Gamespot has an article on the Fourth Annual Christian Game Developer's Conference which took place just recently in America. It's an interesting look at the surgance of Christian gaming and includes some comments by Micro Forte CEO, John De Margheriti, on his passion for religion and a Christian themed MMO game...
The Aussie, whose team has been hard at work on Citizen Zero, claims to be the only Christian in his company."We're not a Christian company - we make a lot of normal games. But it's a passion of mine to make a Christian MMO," De Margheriti said.
The challenge is creating a religiously themed RPG that doesn't contain content offensive to Christians, but is still fun to play for non-Christians.
De Margheriti, who previously worked on the ultraviolent, and widely praised, Fallout Tactics, said he has solved the problem, but he won't say how. He said the Almighty showed him the solution in a dream and believes his successes so far have been just a practice run for the part he is to play in God's plan, be it making a faith-based game or paving the way for someone else to make one.
"I'm a pretty hard-ass Christian, God really motivates most of the things I do," De Margheriti said.
@ 6
You are right of course.... christianity has never in recorded history used their faith to sell something.................. yeah right!
"Genuine"...
@8
Yeah and arabs are blood lusting terrorists. generalisations make you look stupid :)
John doesn't just believe in God, he actually believes he is God. He created bigworld in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested.
For info, the fallout team was fired because Interplay cancelled the Fallout Tactics sequel. why ? Because Interplay ran out of cash, and closed up sometime later. There was no other project for that many people to do so Microforte had to let go of half of the team. Many of those people are pretty bitter to this date about that event. But that is the nature of game developement.
Sorry, MF *are* infamous for hire and fire project by project. Pity no-one can fire John.
Why does everyone seem to have a problem with a guy who wants to make a Christian game? There are lots of cultic games, and games based on other religions and they are widely accepted. So, is there something behind ppl not wanting a Christian MMO out there? Are you afraid you might become... *gasp*... a believer?
Seriously though, what is it that ppl have against it? I really want to know.
NeverBack
Because Christians are fundamentalist trash, that say they do things in the name of God, but what their "generosity" really boils down to is indoctrination. Just look at the missionaries and the third-world, and the epidemic of AIDS they helped create with the values they help "promote."
They are no better than fundamentalist Muslims, with their rhetoric and dogma.
Any game that helps promote that garbage should be banned, forget violent games, they aren't dangerous at all.
Whooo! Way to incite bigotry!
With very, very good reason if you know anything about the mechanics of: religion, politics and psychology. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with having a little intolerance for those that disguise their own in the apparent word of God, and want everyone to adhere to a system of morality that is based upon religious dogma set out in a book that was written by a man or men but is supposedly the word of God. Especially since that book has been re-written by men over the centuries to suit one socio-political-economic purpose or another - or simply one mans lust for power, or simply the churches.
Christianity like most old religions, and a few ones that are trying, are nothing more than outdated forms of government dressed up as something more. In modern times we have far better and advanced forms of government, and have no need for the religious variety - often referred to as fundamentalism for their basis on religion dogma over science and reason. Especially as when you take such religions as a collective whole, and strip away their rhetoric, their poetic zealous-fanaticism in praise of God and their fight against "evil" in the world - like extremist Muslims who do not share their own faith - then all you are left with is a political beast that does not care about the suffering of others, the hunger of starving children, but rather cares only in increasing its power-base by increasing its numbers for its "holy-war" for dominance.
It also does give a f*ck about the deaths of woman and children or the elderly if they subscribe to another religion - as this means less opposition, or at least numbers.
When missionaries go to the third-world to end the suffering of children with their charity, what they don't make apparent is that it is conditional, in that with that charity comes a religion - in other words missionaries are there to indoctrinate the ignorant and most in need, who may just about do anything to better their lives. Though, I don't think they have as much in say Australia, when you get Mormon missionaries knocking at your door, after all Australia is part of the third-world.
Of course modern-day Christians are not as "bad" as in the good old days before human-rights and other such initiatives. Instead on going on a butchering / raping crusade to bring their religion to the infidels, a far more aggressive approach, they rather use passive-aggressive means to do so - as most western societies would not condone such actions to day, but then again the news these days do paint a different picture. Other religions though, due to their differing culture to a western one, still resort in quite brutal and aggressive means of promoting their religion - as their own culture sees nothing wrong with it, like killing their wife for sleeping with another man, or killing their daughter because she had sex out of marriage, or setting their wife on fire because her family can no longer pay dowries to make her worth keeping around, etc.
Bigotry has nothing to do with it, I simply am feed up with right-wing fundamentalists dressing up their actions as something other than what they are, and trying to enforce their way of life on to my secular one based on liberal and democratic ideals.
I think the answer to #14 is that most games with contents of a religious or supernatural nature use it for atmosphere but without any intention whatsoever to convince people of the validity of whatever themes and images are used.
What sets the Christian games apart is that they're made by people who are themselves believers and they are made with the intent to spread a Christian message. Most people don't particularily want religious indoctrination with their gaming experience.
WoW doesn't try to convince you that the things it depicts are real, and if it did, well, it'd be every bit as lame as a Christian game.
Halleluiah, praise the Lord!
Thank you for inspiring me to make a Christian MMO myself. I love the way non-Christians attack Christians for what they believe, but are quick to impose their beliefs on others by force. (through government, the school systems, negative propaganda, committees) I'm just curious what country you live in that the government is worthy of deity status in your eyes.
Really? Why would you "love" religious intolerance and imposition of a belief system by force? Most sensible people find such activity ahborrent. Unfortunetely for you, most of the world's 4.2 billion non-Christians don't actually engage in this activity that you "love" so much. (You'd sort of notice it if they did). But for the rest of us, that's a good thing.
I live in Australia underneath a federal government lead by the Liberal party, which is kind of funny, as there is nothing liberal about them considering that they are a fundamentalist Christian "family first" conservative party.
I "love" the way they go about their Christian inspired agenda which they seem to have no issues enforcing their Christian brand of morality upon those that do not share their views, a morality stemming from a book written by men and rewritten by men for various political reasons. I especially appreciate its effect on censorship in general, but more specifically game censorship.
What I also "love," is that Australians according to census reports, are largely not religious, and thought they may identify to a Christian background, the majority of Australians are not practising Christians - or any religion for that matter. But yet they still seem to want to impose the beliefs of a minority, their brand of religious moral dogma, upon everyone else :).
Then there is the Liberal party's unspoken 1950s white Australia policy that I am also rather fond of - though I doubt they will admit to that one ;).
Woot. My fave topic - bout time!!
Christianity, like most religions are all about substituting their 'version' of the truth for real knowledge. And if it wasnt for the Christians, we would have huge historican record dating back 3000 yrs BC.. but thanks to some 'innovative' thinking about the removal of knowledge, around 400 AD, the then 'Pope' declared all writing other than Christion ones were to be destroyed, and so they were - You can read all about this in the "Christian Encyclopedia" even!! .. So many libraries, schools and centers of learning, many many many tens of thousands of books were torched. Nice eh.. then replace with Religious controlled knowledge.. and shazzam.. you have a brainwashed populace.
It has only been in the last 100 years, that knowledge and truth has been 're-learnt' and that many of the religious dogmas and ideals were proven to be utterly reprehensible. And this is what makes me NOT beleive in christianity, nor many other religions. Is that how can you JUSTIFY, the killing, the indoctrination, the mis-information and the horrible tortuous nature of christians history.. by ignoring it, and making it acceptable means as CynicanFan points out, they are no better than a dictatorial state, that uses people regardless.
Christians especially, have always been labourious in their nature to 'convert' people to their 'one true' religion. Interesting how christians are always happy to forget the horrible things their church represents? Could I believe that a church, directly responsible for murdering millions of people (many more so than any Hilter or Saddam) is capable of providing me with a true spirit? Its almost rediculous - and its also funny. The only history you'll hear in your church (yes I have been a Christian (anglican), a Lutheran.. and been part of many other types of religious groups) is the history outlined in the new testament.. not the history of the church themselves.. for it if were ever fully written out, it would make any hollocost or armageddon look like a walk in the garden.
True Spirit and True faith has nothing to do with a book, a church or anything else of this world. Its purely you. Your inner soul. But thats not for me to tell you, but for you to find out. Amen.. HAHAHAHAH.
Btw: CynicalFan - I agree the white Australia policy and their 'segregation' policy for the aboriginals (along with their missions previous to that) was an utterly disgusting time and now they also are paying the horrible price. But as I said.. you wont hear a sermon on that at church will you :)
I hope that those responsible, burn in their Christian hell for their many crimes against humanity.
Nice post by-the-way Grover ;)
I just thought I'd pitch in with something totally inappropriate for this talkback, and indeed this website, and say that computer games are cool and I love playing them.
People should have a read of "The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" by Richard Dawkins imho- it largely what inspired Douglas Adams' (yes, that Douglas Adams) radical atheist views. It's well worth a read even if you don't agree with it.
Or if you've got the time and a bit of coding ability, try implementing a Genetic Algorithm. Its a real delight to watch a program evolve right in front of your eyes inside a mindless machine.
Richard Dawkins uses very simple genetic algorithms to really make his point. He also describes creationism as "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood." Wikipedia has excellent writeups of him and his books and a link to a java applet of the prog from The Blind Watchmaker (in which he attempts- successfully for me- to disprove the existence of god). I wonder if the Babel Fish (used in the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to disprove the existence of god) was inspired by Dawkins...
Enough from me I think.
Both positions are extreme and small-minded. You can't prove God doesn't exist. It's just the other side of the same coin attracting exactly the same thinking. First you would have to define what God was, then prove s/he doesn't exist. Without a common definition of God you're just arguing with yourself. You can make whatever argument you want based on the definition you pick. You can then point your finger at everyone else and consider yourself superior. Which God are we talking about exactly?
Both extreme fundamentalist views (belief in God and disbelief in God) rely on a specific definition of a God and a person who believes their view of reality is the right one. It's the epitome of stupidity. Both the believers and the disbelievers use science to make their case. Disbelief in God is nothing more than a fundamentalist religion. Mankind's greatest pain and suffering stems from our inability to recognise our own fundamentalist natures, the belief that we are right and only we understand the true nature of reality.
Many aspects of science rely on mystical principles with strange mystical names (take for example the concept of a force acting over a distance, or the concept of energy). Both these words "energy" and "force" are steeped in mysticism. Both words have mystical origins. The meaning of the words has evolved over time, but the general concepts they have represented have remained quite consistent. We use them to make useful predictions, but anyone with half a brain has realised by now that our scientific models do not describe reality.
Science is based on mysticism and continues to use the language of mysticism. Newton was an alchemist and mystic. His writings on gravity and the forces between bodies betrayed deep religious sentiments. It's a continuum of ideas and theories. You start off with really really bad theories that make really bad predictions, then you progress to better theories with better predictions and so on. The point is that it is still mysticism nonetheless. When you make conclusions about the nature of reality and the universe using science you're giving science too much power. Science can make useful predictions given a set of assumptions, but the fundamental questions remain. Science does not provide us with the tools to describe reality. Science does not describe reality; science provides abstract metaphors that closely match observed phenomenon. By using science to prove or disprove the existence of God you are simply taking science back to its mystical beginnings
Basically all you are saying Lorien is that all extremists should be shot.
That's the kind of reaction Christians often have to Richard Dawkins.) IMHO if you're going to believe something it should at least have some kind of rational basis. Maybe if you read the books you might have something useful to say AC.
"science provides abstract metaphors that closely match observed phenomenon"
wtf?
Science is the process of experiment of hypothesis and ultimately if proved hypothesis to theory. It is the study of the universe, not the relegation of it to the safe keeping of an omnipotent higher power.
I agree that theory does not equal truth, however metaphor is something for undergrads and popular science authors.
Just so AC is clear who he/she thinks should be shot (other than myself)
Awards and recognition
Dawkins holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster and University of Hull, and is honorary doctor of the Open University.[5] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and Royal Society in 2001.[5] He is Vice-President of the British Humanist Association and honorary patron of the Trinity College University Philosophical Society.
Other awards he has won include the Royal Society Literature Award (1987), Los Angeles Times Literary Prize (1987), Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Michael Faraday Award (1990), Nakayama Prize (1994), Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), Kistler Prize (2001), Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), Bicentennial Kelvin Medal (2002).[5] In 2005 the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Stiftung organization awarded him their Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge."[29]
Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[30] Additionally, in 1995 Dawkins was invited on Desert Island Discs on BBC Radio 4.[5]
Asteroid 8331 Dawkins is named after him (see Meanings of asteroid names (8001-8500)).
Yeah, computer games are rad.
1) The concept is one that people believe in, whether others think this is 'good' or not
2) If the game focusses on Christianity as it is stated as being (peace, love, tolerance etc), rather than what has happened previously in history, what is the problem? Saying that nothing good can come of it because of things that have happened in the past is ridiculous.
3) If you don't like the game, then don't play the game.
So how can it hurt for there to be a Christian game on the market? It certainly won't mean that people will suddenly start calling for violent video games to be banned... because that sort of thing is already occurring.
And before the peanut gallery starts up, no I don't consider myself a Christian, I just believe that if I can have the sort of games that I want to play and enjoy, then so should others, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a market.
Linds
I didn't say it was the 'safe keeping of an omnipotent higher power'. If you read what I had written more carefully, you would see that I view both sides (believers and disbelievers) in exactly the same light. They are both fundamentalists. They are the same thing. The same person. It's ironic. The disbelievers think they are superior because they have rational thought on their side. The believers think they are superior because they have rational thought on their side. Fundamentalists don't demonstrate any humility. It's nice and simple, a black and white universe.
Fundamentalists also tend to avoid discussing the specifics of the issue by hiding behind credentials. Somehow the credentials are supposed to impress enough that there is no longer any need to use the brain. In religous circles it's called having faith. The brain just gets in the way of getting to the 'right' answer.
Science becomes much more interesting when we are humble. We suddenly realise how little we know and how much more there is to discover. Instead we lie and perpetuate the idea that science is describing reality. How many children get turned off science because of this. When you are told this is how it works and there is nothing more to it, then there is no magic anymore. Where's the magic in a gyroscope floating magically on one end when someone claims they can explain how it works. There can be no further thought or questioning unless it is sanctioned by the scientific clergy. How many brilliant minds get turned off because of this stupidity, after all only the smart kids will be asking the difficult questions. Questions to which we have no answers and so we lie and complicate things in order to cover up the fact that we are so stupid. Of course the truly brilliant minds among us can live quite comfortably in the mystical magical universe. Einstein is a good example (god doesn't play dice) They are questions we simply don't have answers to. We claim we know how the universe was created. How sad, it's exactly the same lie perpetuated for thousands of years in different disguises. Nothing has changed. We are truly stupid monkeys. We're great at manipulating atoms into different configurations in order to make our material existences more comfortable, but when it comes to a true understanding of anything meaningful, the truth is we know nothing.
The issue as far as I see it is using the game medium to spread a religious message and make a buck from spreading it. Rather like the scientologists as someone pointed out above. When you RTFA you find things like
"Moore has worked on an impressive list of games, including Frogger, the King's Quest series, and Command and Conquer. His newest game is Progress 21, a game based on John Bunyan's 17th-century book, The Pilgrim's Progress. Like the work it's based on, the game is an allegory that shows players the way to salvation, but does so with a more modern setting and sensibility.
'The time is short. We don't know how long it's going to be until the Lord returns,' Moore said. 'If we wait three years to get this game out and the trumpet sounds, it's been a great adventure for me, but it hasn't brought anybody to Christ.'"
"Microsoft and Sony aren't giving away tchotchkes, and you won't find any booth babes here. In fact, you won't find many babes at all among the mostly male crowd.
But attendees aren't bothered by any of this; they are here for a higher purpose--to do God's work."
"For the consoles, there will be two versions of The Bible Game. One game, for the Game Boy Advance, is an action adventure that challenges players to assemble the seven parts of the Armor of God while vanquishing the agents of darkness by answering Bible trivia. The PS2 and Xbox versions are a game show-themed party game that tests knowledge of scripture, but also features action sequences."
I find it interesting AC is posting anonymously- not hiding at all are you? There are plenty of specifics in Dawkin's books, he's not hiding behind anything, nor am I.
Off to bed for me.
Man those games sound like things from the Simpsons
Since when did religious fanatics listen to anyone elses point of view? It is not their role. I have had Jehovah's come to the door and disagree with everything I said.
It is often a no win situation.
Because we have this sense of higher reasoning than most animals, we go around believing what we know or say is right and others are wrong.
A person can have a belief/religion and still be a reasonable person.
"A person can have a belief/religion and still be a reasonable person." I have no argument with that. Mind you suggesting that anyone should be shot is hardly being reasonable.
This forum is why one half of the world is currently blowing up the other half. Good luck with getting a result. I'll see you on page 1000000000000 where john smites the habernites.
Lorien I think you've completely missed the irony of what was said. Think about it a little more carefully. All extremists should be shot. It's a classic statement designed to illustrate the point that most extremists don't se themselves as extremists. For example you don't consider the possiblity that disbelief in God is an extreme position, but when you remove the emotion and look at it in the cold hard light of day, it's obviously .
If it is a question between one fanatic, who uses a rigid set of dogmatic rules to create order and a sense of safety in their lives, over, another who at least tries to make an effort on basing their lives and sense of order and safety, in the measurable knowledge of experience - even if in the long-term they are proven wrong - then I pick the second option, as at least they have some flexibility to change in the face of new evidence and discoveries.
One method seeks to say the safe same through unproven rubbish, that if you looked at it closely, you would see that it is really politics, a system of government, or control, not religion at all - watch a movie called: "The Name of the Rose" with Sean Connery, and you will see this and much more, as it represents the height of the Christian religion.
The other method doesn't try to dress itself up as being anything other than what it is, and has room for improvement, for change.
Now AC, I don't disagree with all you have said, I just disagree with how someone would use such knowledge. As you can either choose to succumb to your fears of uncertainty, that such knowledge would bring, and decided to accept to submit to a rigid set of dogmatic rules to govern every aspect of your life, for the fear of the unknown. Or, you can choose to use such knowledge to realise that you have far more freedom and liberation in your life than you realise - it is "your" life after all.
You can choose to empower yourself, not enslave yourself to politics dressed up as deep and meaningful religion - usually a pipedream.
You're right it's about flexibility. It's about a world where there are no straight black and white answers. It's about the freedom to think through each issue anyway you choose. Science should not be used as a weapon to stop free thought. You don't need qualifications to think for yourself. Have as many ?dangerous' thoughts as you can. I think our survival will ultimately depend on the most ?dangerous' of these ideas bearing fruit.
Watch another Sean Connery film called Zardoz for further valuable insights.
Richard Dawkins certainly isn't using science to stop free thought- he uses it to ask questions about things that some seem to believe are unquestionable. He ENCOURAGES free thought- unlike some religions.
I call myself a radical atheist, that doesn't mean I go pushing my views about religion at every available moment. This thread is the first time I've mentioned it on sumea in fact, and I never talk about it at work. Why should I? I have no compulsion to "save souls" or anything like it. Here's something that you seemed to miss from the post that upset you:
"in which he attempts- *SUCCESSFULLY FOR ME*- to disprove the existence of god"
Where are you thinking for yourself AC? You have regurgitated a bunch of dogma. I've actually coded those genetic algorithms and seen them work and thought things through myself.
Actually it is you who have missed the irony, you've presented a far less tolerant view then me. You're pretty fundamentalist btw.
Christians often push Atheists to read the Bible- well I have. I've given you some books to read, and instead of actually doing it you've come out with a load of generalisations that are completely irrelevant, as you would know if you actually found out what Dawkin's has to say. I'm not going to explain it for you I'm afraid simply because he does a far better job that I possibly could (hence those awards he's been honoured with).
I haven't been arguing with you or providing specifics because the views you've put forward are not worth arguing with in my view. You've been trying to offend me talking about "clergy" and such, I find that humorous rather than offensive I'm afraid. You've given me a good laugh, thanks.
The problem with an extreme view is that it closes off all other views. Radical atheist is just another extreme ideology. It cannot be proved or disproved. It cannot be argued with (as is the case with any other religion). Tolerance is not about extremes. It's about flexibility. it's about a world that is far to complex to be thought of in such a simplistic black and white framework. It's all about the specifics. That's what thought is, specifics. By ignoring the specifics we cease to use our brains.
I have no idea why 'clergy' would offend you. It's just a word. I'm more interested in the discussion at hand than any particular individual involved.
Tolerance is about accepting others. Believe it or not I let my Muslim students who want to leave classes early in wintertime so they can go and pray facing Mecca at sunset. I nearly married into a Catholic family. I don't go around telling Christians or Muslims that imho they are severely delusional- it's *my humble opinion*, and it's very rare that I don't keep it to myself. Ever heard of Live and Let Live? Unlike Bible thumping Christians who feel the urge to "spread the word of god" I DON'T try to convert ANYONE.
Where have you used your brain AC? How can you talk about specifics without having read the books I've been talking about?
You can find why "clergy" might offend some in the sub-title of The Blind Watchmaker- "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design". Evidence is they thing that makes this darwinist science completely different from religion. Where is *your* evidence? The Bible? Your faith?? As far as I'm concerned the Bible is marginally better than the works of L. Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology), and in some ways worse- the scientologists haven't started loads of really bloody wars.
As I said before, in order to disbelieve in God first you have to define it. In all the examples you have given you have first attempted to define God (in a way that will later make your arguement) then you go about proving how silly that definition is. What's the point of that ? You're arguing with yourself. When we make arguements about things that cannot be proven or disproved we can use as many examples as we like. You will find an infinite number of ways to prove your right because it's impossible to prove otherwise.
Just read the books AC.
You might want to read xenu dot net while you're at it to find out a little about the Church of Scientology
I'm sorry, but there is a big difference between the two groups of "extremists" as you put it AC, a big difference. As I said, one path is the route to enslavement within dogma. The other is a path to empowerment through measurable experience and scientific and technological progress - and technology can mean a lot of things, not just planes in the air, but social systems.
It is a search for truth, not a blind acceptance of false-truths.
You make them out to be harmless, but there is plenty of evidence for religious extremists as being anything but harmless and benign - history is full of such evidence, as Grover pointed out. And as I have said already in a much earlier post, organised religion is nothing more than an outdated form of government masquerading as something else.
We have better and more modern forms of government. We don't need fundamentalism anymore. And I for one will admit that I will not tolerate a return to this in a western society, nor those that are working towards this in its many guises - no matter what religion they are.
And my problem with Christian games, is that it is not entertainment, play-fantasy as in other games. It is religious propaganda to indoctrinate.
As they are trying to pass off the dogmatic material of the bible as measurable and indisputable fact - which you can't do if the only evidence you have is the words written in a book that are apparently the word of God, even though it was written by a man or men.
To believe in that book, is to believe in any religious bible that is based on dogma, it is also to believe that Amrozi is also telling the truth, when he says he was told by God to bomb civilians at a nightclub in the name of Allah and Islam - just like when a guy who could very well be a fictional character, was given the ten commandments on top of a mountain next to a burning bush.
I'm sorry, I just don't by into that bullshit. Period.
1+1 = 2
That is a measurable fact.
God made the world in 6 days.
Is NOT a measurable fact.
Nice posts Cynical. Here's that wonderfull definition of "cynic" I sent you last night for everyone to see (from thedevilsdictionary dot com)
CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
;)
Just a dip a tow into this debate - my only comment on this one AC is that your argument that God cannot be disproved is fundamentally flawed.
Yes God cannot be disproven but that assertion, however true is also irrelevent. You need to make a distinction betweem science and philosophy. The fact is the existence unicorns cannot be disproven either, or that we inhabit computer generated reality, or indeed that we were created by a race of supremely powerful yet benevolent intergalactic jellyfish. None of these or practically anything I can conjure up can be disproven. Go one prove to me that unicorns don't exist somewhere out there. See what I mean?
However, given the laws of nature, given what we've learnt over centuries of methodical investigation and observation, and given Occam's Razor the existence of unicorns, benevolent squid-like super-beings or supernatural deities all fall into the category of being so lacking in evidence and so unlikely that they're irrelevent to
Of course if your reason for being believing in the Judeo-Christian conception of a supreme being is Pascal's Wager then I would say to you, why limit yourself? If you're hedging your bets about an Afterlife why not adhere to the tenets of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, the worship of ancient Eqyptian deities, Animism, the Rainbow Serpent or any another set of religious tenets while you're at it? Why afterall are they incorrect and the Judeo-Christian conception not?
As to science being a weapon to be used against free-thought, this is a ridiculous statement and a another example of the mudslinging the Creastionist Christians use against science in an attempt to discredit it. How very post-modern of you to assert that untestable beliefs hold the same weight as scientific understanding of the universe. The appeal to fairness hold to water at all I'm afraid.
By all means, if you want to believe in fairies in the bottom of the garden or a magical beer fountain in heaven then you have my absolute support but don't pretend that such beliefs hold the same weight as a an understanding of the universe acquired through the rigors of scientific method. Scientific findings are subject to peer review - meaning if an ideological agenda taints the science or if the claims are untestable, then it's soon discovered and the arguments are discredited. I'd suggest you read the Wikipedia entry of science and scientific method as you seem to grossly miunderstand the process and aims of scientific investigation. Science does not being with a belief and then try to find evidence, disregard conflicthing evidence, or twist that evidence to fit the belief as Creationism does, which is it's agenda. It Rather hypotheses are proposed based on the findings. These are then subjected to peer review. If evidence comes to light that disproced the hypothesis or theory then it's abandoned.
As an aside, if evidence were to come to light showing next to a fossilised T-Rex, then the theory of evolution would be smashed to bits- gaps in evidence don't count. Yet to date, while refinements have been made since Drawin's times, the theory itself remains strong (just like the Theory of Gravity) over 160 years after it was first proposed. The theory of Evolution is an amazingly successful theory and while scientist might debate elements (hence its standing as a theory), it's considered scientific fact.
An atheist cannot disprove the existence of God or unicorns but really, the point is so irrelevent as to be almost mute.
Corrections
"The appeal to fairness doesn't hold water at all...''
"if evidence were to come to like showing a fossilised human next to a fossilies T-Rex..."
Cynical, I'm not saying that religious nuts are better than disbelievers. I'm saying they're just as undesirable and flawed as each other. It's just the other side of the same coin. In a way they are more dangerous because they feel superior. I'm not religious in any way, but I also cannot say with certainty that God doesn't exist, particularly when I can't even define what God is.
1+1=2 is purely abstract. It's always 2 because we have defined it as such. We have defined it as such because we can make use of this definition. I'm happy to always say that 1+1 = 2 because I can extract usefulness from this abstract definition as it relates back to my physical existence. It allows me to make simple models of what I observe in my physical reality. It also allows me to communicate ideas to others using a common definition.
To demonstrate the usefulness of this abstract definition you would need to give many physical examples of the concept, or other abstract examples that were rooted in physical examples. Ultimately our understanding of everything is rooted in physical metaphors. This is one way we teach children for example, many physical examples of 1+1 =2. E.g. 1 apple and 1 apple = 2 apples.
Mapping the abstract reality to the physical reality is the problem however. The mapping is flawed. The purely abstract model does not represent the physical reality; it is a model that gives us predictability and usefulness given a set of assumptions, but does not reveal the true physical reality.
Interestingly enough physics used to be called natural philosophy. Science has since shed its heritage. The other statement is in relation to the "laws of nature". The language betrays you here. They are not in fact ?laws'; they are mathematical models (abstract models) we have created to describe what we observe. They change as our need for more predictable and useful ?laws' emerge.
If an atheist cannot prove that God doesn't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that atheists are not rational. It isn't based on fact; it's based on something else entirely. It's exactly the same problem that believers have; there is no proof that God does exist yet the belief persists. What's the difference?
That's pretty relevant don't you think.
Atheism depends on a specific definition of God.
A whole gamut of belief systems exist in this world ranging from the very sincere belief that Elvis still lives, and that the moon landing was an elaborate fabrication despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
There are people who genuinely believe in fairies. Do you believe in all of these too - why by your own reasoning are you selective with what you believe if others believe a whole manner of things? Let me demonstrate with your own reasoning:
If a Christian cannot prove that faires don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational.
Not much of an argument is it? In fact is isn't an argument at all. You've presented what's known as a Strawman argument - a rhetorical tecnhique which looks logical on the surface but is higly fallacious.
The belief in the Judeo-Christian God is held by a minority of the world's population and has been held only for a very small fraction of human history. And even among Christians the belief in what this deity entails differs according to schism, cult or even individual making in efect, everyone's beliefs individual. Can we therefore conclude based on your supposed reasoning that if one person's beliefs differ from another's (the vengerful Old Testament God versus the ephermeral God in all things who doesn't interference in the affairs of the world for instance?) that both these people are irrational for not holding the other's belief?
There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme supernatural deity. In fact our understanding of the universe based on empricism and reasoning is that the likelihood of a such a deity existing is so highly improbably as to be negible. Akin with unicorns, fairies and the norse thunder god Thor.
And so just as in spite of the evidence for Elvis's death, family testimony, records, coroner's report, the doctor's testimonial etc - the persistence of a sincere belief that he still lives persists. THIS is highly irrational, not those who look at the evidence and say Elvis is wormfood. But then belief isn't about reason and it's fallacious of you to attempt to argue otherwise.
Science on the other hand has no such shades of grey.
One other point. I have to wonder what Christians say to the indigenous people of Australia and the America's who didn't have access to God's word as revealled through Jesus? Jesus didn't decide to walk among them either - and yet according to Christianity, these people are subject to the torments of hell after death simply because of geographic inconvenience.
AC it's best not get started on a discussion of reason here.
After Cynical again. "Artist" isn't it? I've been pretty clear about the definition of god actually, you'll find my posts mention "creationism" and "universe without design". If that doesn't make it clear your reading material is severely limited, but between Unit and myself we've already established that. Unit made one of the best posts by far imho "The theory of Evolution is an amazingly successful theory and while scientist might debate elements (hence its standing as a theory), it's considered scientific fact."
I'll add that humans have been making use of evolution for millenia without realising it- the domestication of plants and animals represent evolution controlled for human purposes. Our entire civilisation is built on it. The way the Kooris changed the Australian plant and animal life using fire is another example. Survival of the fittest, enhanced by mutation is just the way things work I'm afraid. The evidence is overwhelming.
Give me a god that doesn't contradict natural selection and evolution, and that leaves out all mention of "intelligent design" and I *maybe* won't disbelieve. Depends on what else is there.
Oh, and that "god of evolution" suggested by Terry Pratchette in The Last Continent doesn't count.
Dawkins' says that if there is a god she is blind. The "blind watchmaker" is referring to intelligent design you see- a watch being a good example of an intelligent design. But life isn't built like a watch (you will find plenty of examples in the book). It bumbles it's way to a "best fit" solution with the environment it inhabits. Try to contain it and it figures out a way around your confinements. That's the nature of genetics.
Ask me to ignore the weight of evidence provided by the existence of human civilisations (not just western) and you get told where to go.
Addition: the Christian creator god would be the watchmaker.
Also if there is a god she has an inordinate fondness for beetles, just google "number of species of beetles" ;)
To answer your question directly I can explain why we are all selective in the way we think.
We appear irrational from each other's perspectives. That's the whole point of what I'm saying. That should be obvious. It's relative not absolute - subjective. We should therefore be open to all possibilities should our view be flawed - which is highly likely. My belief is that it's impossible to conclude that God does or does not exist.
To say God does or does not exist on the other hand is an absolute statement requiring a defined starting point to draw your conclusions from. The absolute framework requires a single origin that everything is compared against (say God). The relative framework doesn't require an origin, just another view to compare your view against. This absolute argument would be made depending on the definition you choose to define God. You then draw your absolute conclusions from this origin. The fact that you speak in absolutes whether you speak of belief or disbelief in God betrays a single absolute framework, a single point of origin. This is in effect a religion or similar belief system. In simple terms religion speaks in absolutes.
You say "If a Christian cannot prove that fairies don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational" You then claim this is a Straw Man argument. There are a few points I'd like to make about this.
Point 1. First of all what you wrote is actually just a double negative. I think what you mean is "If a Christian can prove that fairies don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational".
Point 2. The Straw Man fallacy is basically when one person presents another persons arguments falsely then argues against their own false summary of the others view in order to come to the desired conclusion.
So, if you did in fact not make a mistake when you wrote "If a Christian cannot prove..." rather than "If a Christian can prove ..." then went on to attack that statement, then in actual fact you are the one that is making the Straw Man argument as you are miss-representing what I wrote. Read it again more carefully.
If on the other hand you made a genuine mistake, then my reply is yes. From my particular perspective of the universe "If a Christian can prove that fairies don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational". Rationality depends on proof, evidence, facts, etc.
You claim science doesn't have shades of grey. I think you will find many people will disagree with you on that one.
Lorien, so would it be a fair summary to say in actual fact you don't believe in the Judo/Christian God but you are still open to the idea of a God, just not that one in particular. Is that a fair summary ?
No, not really. Unless that god was the tiny ball of intense energy that exploded with the big bang from which all matter, energy and life have sprung.
OK then! Off to bed now :)
Oh, I understand what you mean AC, far better than you realise. You don't understand what I mean very well however. As I have said, there are difference (profound ones) between the two, one path is nothing more than enslavement, the other is the path of empowerment.
Yes, I agree, beyond basics - and not going into semantics - the foundations to science seem pretty clear-cut, 1+1=2. It looks on the surface to be all black and white. Though I hate to admit it, it is actually rather grey, and the more you dig deeper, the more you realise that there is no concrete foundation to science, as much of science is just mathematical models of perceived rules of our reality - and these areas of math, are actually not very well interconnected with one another, to begin with.
Unfortunately for me, that is not really enough for me to have absolute faith in science, as it begs me to ask why these rules exist in the first place, and furthermore, what makes these rules work - it also makes me wonder whether you can actually come up with the mathematics for anything you like. Yes, these rules do change a lot over time as our "understanding" of the reality we exist within changes. At first the changes are minor "updates" to these rules, but when we can patch it no longer, this belief-system of rules, we then replace it with another one that covers all the bases and has enough areas for suspected "possibilities" that can be expanded upon should we start to compile enough evidence for the existence of phenomena to create a sub-set of new rules. But this is not the end of it however, and this is the part that most rational types seem to miss. As when you look back through recorded history, you will see this as a persistent trend. If you have a crystal ball that looked into the future, you would see that this trend continues - in fact, you might also see another trend to this technological progress, and maybe get a glimpse of where it is all heading to.
Now, someone could use such knowledge - among other arguments relating to reality and how the mind creates (or models) it, as well as the question of what reality is - to argue that there is no God or that there is a God. Someone could also argue that a certain religion is valid, in the face of such stark evidence to their being a lack of certainty to science, but, someone could also use the same to argue the validity of science and reasoning, as it has gotten us to this point of understanding, where as if we only believed what was said in the bible, we wouldn't have come to this "truth" at all. Not only could one religion argue its validity, but every religion - or if you like, belief-system - could argue its own validity.
In fact belief-systems is what it is all about, the key word being: belief.
But as Unit has said, if they are all just as valid as the rest, why would I pick one over another? Personally, I would ask the question, why would I pick one that is only masquerading as religion, but is only about subjugation and control: enslavement - utilising a rigid set of dogmatic rules to dictate ones life, even if in the face of measurable experienced evidence, these rules are proven to be fallacious. When I could pick a path that helps empower me and is leading to greater degrees of freedom - and that is what most or all technology is about, greater freedoms in what we can achieve. Especially when I could pick my own belief system, that sees the greyness of science and has made reasoned room for a form or religion, that is based on my experience and understanding of the reality that I exist within is - some might call it the universe, others may call it: God, but it is all rather subjective as is the meanings / interpretations of these terms.
Your argument that it is all the same crud, is superficial, as on the surface it could be argued that they are all the same, but on deeper levels, at their core they are not all the same. To understand what you are preaching here, is to understand at least that much.
I personally like my secular-western belief-system - though it does entail more than that, as you might imagine. And, I am also happy in the direction it is taking, even if a bunch of fundamentalist Christians have hijacked it for the time being - and I don't just mean here in the Land-of-Oz, but also to a far more alarming degree, the US, and lesser degree in the UK.
I doubt this post will put an end to this argument, and even if it did, all it takes is some ignorant Christian to make a na?ve post to enflame it again - or a persistent AC to stir the pot so as to start an argument for whatever agenda he has ;)
I beleive in god - its just not what most christians or others would recognize :)
After reading many many books on philosophy and religion.. its pretty obvious to myself. But again, Im not preeching. Belief of spirit is something only a person can solve themselves. Interestingly, there are some excellent 'proofs' of God :) Spinoza, Ibn Tufail, and a huge number of others provide pretty comprehensive coverage of this :) However, most christions and religious types probably wont enjoy the readings. Many christians (and others) carry on with the premise that you need a book to 'know the truth', These books and teachings show quite the opposite - mans own curiousity and thrist for KNOWLEDGE can come to the same conclusion as any bible, Koran or Tora.
Ibn's book the "The Improvement of Human Reason" is a fantastic example of this exact problem, which follow on from even earlier writings by some of the great Greek philosophers like Leucippus, Socrates, Pythagorous, and many other great minds. And these follow on from most of these philosphers visits to India :) Where writings of the Vedic era obviously moulded many of the things that make up christianity and many other religions today :)
It is however interesting that after reading alot of these amazing works, that as you get into the middle ages, christianity heavily 'influences' the writings. They become less and less logical and more and more christian derived, the influence of the Chruch can be clearly seen in writings from 1000 AD onwards as its power grew. Ibn's work is a great example of that, since he was a scholarly muslim from Spain the translator however (whom translates it in the 1600's) shows a very christian intollerance to some of his discussions, about a book written around 1000AD.
So, finding ones spiritual self - what has that got to do with a game eh? One thing. And as many have pointed out - money. Mind you the Church has never been a group to knock back money :) .. see how much history influences today.. pity we dont learn from our history, we would all be alot more knowledgable than we are today thats for certain.
Classic. I've nver seen a more blazen and direct mirepresentation of an argument before AC - this is indeed a Strawman argument. i'll explain.
Quoting you from. 67
"You say "If a Christian cannot prove that fairies don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational" You then claim this is a Straw Man argument. There are a few points I'd like to make about this.
Point 1. First of all what you wrote is actually just a double negative. I think what you mean is "If a Christian can prove that fairies don't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that Christians are not rational".
I wrote a double negative??? May I draw your attention to your initial assertion in 61 - "If an atheist CANNOT (my bold but your word) prove that God doesn't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that atheists are not rational."
I simply replaced Atheist and God (being two polar positions of theistic belief) with Christian and Fairy (being examples supernatural beings that people may genuinely believe in) . Atheists or Christians CANNOT DISPROVE the existence of fairies, or indeed deities which may directly conflict the notion of the Judeo-Christian God, yet there are people who genuinely believe in them.
So I was simply turning your question around - I altered nothing else - as you stated, Atheists cannot disprove God's existence yet there are people who firmly believe in his existence. Conversely, there are other conflicting belief systems to the Judeo-Christian conception of God which Christians cannot disprove yet there are people who fimly believe in them - therefore a Christian's non-belief in other untestable and unprovable claims which they don't share is not more rational or irrational than an atheist who doesn't hold that God, fairies, unicorns, intelligent jellyfish, or Thor in fact exist. Such untestable beliefs are a multitude, and everyday people develop new ones. To an Atheist, belief on faith (ie dogma) alone, without empirical evidenece and non-falsiable are equally meaningless. God's likelinees of existing is on par with that of unicorns, elves and anything else humans might imagine. This I presume is your abstract reality - the realm of the untestable belief where gods, elves, elvis and elvis dwell.
If on the other hand you made a mistake and meant CAN rather than CANNOT as you seem to infer in your last post then your initial assertion makes no sense whatsoever: If an atheist CAN (is this what you meant) prove that God doesn't exist, and yet the belief still persists then you must conclude that atheists are not rational.
If you meant CAN, then how disproving the existence of God (through scientific method - incidentally a feat few claim to be possible) makes the Atheist irrational if Christians choose to cling on the belief that has since being proven false? (this of course would require God's existence to be testable and potentially falsiable) Doesn't that not make the one holding the belief in spite of the evidence irrational?
------
"Interestingly enough physics used to be called natural philosophy. Science has since shed its heritage"
So what? Semantics and nothing more. It doesn't alter what psyhics actually is.
--------
"The other statement is in relation to the "laws of nature". The language betrays you here. They are not in fact ?laws'; they are mathematical models (abstract models) we have created to describe what we observe. They change as our need for more predictable and useful ?laws' emerge. "
And what is your point here what exactly? That laws are rpelaced or refined is utterely consistent with the process of scientific method. If a law or theory proves to be untestable or susequently contridicted, then it ceases to be a law. Simple as that. That's how Science words - there are no shades of grey despite your glib asserstion otherwise (more mudslinging). Scientific method demands objectivity, and if the interpretation of results is biased in anyway then peer review will soon highlight this.
Which incidentally is presicely why Creationists will not have what they claim to be science peer-revieved in respected journals by other scientists. It's because the begin with a position of bias and attempt, quite unsuccessfully to mould their so-called evidence (while rejecting evidence which may confilict with their position) to fit their position unsing methods which don't no accord with the rigours of scientific method.
There are no shades of grey in the requirement that a scientific hypothesis must be falsiable (check the entry for Falsifiable on wikipedia for a definition).
---------
And as to this in 61..."Mapping the abstract reality to the physical reality is the problem however. The mapping is flawed. The purely abstract model does not represent the physical reality; it is a model that gives us predictability and usefulness given a set of assumptions, but does not reveal the true physical reality."
What a load of pontless, meaningless claptrap. Sounds impressiive but is really meaningliess drivel (abstract reality or unfounded dogma and irrational beliefs in omnipotent beings, aliens, fairies or a living elvis. Again meaningless semantics desessed as an argument.
That all being said it's no secret that John has long wanted to make a game centred around his faith. I have absolutely no problem with a Christian MMO. There's a untapped market to be sure.
You say
"So I was simply turning your question around - I altered nothing else - as you stated, Atheists cannot disprove God's existence yet there are people who firmly believe in his existence."
I didn't say that. I said, "Atheists cannot disprove God's existence yet THEY still believe he doesn't exist". You don't think that's irrational? Isn't that the definition of irrationality?
You say
"Conversely, there are other conflicting belief systems to the Judeo-Christian conception of God which Christians cannot disprove yet there are people who firmly believe in them"
Again as above, this is a misrepresentation of my statement.
You go on
" - therefore a Christian's non-belief in other untestable and unprovable claims which they don't share is not more rational or irrational than an atheist who doesn't hold that God, fairies, unicorns, intelligent jellyfish, or Thor in fact exist. Such untestable beliefs are a multitude, and everyday people develop new ones. "
Here you draw a conclusion based on your own misrepresentation, which has nothing to do with what I said. Interestingly enough you make exactly the same conclusion I made. One is not more rational or irrational than the other. As I say it's subjective. That's exactly what I said.
You also seem to be agreeing with me on another point here too,. Atheism requires a definition of the thing you don't believe in. In this example you define the object of disbelief as God, fairies, unicorns, intelligent jellyfish or Thor. Given this definition most people would be this particular type of Atheist. Make a silly definition and make everyone else look silly, right? Isn't that the Straw Man argument once more? By making the silly definition to make a point you're misrepresenting the whole argument.
You go on
"To an Atheist, belief on faith (ie dogma) alone, without empirical evidenece and non-falsiable are equally meaningless. God's likelinees of existing is on par with that of unicorns, elves and anything else humans might imagine. This I presume is your abstract reality - the realm of the untestable belief where gods, elves, elvis and elvis dwell.
"
As before. No one has claimed you should do it without empirical evidence or logic or deep thought. What I'm saying is that it is wholly dependent on the definition you use for the object of your disbelief. You can make any argument you like when you yourself define what it is that you're "not believing" in. In your examples you place God with unicorns, elves and anything else humans might imagine. I don't think it's that simple however