Christians who won the vote".  YOUR vote has been hijacked if you don’t agree with those Christians who have won that vote because those who won the vote just lumped YOU into their winning tally by using the broad religion of Christanity.  They are, in fact, implying that you are NOT Christian if you voted or at least disagreed with their opinion.  And since THEY won the vote, THEY must be the majority, not the miniority that you claim.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  93. Valdearg says:

    It was a generalized comment directed that the majority of Christian beliefs. Homosexuality IS a sin in the VAST majority of Christian beliefs, and it is accepted that a Human cannot live a completely sinless life, so my comment still applies.

  94. Baruch_S says:

    What is this "Church" you speak of? I was unaware that Christianity had united under one banner and had formalized their beliefs across the board.

  95. nightwng2000 says:

    According to Religious Tolerance .org, there are over 30,000 sub groups of Christianity.  Obviously, a great many are going to have contridictary beliefs in small or even large ways.  And, of course, this is just a Christian site.

    So they will really need to be specific in what beliefs they will accept so that those who are Christian but don’t share their beliefs will know they will be treated with bias and probably banned because the site owners have no intelligent counterarguments to even the Christians who will have opposing viewpoints.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  96. Valdearg says:

    His mental stability is non-existant.

    He’s the kind of person where, If I met him in person, I wouldn’t get within 30 feet of him. I can see him as the crazy guy who hasn’t showered in weeks screaming at people while he pisses in the corner of a city bus.

    Of course, he’d be screaming about how the whole reason he’s releiving himself on the poor little old lady in the handicapped seat is because the Lord God King Guy Obama is ruining the country, and that Liberals made him do it.

     

    @DrKefka: Does it feel good that you’ve become the butt of a joke in this community? You’ve totally become that guy where everyone says "Pay no attention to him, he’s just nuts."

  97. GoodRobotUs says:

    You know, sometimes I really do wonder about your mental stability when you start dragging Political views into this.

  98. Valdearg says:

    Well, frankly, since the Church sees Homosexuality as a sin, I would probably argue that if they ban Homosexuals, they have to ban ALL sinners from thier site. Since not one, single human in this world, including the Pope, is without sin, the site would have to ban EVERYBODY. Because if you are going to ban ONE sinner, you have to ban them all.

  99. sharpshooterbabe says:

    The biggest crooks & liars are people that call themselves a religion & are bible thumpers then when not in church & not talking about God & angels & demons & hell & the Holy Spirit or Jesus & His teachings they go do evil like back stab people & judge others. Oh yeah I’ve been around people like that before. I will try & get away from them as fast as possible! But only way I can tell if someone is good hearted religious person is if they have compassion for others & like to help a lot. Don’t talk down about anyone! But then there are some again that have 2 personalities. So I know what you mean man. Whether its a dating site or not! lol….. πŸ™‚ I think it is a good thing you didn’t get on that dating site though.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  100. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I see your point NightWing2000, but it can still come from religion. I mean I have faith in my beliefs yes, but I also have faith in say my brother, my mom, my fiance. Anyone else, well they have all but lost trust w/me & proved me wrong in thinking they were a good person when they were back stabbing, two faced liars! But I will not put faith in those people b/c they don’t deserve it.

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  101. Magic says:

    It’s another argument that comes down to semantics and definitions – I’ve seen religious people say (I’m paraphrasing from memory, so forgive me if this comes off as a strawman) they have evidence supporting their faith, they have logical reasons for being faithful, they need to have faith to be religious in the first place and so on.

    In fact, I was watching one of The Four Horsemen videos (Dennett, Dawkins and two others I forget the names of – all authors and atheists) and Dawkin’s was amazed at a fellow academic, a highly intelligent man who’s a Christian, and he said he doesn’t need a logical reason to have faith, quoting something like "That’s the whole point!".

    I do see the word as equal to the word "trust" in that they trust their holy text to be true, they trust it’s divine and they trust their leaders are telling them the truth about it. "Blind faith" seems to be the same in regards to the word trust in that it can be unconditional and absolute.

    Anyway, regarding the game, comparisons to conservapedia seem very apt – another segregated outlet for the same choir, with nothing to threaten their "bubble" of religious faith.
     

    From the original news:
    "…remove the taboo from discussing faith based matters and issues"
    I wonder if this is in reference to some chump on WOW who argued with Blizzard about his guild having the word Christian in the title and only allowing Christians to join.

  102. nightwng2000 says:

    Conservapedia anyone?

    Fine, segregate.  Seems to be a lot of it from the company.  Not only segregating by religion but by race as well.  Segregation lives on.

    Of course, we know that segregation and locking out opposing views is necessary for those who have no legitimate counterargument to the opposing views.  Again, see Conservapedia.

    I still get a chuckle out of the use of the term "faith" when used as if it is a religious only idea.  Faith doesn’t come from religion.  It comes from a heightened sense of trust.  One can have faith in other people or even other objects.  Faith usually comes from proven evidence of trust as opposed to blind faith, which comes in acceptance regardless of proof or not.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  103. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I laughed at your comment man, that is funny! πŸ™‚ HA HA HA

     

     

    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  104. Baruch_S says:

    It depends, are we talking real, informed atheists or the uninformed morons who generally start religious fights online? If they actually know something about religion and can hold a discussion that doesn’t involve stereotyping all of Christianity as members of the Wesboro Baptist Church, you might actually see some interesting discussion (assuming the community also has some Christians who actually know theology, anyway). Otherwise it’s just going to be the typical moronic stereotype-slinging that you see everywhere else on the Internet.

  105. Moriarty70 says:

    If you’re going to do it, do it right. Just log in, stand there/walk around and call out for people refusing to acknowledge that anything is actually there. Extra points if keep walking while bumping up against something.

  106. GoodRobotUs says:

    I tend to find communities that are set up to serve a specific denomination are highly intolerant of other denominations. They want to promote ‘open and free debate’, but what that usually means is ‘preaching to the choir’. Still that said, I will wait and see.

  107. Ratros says:

    *sigh*  By saying that you can control emotions you are saying that they are in fact concious choices.  By using the term control, one might think that you could summon up any emotion at any time.  Like I said, your use of terms was contradicting. 

     

    Nice of you to call me a troll though, I find that I bother you this much remarkable.  I make a simple statement and you feel the need to demean me because you do not understand my point.  It’s quite interesting. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  108. Valdearg says:

    Or.. you know.. You were just being a petty troll.

    It’s pretty clear you lack the intelligence to make any larger point regarding this line of argument, and you were just grasping at straws to try and sound smart.

    Way to go, by the way. You failed. MISERABLY.

  109. Ratros says:

    No, I was commenting on your mis-use of words. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  110. Valdearg says:

    There was no contradtiction. My point was that Emotions aren’t choices. You didn’t make that any clearer with what you said. Then again, I suspect you are just being moronic, and lack the reading comprehension to fully understand what I’m saying. I can’t say that it surprises me, though. It’s pretty clear from reading your posts here that you aren’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

  111. Ratros says:

    Felt it neccessary to make the distinction.  You were kinda contradicting yourself.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  112. Ratros says:

    *sigh*  Swalloing your anger isn’t controlling your emotions, it’s not letting your emotions control you.  You still feel the anger, you just don’t do anything because of it.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  113. Ratros says:

    Fear.  People fear what happens after death. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  114. Ratros says:

    Not that I’m disagreeing with all that you said, but to be quite honest, not everything that happens in the world has reason or rhyme.  To believe that it does is nothing but pure folly. 

    To paraphrase a famous author:  "There is more to this existence than can be explained by your science or your religion."

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  115. Valdearg says:

    No, I took three logical shots to explain an open ended question you intentionally asked to make me look stupid. Those answers, I’d bet, explain most occurences of "Destructive" behavior. Just because you didn’t provide me enough substance to come to a Technically logically sound conclusion, it doesn’t take much to come to those conclusions with the application of some critical thinking, reasoning, and logic.

    Now, if I would have said "People act destructively because the Spirit of my dead grandmother is restless and needs to be appeased by the slaughter of 1000 virgins." I’d have given you permission to laugh your ass off.

    Sometimes the application of Logic and reason need not be the LITERAL interpretation of logic, that being "If p Then q".

    Sometimes it just needs to be "What’s the best way to explain these things, and, if given time and resources, do I truly believe that these solutions can be proven logically?"

     

  116. nightwng2000 says:

    Same situation.  At the earliest technological level, we would logically observe that a particular species may show a different functional system than others.

    Logic allowed us to isolate the differences in a particular species.  We noted that it did not happen to other species but only in those specific species. 

    Advancing technology allowed us to examine the species further and gain more details in the differences and WHY they were different.

    Science and logic, along with advancing technology, allowed us to move from mere hypothesis and theory to direct evidence and proof.  Only lack of sufficient technology will prevent a stamp of "Proven" or "Disproven" on any theory or hypothesis.

    However, stagnation on any theory or hypothesis despite advancing technology leaves the theory or hypothesis in question.

    Advancing technology allowed us to better understand the progression of an individual.  The science and logic of the most basic view of that progression did not remain.  We advanced the way we understood it.

    The beginnings of the Universe under scientific theory continue to be researched and further scientific evidence is presented.  Ultimately, however, only the technology to actually WITNESS that event will be the final evidence to prove or disprove ANY theory (scientific or religious).

    String Theory has a limited amount of scientific evidence to support it.  And, it is pretty much a stagnant theory until one can actually SEE Strings.  There is very little further scientific evidence which can be obtained or researched to back up the theory.

    And the existance of a Supreme Being amounts to belief.  There is no actual research directly supporting such a theory.  Belief is all there really is.  Strength of the belief is irrelevant to science and logic.  It’s the same with the Flat Earth claims.  You can say YOU saw it.  You can say YOU believe it.  But that’s not evidence.  Show me factual evidence.  Not peripheral evidence.  Not opinion of evidence.  But factual evidence that can be measured in some fashion.  Pictures would be nice.  Actual pictures, not painted interpretation.  Til then, it isn’t even theory.  It is, in fact, blind belief.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  117. Valdearg says:

    Well, we’re not exactly in a scientific environment, are we?

    If you can provide me the mountain of scientific data that you gathered on said "Destructive Behavior" I’ll attempt to come to a logical conclusion.

    Until then, I just provided you the 3 most logical conclusions. Those three conclusions will more than likely be the 3 most common results of said logical investigation.

    One can hypothesize and still apply logic to the hypothesese.

  118. JDKJ says:

    Are you aware that you’re not even engaging in logical reasoning? All you’re doing is a lot of hypothesizing. Logic usually takes the form of starting with a premise or condition and, following the established rules of logic, arriving at an inexorable and logical conclusion. You’ve just done nothing of the sort.  

     

     

  119. Valdearg says:

    The three most logical responses are

    A: They lack the intelligence to properly see that what they are doing is self destructive. This applies to people who get rolled up in scams and who don’t understand the ramifications of doing drugs, smoking, or living a dangerous lifestyle.

    B: They have some mental issues, and can’t properly tell that they are acting irrationally. This applies to people with emotional disorders, like cutters, people who commit suicide (For some, they view it as the MOST logical choice), and people with anger/violence/impulse control issues.

    C: They have weighed the pros/cons of the self destructive behavior, and have come to the conclusion that the "risk" of self destruction is worth the benefits gained. This would apply to folks like criminals, especially ones who act out of desperation.

    If you take time to think about it, it isn’t hard to provide a logical explanation for even the oddest of behaviors.

  120. JDKJ says:

    Two of the same species got together, performed certain actions, and another of the species was created, carried for a time or incubated in an egg (depending on the species), and then was born.

    My science textbook had an entire chapter dedicated to species which reproduce asexually (i.e., with only one member of the species required). Did your textbook not have that chapter?

  121. JDKJ says:

    Then riddle me this: why do humans engage in self-destructive behavior? What’s logical about doing something which ultimately destroys you? Explain that to me with your trusty logic.

  122. nightwng2000 says:

    "…including Life itself…"

    That’s a bit confusing and broad.  What part of "life itself" are you referring to?

    Depending on the technological level, we were always able to explain the beginnings of life and its progression through science and logic.

    Simple observation alone proved the progression. 

    At the most basic level:

    Two of the same species got together, performed certain actions, and another of the species was created, carried for a time or incubated in an egg (depending on the species), and then was born.

    Logically, we knew that, at the main species level, one species could not join with another and create a new individual.  We also knew that the joining of two of the same species produced the same species, not a different one.

    Logically, it was proven that the individual progressed through various developmental stages.  Depending on the species, those stages might look very different from the previous stage, but they always followed the same from individual to individual.

    We also knew that logically not every joining was successful to create a new individual.

    Science and logic always proved the existance of Life.  Depending on the technology level, we could describe it only in basic terms or in very advanced terms.  But we could always prove it if one thought logically.

    Now, some things took longer to prove.  The shape and nature of the Earth for example. 

    We could see a certain distance.  If we traveled, we found there was more past that point.  While we reached a point where we couldn’t travel because we lacked the means, we could see there was more.  When we were able to travel using other methods, we were able to see more.  The belief the planet was flat was actually unproven in logical circles.  It was superstition and religion that led to that belief.  Logic said "there’s more there, we just can’t travel to it".  The only way to prove the Earth was flat if someone traveled to the edge, witnessed it, came back, and showed factual evidence.  No one did.  And further evidence, as more ways to travel occurred, showed the Earth wasn’t flat. 

    Of course, this took a great deal of time.  Far more than watching the evidence of individual life progressing.

    Yes, there is a LOT of science that can only be theory (the beginning of the Universe) because we can’t actually observe it.  And there is a lot of science that cannot be proven because we haven’t reached the level of technology yet.  And there is a lot that we may never understand, much of which applies to metaphysics (why to bad things happen to good people for example).

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  123. Valdearg says:

    I was referring more along Behvaioral actions, amongst humans.

    Aside from mental short circuits, almost every action or thought someone has can be explained logically. Hell, motive is one of the more important aspects of criminal trials. If I track each and every one of my concious actions that I take today, I will be able to tell you, at least at the time I do it, exactly why I’m doing it.

    However, belief in religion, which IS a concious choice, doesn’t have any logical explanation. That was the difference I was trying to put forth. There is a logical disconnect when you try to explain why you believe in religion. Every time you ask someone why, they respond with some flippant response like "I have my reasons" or "I don’t need a reason."

    Like I said, aside from people with "Mental Issues", almost every concious choice in life can be explained logically. Yet, Religion can’t be.

     

  124. Magic says:

    I’ve recently ordered Dennett’s book "Breaking the Spell" in which apparently he writes about why people are religious, hopefully after I read that then I offer more insight to your questions.

    Some of those religious people would tell you that they can’t believe you live without religion (‘Any religion! Just choose and follow one!’ – I’ve never understood that either). This would prompt the usual questions from the non-intellectual theists like "Where do you get your morals from?", "The universe must have had a creator, right?" and so on.

    I can’t think of any other major behavior in this world, off the top of my head, that doesn’t have some logical reasoning behind it.
    Yet every society in history has had religion, which has in turn gone on to become a very significant part of their culture. I think there’s more to it than illogical thoughts. It’s like being sentient results in the human mind to strive for a safety net to shelter it from the concept of its own inevitable demise.

    To their credit, religion does provide answers, only to non-believers they’re complete falsehoods.
     

  125. JDKJ says:

    We are able to explain why and how we do everything else in life.

    Really? I must have missed that airing of "60 Minutes."

    There are any number of Life’s aspects, including Life itself, which neither science nor logic can explain. They’ve only just recently figured out that human genomes even exists, much less what the fuck it is they really do. Why do you go on and on about how everything but religious belief is perfectly explained by science and logic? That ain’t true. There are gaps in scientific knowledge big enough to allow clear passage of a sixteen-wheel Kenworth truck. Have you never heard the term "scientific phenomenon" (frequently expressed in the scientific community as "we have no fucking idea why that one does what it does")?   

  126. Valdearg says:

    "In fact, I was watching one of The Four Horsemen videos (Dennett, Dawkins and two others I forget the names of – all authors and atheists) and Dawkin’s was amazed at a fellow academic, a highly intelligent man who’s a Christian, and he said he doesn’t need a logical reason to have faith, quoting something like "That’s the whole point!"."

    That paragraph right there is why I tend to be so critical of religious people. It makes no sense, to me. We are able to explain why and how we do everything else in life. Why do we eat? Why do we have to work? Why do we pay taxes? Why do we use cars? Every one of these things has an explanation. Why do we believe in what would be considered fairy tales in any other facet of life? Even those who are steadfastly dedicated can’t seem to form a logical reason why.

    I can’t think of any other major behavior in this world, off the top of my head, that doesn’t have some logical reasoning behind it. Yet, even the most intelligent human beings are willing to believe in something without any logical reason to do so. It’s bizzare, and I can understand exactly how Dawkins feels when he is blown away that such an intelligent, academic person is perfectly happy with saying he doesn’t need to know why or how. He just believes in God.

    I’ve always thought that the moment humanity stops demanding and seeking answers to why something is and how something works, we’ve begun the downfall of our society. Religion actively encourages people not to ask those questions, and the people who believe it are always so willing to follow. This behavior, I think, is irresponsible, at best, and people need to be encouraged to question what they are taught.

  127. Adamas Draconis says:

    Tell that to my e-mail spam box, which is filled with "Looking for Christan singles?" ads from Christianmingle.com. Took me two weeks to get it through their heads I was unintrested in their services.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  128. nightwng2000 says:

    Wasn’t the Vatican, after having denounced social network sites, planning on creating a social network site?

    Actually, there appears to be a number of other Christian Social Network Sites:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=christian+social+networking+sites&aq=1&oq=christian+social+ne&aqi=g5g-m5

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  129. Zerodash says:

    I love the pic of the blonde-haired white family on their protfolio website. 

    I really am suprised there weren’t already online Christian-oriented social networking protals on the internet.

  130. Ratros says:

    Three things that shall always bring about arguments are:  Politics, Religion, and Video Games.  Prepare for this to blow up.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  131. Adamas Draconis says:

    Hmmm intresting idea. But I doubt they will have a cauldron graphic, much less a blade-dancing animation.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  132. Moriarty70 says:

    I figured that instead of being antagonistic, just exist in their world following what you believe. Almost like performance art. This way you’re not attacking their point of view, but you’re getting yours across.

  133. Valdearg says:

    You forgot to add "Then talk down to people who don’t think the partridges exist, and claim persecution whenever a law is made that protects people who don’t believe in the partridges."

  134. GoodRobotUs says:

    You could do the opposite, and walk around claiming that you keep walking into partridges, and when people mention that there are no partridges, you could start complaining that the fact there is no evidence of partridges does not mean they don’t exist πŸ˜‰

  135. nightwng2000 says:

    You mean those who would offer opposing views to an influential segment of society that openly, based on their religion, opposed Anti-Abuse (Anti-Bullying) legislation successfully, though temporarily, simply because they claim that such legislation denies their religious freedom of committing verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse against others, most notably children as that was who the legislation was meant to protect?

    You mean those who win a majority of the votes in various proposition votes to deny whole groups of citizens Equal Rights, despite those having demanded such a proposition not even having a grievance in the first place?  Such as the inclusion of contractual unions being recognized for individuals of the same gender, though such recognition under a NEUTRAL (as opposed to a Theological Dictatorship) legal system would deny NO ONE of religious freedoms or any other Right as an individual whatsoever.  Thereby making the claim that the Right to Petition the government over a grievance not applicable as there is NO grievance in existance.

    You mean those who, at the self-proclaimed moral seat of religious integrity, the Vatican, who knowingly and intentionally covered up not only sexual abuse by religious leaders for decades, but continue to aid in cover ups of verbal, mental, physical, and/or sexual abuse by religious authorities at various religious schools around the world, as was shown earlier just this year in Ireland?

    You mean those who worked to create the ideal of "Community Standards" as a foothold into depriving citizens of their First Amendment Rights?  In the beginning, it was supposedly meant to set regulation on very clearly Adult material, but, as was also clearly planned, was expanded to, even through mere threat, to dictate even the most innocent of various media materials.  From books, to radio shows, music, movies, etc.  This so-called "Community Standard" was intended to justify eventually expanding into a "Theological Dictatorship".  While not every case is handled in the courts, it’s been shown that just the mere threat of a violation of "Community Standards", even for the most innocent product or statment. 

    Don’t give me that nonsense about not understanding religion.  I understand it all too well.  From promotoing lies and deciet and misinformation to teaching bigotry and hate to children, who, more than anything, learn that ANYTHING that someone else shows as different makes that different person inferior and abuse is therefore justified.  Even if the religion only teaches that specific differences make the believer superior, the child tends to widen that to ANY difference from their in-crowd groups.  Interestingly enough, when adults support that behavior, it’s the victim who is identified as anti-social or sociopathic.  But, in fact, it’s those who commit the acts of abuse that are the true anti-socials and sociopaths.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  136. Magic says:

    If it costs money to join, I doubt it, but it’s a social network site so I presume not. Therefore, for a sneak preview go and look at Youtube comments on any religious or atheist-themed video. *Shudders.*

    I wouldn’t mind seeing some parody of this, called "Hellnet" which is the same but a preview of people’s eternal suffering in Satan’s domain (Probably a bit like a PUG run of Blackrock Depths in WOW).

  137. Baruch_S says:

    This is just a flame war waiting to happen. A bunch of uninformed teenage "atheists" are going to get in the game and start flaming a bunch of uninformed teenage "Christians," and the entire thing will devolve into a mass of uninformed morons spewing garbage about something they know nothing about… kind of like the rest of the Internet.

  138. gellymatos says:

    I can’t tell if you are trolling, or if you just ignorant and truly believe in the sterotypes of christians. I am a practicing catholic and you know what, I do go out saturday nights almost every weekend. I don’t listen to christian rock. I just don’t like it. I listen to the Black Eyed Peas, Ozzy, Frank Sinatra, Queen, Serigo Mendes, Guns n’ Roses, Barry Manilow, the Bee Gees, and Motorhead. As for our sermons, well they weren’t meant to be entertaining, they weren’t meant to give a religious christian lesson. If you want to be entertained, go see a movie. I am really sick of the sterotyping. I’m a religous gamer. If it isn’t people like Jack Thompson sterotyping me as a gamer, its atheists and those other christian denominations that are doing so because I’m catholic. 

  139. Vinzent says:

    I think this may bite them in the butt. I mean, supposing you’ve struggled all your life to be a good christian: abstaining from sex, staying in on saturday nights, listening to crappy religious rock bands and boring sermons. Then you play this game and your realize that the afterlife you’ve been promised is dull, boring, tedious, annoying, buggy, and has terrible graphics?

    It might make christians turn to druidism and head toward the World of Warcraft. At least there, you have life everlasting with thousands of resurrections per day.

  140. nightwng2000 says:

    The "why" of emotions, just as the choice of belief, or disbelief, comes from all the experience over time of the individual.  At our earliest development, emotions are less choice and more expression of reaction to other stimuli.  Hunger is experienced as a lack of pleasure, and sadness is the expression of a lack of pleasure.  Conversely, laughter is an experience of pleasure, and happiness is the expression of pleasure.  Hunger is represented by pain in, at the least, the stomach.  Laughter is represented by pleasure, either physical or experiences learned as pleasurable.

    Belief is through learned experiences.  Belief can also be blind just as faith can, which is the acceptance of a belief without experience in it.

    Nightwng2000

    NW2K Software

    http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  141. Valdearg says:

    Fail.

    Emotions aren’t concious choices. They are EMOTIONS they can be controlled, at times, by sheer force of will, but you don’t conciously choose to be angry.

    Unlike belief in religion, which you choose whether or not you believe.

  142. Overcast says:

    However, belief in religion, which IS a concious choice, doesn’t have any logical explanation.

     

    Most all emotions: Love, Hate… fall into that area as well. Perhaps you can explain the biological "mechanics" – but explain "why"…

  143. Neeneko says:

    This is sadly very true, and goes well beyond denominations within a religion.  I see the same basic effect in pretty much any niche specfic community.

    For instance, gay, kink, intentional, and poly communities all tends to suffer from this problem.

  144. GoodRobotUs says:

    Heh, don’t worry, you don’t need to post them to prove the point anyway, this site is no more immune to polarisation than any other πŸ™‚

  145. Thomas McKenna says:

    I’m very tempted to find some pro-gaming WARGARBL from somewhere on this site and posting it here to show how not even we are exempt from this statement, but it’s early and I’m lazy.

  146. Neo_DrKefka says:

    Yeah I can see it now, Lawyer slamming the site claiming in his church the story of Sodom is different and Jesus and his father the Lord God Barrack Obama think all men should marry equally.

  147. Gaffit says:

    LFG Satan, lvl 28 Minister.

    Seriously though, I could see this being really fun if it’s an actual game, but for my definition of a fun game, they would probably have to make a few changes from what I’ve seen of it. If it’s just Second Life, blah.

  148. DarkSaber says:

    How long until the communities ready? πŸ˜‰

    ————————————————–

    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Comments are closed.