Escapist Podcast: 089: Religion in BioShock, David Jaffe and Playing Nice

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
21
My only real problem with the dude who returned Bioshock due to religious reasons were that they were completely silly ones. I mean I was raised as a Catholic, and even though I'm no longer Christian myself I don't see how anyone would find the baptism scene as being akin to "Spitting in God's Eye" - ESPECIALLY if you actually play the game because if you really sit down and think about things the over all themes of the game and how they're explored are really pro-Christian.

They might not seem like it at first - and you have to really sit down a think about Booker and Comstock and how everything eventually turns out, but when you think about it - its actually portraying the themes behind Christianity in a really positive light while showing how "religious" men can still entirely miss point.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
What pisses me off about about certain religious people is if I say that there's no proof that any Gods exist, I'm treated like a freak. There's something wrong with me because I want proof, but the person who says that there is an all powerful God that created everything, but provides no proof are the "normal" ones. That drives me crazy.

It would be like saying all the people that go missing on earth are actually taken by creatures that live underground, but saying you need proof of that makes you the freak or the abnormal one.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe in things without proof that they exist, but don't treat me like I'm the weird one for wanting evidence. That's all I'm asking.
 

Tom_Pladgett

New member
Jan 8, 2013
5
0
0
Let's say that I was a racist (which I'm not). Let's assume that I take great offense at BS:I presenting racism in a greatly negative tone. Let's say that I would be infuriated by the fact that a member of a racist group, in this game, clearly deserves being mauled to death with a circle saw/wrist hook.

Would I be justified in receiving a refund because I feel insulted by this?

If not, then why does Christianity deserve special consideration in this regard?
 

Pepsik

New member
Aug 30, 2011
43
0
0
AkaDad said:
What pisses me off about about certain religious people is if I say that there's no proof that any Gods exist, I'm treated like a freak. There's something wrong with me because I want proof, but the person who says that there is an all powerful God that created everything, but provides no proof are the "normal" ones. That drives me crazy.

It would be like saying all the people that go missing on earth are actually taken by creatures that live underground, but saying you need proof of that makes you the freak or the abnormal one.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe in things without proof that they exist, but don't treat me like I'm the weird one for wanting evidence. That's all I'm asking.

Actualy having a proof is kinda the opposite of believe. And since god is about believing, wanting a proof of him is actualy kinda wierd. :-D I'm not trying to judge, just saying, I don't see a logic in finding a proof for believe. To be clear, I don't think you're freak 'cause you don't belive in god, that's your choice (or believe), just wanting a proof is a bit strange from my point of view.
And it's like asking you, where is your proof, that god doesn't exist. It is both about believe, so there can't be no proof, there can be some circumstantial evidence, but no proof. And most of all it's a touchy subject, I mean, it's not that polite to question someone's religion, well unless they ask you about it. :) (I mean, Jehovah's witnesses are asking for it, when they come knocking) :-D
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Pepsik said:
AkaDad said:
What pisses me off about about certain religious people is if I say that there's no proof that any Gods exist, I'm treated like a freak. There's something wrong with me because I want proof, but the person who says that there is an all powerful God that created everything, but provides no proof are the "normal" ones. That drives me crazy.

It would be like saying all the people that go missing on earth are actually taken by creatures that live underground, but saying you need proof of that makes you the freak or the abnormal one.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to believe in things without proof that they exist, but don't treat me like I'm the weird one for wanting evidence. That's all I'm asking.

Actualy having a proof is kinda the opposite of believe. And since god is about believing, wanting a proof of him is actualy kinda wierd. :-D I'm not trying to judge, just saying, I don't see a logic in finding a proof for believe. To be clear, I don't think you're freak 'cause you don't belive in god, that's your choice (or believe), just wanting a proof is a bit strange from my point of view.
And it's like asking you, where is your proof, that god doesn't exist. It is both about believe, so there can't be no proof, there can be some circumstantial evidence, but no proof. And most of all it's a touchy subject, I mean, it's not that polite to question someone's religion, well unless they ask you about it. :) (I mean, Jehovah's witnesses are asking for it, when they come knocking) :-D
Let me put it another way. If the vast majority of people in your country said we should be able to arrest and jail people for murder without any proof or evidence and anyone who wants proof is a freak, that's what it's like to be an atheist.

In America anyone who says they don't believe in God can't get elected to office. There's something incredibly wrong with that and it's maddening to me.
 

MrCollins

Power Vacuumer
Jun 28, 2010
1,694
0
0
Ha! Take this, I'm using an ingenious system to block ads, and I'm flaunting it at you. Look at it, look at it now!!!
It's the best.


In other news, I think you guys didn't really discuss the main point (or at least the interesting proposition) in what Jaffe was saying, the idea of what size an audience would be needed to sustain a writer and the potential for good writing that would come from financial security. I feel that by spending more time talking about his silly salary figure and lack of editorial (which really where peripheral to the idea) and the arguments over it. You are just adding fuel to the flames?

I wonder, and have a question for you, at what point do you think that it is not productive to talk about the silly arguments that happen and instead discuss the issue? Is it better to ignore the unproductive arguments and bickering, or do you feel the need to report the vitriol?

Love the podcat, keep up the good work.
 

bdcjacko

Gone Fonzy
Jun 9, 2010
2,371
0
0
cynicalsaint1 said:
My only real problem with the dude who returned Bioshock due to religious reasons were that they were completely silly ones. I mean I was raised as a Catholic, and even though I'm no longer Christian myself I don't see how anyone would find the baptism scene as being akin to "Spitting in God's Eye" - ESPECIALLY if you actually play the game because if you really sit down and think about things the over all themes of the game and how they're explored are really pro-Christian.

They might not seem like it at first - and you have to really sit down a think about Booker and Comstock and how everything eventually turns out, but when you think about it - its actually portraying the themes behind Christianity in a really positive light while showing how "religious" men can still entirely miss point.
I don't think it is silly. Getting baptized is strictly a religious act unlike the other major sacrament, marriage. Also baptism is a sacrament, a major sign that you are devoted to be Christian. I completely understand why someone would or could offended by that but not offended by all the killing.
 

anamizuki

New member
Oct 14, 2010
12
0
0
bdcjacko said:
cynicalsaint1 said:
My only real problem with the dude who returned Bioshock due to religious reasons were that they were completely silly ones. I mean I was raised as a Catholic, and even though I'm no longer Christian myself I don't see how anyone would find the baptism scene as being akin to "Spitting in God's Eye" - ESPECIALLY if you actually play the game because if you really sit down and think about things the over all themes of the game and how they're explored are really pro-Christian.

They might not seem like it at first - and you have to really sit down a think about Booker and Comstock and how everything eventually turns out, but when you think about it - its actually portraying the themes behind Christianity in a really positive light while showing how "religious" men can still entirely miss point.
I don't think it is silly. Getting baptized is strictly a religious act unlike the other major sacrament, marriage. Also baptism is a sacrament, a major sign that you are devoted to be Christian. I completely understand why someone would or could offended by that but not offended by all the killing.
Not to mention, the whole scene is done in first person. You don't really get to see -Booker- get baptised, you get to see yourself be baptised.

There is also the fact that it is the only way to progress the game, so if you don't want to dealt with a baptisement under false pretenses in first person, you are stuck. So I can see why the person would have quit the game.
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
Susan Arendt said:
Oh, of course. I was just trying to illustrate that readers are more likely to come to the defense of, say, someone being harassed for sexual preference or race than they are for someone being mocked for being devout. It wasn't an ideal analogy at all - just trying to say that it seems that it's typically open season on anyone who admits to being religious.
If I had to wager a guess, I'd say it's because Christianity has a hold over secular life, which ties into another comment I had. Someone on the cast was saying "For every loud christian, there are ten others in a soup kitchen that doesn't hate you for your gender, skin color, or sexuality" and to this I say... then why is gay marriage still banned?

Predominately, the nation votes with their religious beliefs in mind. Gay marriage is banned for what reason? The religious reason.

Many of the loud gamers, seem to be atheist, and as stated above, their lives are being directed and controlled by nonsecular laws and beliefs.
 

wrightguy0

New member
Dec 8, 2010
296
0
0
it's interesting to hear susan talk about the role of the editor, I heard the exact same thing from my animation teacher in school this morning, if you work in any sort of large team based industry like journalism or animation or film, you need someone there who can bounce ideas and perspectives back and forth with you if something's not working quite right, "How about this?" is probably one of the best questions you can be asked if you're struggling with a paragraph or a scene.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
I don't block ads, but by the same token, if I have to watch the same ad 5 times (once before every video on the site), I make a mental note to never buy their stuff. Sometimes. I just turn the sound off, or cover the ad with another window and look at that. When I hear the sound of the actual thing I want to watch starting, I go back to the Escapist window.
 

Atary77

New member
Feb 27, 2008
152
0
0
I don't use ad-block because I support the work you guys do here and I want to see you guys continue to do that. I hope others understand it.
 

Rakschas

New member
Jan 7, 2013
45
0
0
To take religion seriously, to be devout, you have to constantly and without interruption take things seriously, that have no foothold whatsoever in the plane of physics and science. That notion can and ultimately will come into conflict with similar concepts, as introduced in video games.

While a typical gamer will simply suspend his disbelief for a time and open his mind to the joys and wonders, he very much knows that fairy tales are fairy tales. The religious person however will, unless he lacks the witts to do so, very much notice the conceptual similarities in those tales. The following problem emerges:
Suspending his disbelief for one, but not the other makes him a hypocrite, as it means clearly applying double standarts.
Suspending his disbelief for both will put his devotion to his religion in question.
Suspending ones own disbelief therefore is not an option. Embracing the narative of a fictional Story can and sometimes will therefore become an attack on ones own religios identity.

So one of them has to go, and obviously thats the video game, as it is not part of the religious persons identity.

Those ideas dont crash in an empty space, they come into conflict in the form off people. Most gamers have very much a kneejerk reaction when it comes to religious people, because for reasons mentioned above, we, as a community with similar interests, came into conflict with them.
 

NWJ94

New member
Feb 21, 2013
64
0
0
Really appreciate what you said Susan about the knee jerk reaction to Christians. I'm protestant Christian; the kind of Christian that thinks Fox News is the most hilariously dumb thing on the face of the planet, believes in evolution, supports gay marriage, and is Pro-choice, but still Christian and a man of faith.

It's always really bothered me, particularly on this site which I otherwise love, how fast people are to paint religious people as idiots and mindless sheep who all belong to the "God hates gays" and "Believe or go to hell" type. Myself, and many many other Christians, utterly despise the kind of stereotypes the fringe element has made and always try be a counter example, but often in gaming communities it really feels like a losing battle. Thanks for making me feel a little better and not so much the odd one out.

Getting a little to sappy here so any-who great podcast as always, love having something to listen to during my Friday commute.
 

Navvan

New member
Feb 3, 2011
560
0
0
I liked your outro joke Paul. It certainly wasn't good by any measure, but it made me smile.
 

Pepsik

New member
Aug 30, 2011
43
0
0
AkaDad said:
Let me put it another way. If the vast majority of people in your country said we should be able to arrest and jail people for murder without any proof or evidence and anyone who wants proof is a freak, that's what it's like to be an atheist.

In America anyone who says they don't believe in God can't get elected to office. There's something incredibly wrong with that and it's maddening to me.
But you are comparing two completely different things. (legal system and believe) But even if I accept your comparison. The problem is a think called the presumption of innocence, therefore a proof is needed to indicate they are guilty. Now you say god is guilty of not existing, doesn't he deserve a presumption of innocence? Where is then your proof? But as I've said, realy strange comparison. I have a better comparison for you.

You will say to your girlfriend (or boyfriend), that you believe, she isn't cheating on you, since there is a trust in your relationship. Wanting proof afterwards is not weird, it's actually wrong, because with proof there is no trust nor believe. That's the problem I'm trying to point out, there is no believe without proof, so proof for god is weird logic.

Can't say I'm all that familiar with election process in USA, but isn't saying "I believe in god" just a way to get more votes, not a necessity to participate, otherwise I agree with you, that would actually be weird.
 

Rakschas

New member
Jan 7, 2013
45
0
0
Pepsik said:
AkaDad said:
Let me put it another way. If the vast majority of people in your country said we should be able to arrest and jail people for murder without any proof or evidence and anyone who wants proof is a freak, that's what it's like to be an atheist.

In America anyone who says they don't believe in God can't get elected to office. There's something incredibly wrong with that and it's maddening to me.
But you are comparing two completely different things. (legal system and believe) But even if I accept your comparison. The problem is a think called the presumption of innocence, therefore a proof is needed to indicate they are guilty. Now you say god is guilty of not existing, doesn't he deserve a presumption of innocence? Where is then your proof? But as I've said, realy strange comparison. I have a better comparison for you.

You will say to your girlfriend (or boyfriend), that you believe, she isn't cheating on you, since there is a trust in your relationship. Wanting proof afterwards is not weird, it's actually wrong, because with proof there is no trust nor believe. That's the problem I'm trying to point out, there is no believe without proof, so proof for god is weird logic.

Can't say I'm all that familiar with election process in USA, but isn't saying "I believe in god" just a way to get more votes, not a necessity to participate, otherwise I agree with you, that would actually be weird.
you just absolutely made no sense.
 

Pepsik

New member
Aug 30, 2011
43
0
0
Rakschas said:
you just absolutely made no sense.
Yeah, I get that a lot, it has something to do with me being crazy and whatnot. :) Or maybe it is just an oversight on my part. It should be: there is no believe with proof, my bad...