Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well, I think, therefore I am. I don't see why I have to look into it more than that. There is no need to pin down neurone-X for feeling-y. Especially as it would go too far off topic.

Once again, I'm in agreement. Anyone who denies the existence of consciousness is clearly a whack job. One's own consciousness is more immediately certain to the individual than any scientific proof, so the fact that it can't be observed doesn't mean that much. Just nitpicking.

 

[Elamdri]

Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

A University of Missouri doctoral student says many modern videogames "problematize" organized religion by equating it with violence in their stories.

As improving technology has allowed videogames to evolve over the years, their narratives have become more detailed and nuanced as well, according to Greg Perreault, a doctoral student at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. That increased sophistication has led to a growing incorporation of religion into various storylines, and that in turn has led religion to be "problematized" in videogames by way of strong narrative connections with violence.

Perreault looked at Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy 13, Assassin's Creed, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in his research and found that all of them tied religion to violence. "In most of these games there was a heavy emphasis on a 'Knights Templar' and crusader motifs," he said. "Not only was the violent side of religion emphasized, but in each of these games religion created a problem that the main character must overcome, whether it is a direct confrontation with religious zealots or being haunted by religious guilt."

But he also stated that despite the common presence of those themes, he doesn't believe game makers are trying to "purposefully bash" religion. "I believe they are only using religion to create stimulating plot points in their story lines. If you look at videogames across the board, most of them involve violence in some fashion because violence is conflict and conflict is exciting," he continued. "Religion appears to get tied in with violence because that makes for a compelling narrative."

This is where I'd normally make a crack about being thankful that organized religion has never been responsible for any real-world violence, but I don't want to offend any sensibilities so I'll simply note that Perreault presented the results of his research at the Center for Media Religion and Culture Conference on Digital Religion and leave it at that.

Source: University of Missouri


Permalink

...I fail to see a problem here.

 

[Treblaine]

Never met a Christian who's even openly believed in creationism...

I don't really think the bible is a good representation of Christianity.

I don't know how to reply to these statements, they contradict actual religious practices so much it's mind boggling.

 

[Bluecho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematization

Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation.

I wonder did they REALLY mean to use that term, or did they just make up that term think it meant "oh, they're just MAKING problems".

I'm not sure.

I will say the central tenement of Christianity (at least) is based on violence; that is you don't follow their dogma then you will be horribly tortured for all eternity. And much violence has stemmed from that.

Organized religion, for sure. But if you really think Christianity itself is at its core violent, hateful, and mean spirited, you've obviously never read a good chunk of the Bible. It repeatedly preaches forgiveness, kindness, generosity, and love for all God's creations.

Sappy to be sure, but the religion itself is generally against wanton violence. It's just that plenty of people, past and present, tend to not pay attention to much of what their religions say. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart.

 

[BrotherRool]

Hey, it says God made everything and has absolute power. You can't then say:

"God who is desperately trying to stop this thing happening"

When god is responsible for this! HE send them to hell! It's HIS decision! According to the bible. Is god like a crazy man holding a gun to someone's head "I'm desperately trying to prevent your brains being blown out, if you will just do what I say!"

And even if he is desperately" trying to warn people what he is going to do why is this one warning in an ancient and highly adulterated book? Why has his voice not boomed over the Indian Subcontinent to warn them all that if they don't follow his text as prescribed.

God is coming off more like the villain from that awful movie series Saw, giving the victim a possible way out from a horrible fate that is totally implausible for them to realise most don't stand a chance. Why doesn't god just SAY! Why why does he whisper in people's ear one at a time (indistinguishably from mental delusion) on what you need to do to avoid this trap?

How can I believe Jesus is the son of God if I don't believe in god? I believe he is the son of man, OR he is the result of an extremely rare case of human parthenogenesis.

"The word hell only appears in the whole bible 15 times, comparable to helmet"

So? Religions only need it to be mentioned once to use it as a hollow threat against all non-believers. And Hell is alluded to many times than directly by that term and by exclusion.

I've been in enough creationists debates and they always tap out by saying "well I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell".

I don't care about the bible. It's just a book. I care about how OTHER PEOPLE care about it. The bible says a lot but each denomination and each individual uses and abuses it for their own ends. How they use it to deliver veiled and hollow threats of an inescapable and HORRIFIC punishment. Something so bad it can scare people beyond the ability to reason to caving in, the "pascals wager" is blackmail.

The duality of heaven and hell is the inescapable part as it is the main appeal of religion as what happens after death is an inescapable and burning question and religion seizes on this fear and ignorance.

It's nice to see that you've obviously given this a lot of thought and if you don't mind me saying, you seem pretty passionate too which is cool. What should people be more passionate about than how they view the universe? (Incidentally have we talked before? I think i recognise your name?]

If it's okay may I ask you a question, if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?

CS Lewis wrote 'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done''

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect. And heaven is being with God. But for something to be perfect it has to have no faults, and that's not true of any of us, since we chose to be as we are. So he decided that he would take the consequences of our perfection, so that if we ask him, when he'll look on us he'll choose to see perfection instead and in the end, if we let him, he'll make us perfect.

But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God. So if you become completely seperate from God, that's how life will be. Without hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, because all of those things ultimately stem from God.

And you don't quite need the bible, it's a shaky point theologically, but it's possible to believe in God, without being told about God it's just a lot harder. And yeah it's an ancient book, but it's an ancient book that's been read by more people in the world than any other book ever. And in the end, he didn't just write a book, he did things with people and left them with experiences that guided them to write the things down that he willed. Even if your atheist, especially if you're atheist, it's almost undeniable that there is no single person in the world that has had a more significant effect on the course of history than Jesus (Except possibly The Buddha there's roughly 500 million Buddhists to 1 billion Christians but I don't know enough eastern/indian history to gauge the overall affect through time). And he was just one guy. To you, one ordinary guy.

You are right Hell is intricately linked to the whole christian faith, but even by reference it's only mentioned a handful of times throughout the whole bible. The vast majority of books don't talk about it/reference it/imply it even once, but you are right, it's there and thing. It's just not the central purpose or even something that's highlighted or particularly valued. People's understanding of hell is far more based on things like Dante's Inferno (which is in itself a lot more focused on mercy and compassion than people think) and Paradise lost.

And I'll be frank with you, hopefully those creationists who talked to you had a think and pray about what they said afterwards. Hell is a thing and a fact but if God sees no joy in it, then they don't have any right to want to see people there either.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

But Pascal meant it pretty tongue in cheek, I like it more because I'm a mathematician and like to think that I'm pretty logical and well, if things aren't eternal, then yeah, there aren't really any consequences to our actions. 1/n -> 0 as n ->infinity.


I hope you're okay with what I've said. I don't want to make you irate but I hope you can understand that as much as you can't agree with what I say (unless you do), I can't agree with what you say (unless I do). I feel a little uncomfortable talking like this because 1)I'm not God and so can easily be wrong and 2) The only way I can talk is to talk about what I believe in, but that's something you don't believe in and take objection to, so at best I can only make you feel uncomfortable about my weird mindwashedness

In the end we look at the same thing in a completely different way and we've almost got no common point. Thanks for taking the time to read this, although to you it must just seem like righteous tripe

 

[AnarchistFish]

Never met a Christian who's even openly believed in creationism...

I don't really think the bible is a good representation of Christianity.

I don't know how to reply to these statements, they contradict actual religious practices so much it's mind boggling.

I don't agree with many religious practices that are widely accepted. Anyway, bible passages like the one you cited are rarely paid attention to by most Christians.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Not when said like that it doesn't. "Science/Logic/Reason" are the reasons given when someone says they don't believe in God. I haven't heard of any other. You may disavow God because you think He is cruel/unfair but that's completely different then believing He doesn't exist.

And the act of reasoning and logic falls under the "science" branch right? inductive reasoning is part of forming the hypothesis that is to be tested. I remember from history class that the Nazi regime dissected blacks and Jews to prove their hypothesis that Jews were a inferior race. So step 1.) use reasoning to form a hypothesis 2.) experiment...scientific method in action.

Actually the roots of german anti semitism go back to medieval Christianity (look up Pogroms in germany) There was no reasoning involved, it's false logic based upon irrational belief and thus nothing at all to do with actual science.

Three things:

1) @Jinxey: Only inductive reasoning could be considered scientific. Science is an empirical methodology used to gain a posteriori truths through experimentation. Logic, a.k.a. deductive reasoning is a priori. In other words, logical truth is supposed to be known prior to any empirical data. This isn't really an objection per se, this particular confusion is just a pet peeve of mine.

2) Science is a purely descriptive enterprise. It only describes the world, it doesn't tell you what to do with the information. The latter duty belongs to the normative enterprise known generally as 'ethics'. Even if geneticists proved that some races were less intelligent or more prone to criminality than others, that fact still wouldn't justify the holocaust. This is generally known as the 'is'/'ought' distinction.

3) The 'is'/'ought' distinction works both ways. Just because people ought to be equal, it doesn't mean that they actually are. The question as to whether any group of people has some genetic advantage over others is an empirical question. People tend to have an instant negative reaction when you start talking about the genetic differences between races. But it's something that must be studied. If everyone turns out to be equal, great. But if someone turns out to have a disadvantage that doesn't mean we should discriminate against them. If some people do have a genetic disadvantage we can work to fix it with genetic engineering and level the playing field.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect.

Someone hasn't been reading their Kant. Perfection is not a predicate. I hope we aren't giving an ontological argument for the existence of God. Those went out of style in the 1700s.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

Pascal's wager only works if there are two options: materialism and Christianity. But in actuality there are multiple, mutually exclusive options in the form of each religion. So if you're going to buy into pascal's wager you're going to end up looking like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDWR5RkWRTY

 

[Treblaine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problematization

Problematization is a critical thinking and pedagogical dialogue or process and may be considered demythicisation.

I wonder did they REALLY mean to use that term, or did they just make up that term think it meant "oh, they're just MAKING problems".

I'm not sure.

I will say the central tenement of Christianity (at least) is based on violence; that is you don't follow their dogma then you will be horribly tortured for all eternity. And much violence has stemmed from that.

Organized religion, for sure. But if you really think Christianity itself is at its core violent, hateful, and mean spirited, you've obviously never read a good chunk of the Bible. It repeatedly preaches forgiveness, kindness, generosity, and love for all God's creations.

Sappy to be sure, but the religion itself is generally against wanton violence. It's just that plenty of people, past and present, tend to not pay attention to much of what their religions say. Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart.

Against wanton violence... still blackmails every living with the (hollow) threat of eternal torture by their god. THAT is the underpinning of violence. God could stop this, stop this infinite punishment of finite transgression but he won't. I've had this used against me and the Westbro Baptist Church use it extensively and - according to scripture - they use it correctly.

And why is it when I object to religious practices, I'm told I should judge religion by the scripture... but when I point out awful things in scripture they say to judge religions by their practices.

It's a double standard. Religion is at best redundant, at worst an instrument of suffering and it ONLY WORKS because people believe it.

"Yes, the Bible says homosexuality is bad, but it also says not to harbor hatred in your heart."

Empty platitudes versus explicit commandment to lynch gays. Give me a break, we see in practice how homophobes use the bible to give false legitimacy to their persecution.

 

[scotth266]

I knew this thread would be a nightmare the second I saw the thread title, but it was even worse than what I had predicted. People haven't even bothered to read the OP properly in most cases.

I particularly love how people are jumping on this to accuse religious people of being whiny, how religion is responsible for pretty much everything bad that ever happened ever, etc.

The point I think is being emphasized in the study is that mostly the positive aspects of religion are being ignored in games because the negative ones make for easy plot points. For example, religious conspiracies, hatred and crusades have become simple, go-to formulas for giving wars in games purpose. It's sort of getting stale by this point, too. Yes, the Crusades happened, okay, I get it, can we move on already? Anything, even mindless racism (elf-dwarf racism in particular) forms a more compelling war narrative by this point.

 

[Treblaine]

It's nice to see that you've obviously given this a lot of thought and if you don't mind me saying, you seem pretty passionate too which is cool. What should people be more passionate about than how they view the universe? (Incidentally have we talked before? I think i recognise your name?]

If it's okay may I ask you a question, if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?

CS Lewis wrote 'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done''

God is perfect, not as descriptor, but as a thing. Literally perfect. And heaven is being with God. But for something to be perfect it has to have no faults, and that's not true of any of us, since we chose to be as we are. So he decided that he would take the consequences of our perfection, so that if we ask him, when he'll look on us he'll choose to see perfection instead and in the end, if we let him, he'll make us perfect.

But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God. So if you become completely seperate from God, that's how life will be. Without hope, love, humility, patience, kindness, because all of those things ultimately stem from God.

And you don't quite need the bible, it's a shaky point theologically, but it's possible to believe in God, without being told about God it's just a lot harder. And yeah it's an ancient book, but it's an ancient book that's been read by more people in the world than any other book ever. And in the end, he didn't just write a book, he did things with people and left them with experiences that guided them to write the things down that he willed. Even if your atheist, especially if you're atheist, it's almost undeniable that there is no single person in the world that has had a more significant effect on the course of history than Jesus (Except possibly The Buddha there's roughly 500 million Buddhists to 1 billion Christians but I don't know enough eastern/indian history to gauge the overall affect through time). And he was just one guy. To you, one ordinary guy.

You are right Hell is intricately linked to the whole christian faith, but even by reference it's only mentioned a handful of times throughout the whole bible. The vast majority of books don't talk about it/reference it/imply it even once, but you are right, it's there and thing. It's just not the central purpose or even something that's highlighted or particularly valued. People's understanding of hell is far more based on things like Dante's Inferno (which is in itself a lot more focused on mercy and compassion than people think) and Paradise lost.

And I'll be frank with you, hopefully those creationists who talked to you had a think and pray about what they said afterwards. Hell is a thing and a fact but if God sees no joy in it, then they don't have any right to want to see people there either.

Pascal's wager I'll talk about more, because it's something i particularly joy because it suits my world view very well. The point about pascals wager isn't actually about hell as such. It's simply if life is finite, than ultimately there is nothing to be won or lost. It happens, you die, you don't even get to know what happens. The most important thing you care about now will be more than nothing. You could punch someone today and in the blink of an eye no-one will be around to remember it happened. Whereas something eternal will always be infinitely more important than something finite. If you aim for ever and you miss, you won't be around to know and if it is true then you'll have done something that actually has meaning.

But Pascal meant it pretty tongue in cheek, I like it more because I'm a mathematician and like to think that I'm pretty logical and well, if things aren't eternal, then yeah, there aren't really any consequences to our actions. 1/n -> 0 as n ->infinity.


I hope you're okay with what I've said. I don't want to make you irate but I hope you can understand that as much as you can't agree with what I say (unless you do), I can't agree with what you say (unless I do). I feel a little uncomfortable talking like this because 1)I'm not God and so can easily be wrong and 2) The only way I can talk is to talk about what I believe in, but that's something you don't believe in and take objection to, so at best I can only make you feel uncomfortable about my weird mindwashedness

In the end we look at the same thing in a completely different way and we've almost got no common point. Thanks for taking the time to read this, although to you it must just seem like righteous tripe

If the gods of Hinduism appeared to you and directly threatened you to give up Christianity and convert to their religion... would YOU!

"if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?"

I'd have some reservations, like for example I'd ask him to STOP TORTURING BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! Muhatma Ghandi is in there being tortured because he is Hindu, I am NOT OK at all hanging around with a god who would do such a thing. Heavy hand or not HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!

"God is perfect"

Bullshit. He admits to torturing billions of Hindus! This is circular logic, he is perfect because he says so, that he is perfect. When even the concept is not.

" But 'God is love'. Every time you have smiled in your life, every time you've felt love for someone or been loved by someone, that was God."

God will take credit for ANYTHING!

The very concept of this god I find monumentally offensive. You cannot deny that it tries to scare people into believing and obeying and with that belief charlatans can quote the bible and give false legitimacy to their claims. It is no zero sum thing believing in the God of the bible... believing his words that call for gays to be lynched, that evolution and all of geography are wrong.

 

[370999]

Look I'm religious and I will say that religion allows for one to engage in great violence. It also enables one with the moral courage to walk down the path of peace. As everyone one says atheism is a non thing, a lack of belief rather then a belief in the lack. Which is fine, but when dealing with religion it does allow people to justify frankly evil things. And it does give some people the crutch to help them stand and do things which are right. Not saying they couldn't do those things without it but for me religion helps me to be good.

As for games, as the study points out, religion making for an easy conflict both in providing a framework for the adversaries reasons as well as explaining why you can't negotiate with them. Then there is the various pop culture things, with game makers appearing to be a left wing bunch and tending towards atheism, A (apparently) religious motivated enemy being the US current foreign policy foe and general concept of the evil church, like the evil corporation, communist dictator or king/prince/queen being embedded in our cultural mindset.

 

[Thespian]

Dear god. So many... Quasi-Witty... Comebacks...

1 - Oh, so certain games showed The Crusades in a negative light? God forbid! That's almost as bad as Killzone being negative about the Nazis.

2 - Yep, those MEDIEVAL games set in MEDIEVAL times referring to MEDIEVAL events sure are commenting on MODERN DAY religious folk.

3 - Nah, forget Schopenhauer and Epicurus and Nietzsche and generations of writers, philosophers, scientists, artists and film-makers who have spoken out negatively against Religion - VIDEO GAMES ARE INDOCTRINATING THE YOUTHS.

4 - Negative representation of Religion? I'd say the past few centuries of organized religion are more for blame on that.

5 - He raises a fair point. Wouldn't want Religion to be related to violence at all. OH WAIT.

6 - Honestly, some Video Games. Depicting the Crusades as violent and injust, where do they get these ideas? OH WAIT.

7 - Seriously though he sort of put his ideas forth in a reasonable manner. But we need to realize that it's perfectly okay to represent Religion badly. It's okay to represent anything badly, Religion in particular, because it's been guarded by dogmatic propaganda for years.

 

[ATRAYA]

Have you ever heard the expression "religion kills"? Of course, even without religion, people would always be fighting over something. Religion is just the organized chaos that stands out the most because peace is often preached in these religions, and it allows people to hate it more.

 

[keiskay]

Sorry to say, but for anyone to seriously suggest that organized religion is completely innocent of any involvement in any kind of real-world violence... is either a demonstration of historical ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

and anyone to suggest it is the only cause or the greatest cause of violence, hatred and bigotry is likewise performing the same ignorance. (not that you are but just look at this thread.)

 

[thethird0611]

NEWSFLASH: BORED STUDENT PLAYS SOME VIDEO GAMES, GETS QUOTED ON THE ESCAPIST

Oh, and...

So this thread is EXACTLY why you cant have an open-minded discussion about religion. Ill just point that out real quick, because if a thread even mentions religion, its all 'OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE', 'RAGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY', when the topic doesn't even have a motive to talk about religion specifically.

Did you really just put "open-minded" and "religion" in the same sentence?

Anyway, there's plenty of motive. The topic is religion and violence and... stuff. Therefore we have a license to bash religion some more. Until it dies. Forever.

I realllllyyyyyy have to hope you were being sarcastic there. Because if not, you seriously just proved my point, and talk about how religion is open minded, though many of my buddies are big Christians and study Biology, Mathematics(i.e. number theory and the such), Neuro/Social/Behavioral Psychology (my own), and even genetics.

Wowzer.

Though, if your first statement wasnt so unprofessional, I would agree with you. Theres not much substance to this study, not very many real world implications, and very basic.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

If the gods of Hinduism appeared to you and directly threatened you to give up Christianity and convert to their religion... would YOU!

The Hindu gods aren't traditionally obsessed with people worshiping them. They offer things in exchange for sacrifices. Hindus definitely have a hell. In fact, they have many and varied versions of hell, but for the most part you don't get sent there for not worshiping someone. You get sent there for doing bad shit, regardless of religion. And it's more of an action-reaction thing than it is a judgment thing. That being said, if you piss off a Brahmin or don't perform certain rituals bad things are supposed to happen to you. So if they did come down, they would probably offer you wisdom and earthly rewards for worshiping them. Passing up on the rewards out of your own pigheadedness would probably be enough of a punishment.

"if right now God proved his existence to you, would you want to go to heaven? In that heaven is being perfectly united with God?"

I'd have some reservations, like for example I'd ask him to STOP TORTURING BILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR ALL ETERNITY! Muhatma Ghandi is in there being tortured because he is Hindu, I am NOT OK at all hanging around with a god who would do such a thing. Heavy hand or not HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!

You're very focused on the punishment aspect of it, which is understandable. But to be fair there are other ways of understanding punishment. St. Augustine offered a more mystic/gnostic approach where God simply is the eternal and the Good and by giving into impermanent sensual pleasures and negative emotions you've essentially damned yourself without any grumpy old man on a cloud having to chuck lightning bolts at you. Of course Augustine was a Manichean who converted back to Catholicism, so a lot of his philosophy could be considered unorthodox for its time, even though he went on to become a central Christian theologian. Even in the most backwards and fanatical traditions there occasionally arises someone with an interesting idea or two.

The very concept of this god I find monumentally offensive. You cannot deny that it tries to scare people into believing and obeying and with that belief charlatans can quote the bible and give false legitimacy to their claims. It is no zero sum thing believing in the God of the bible... believing his words that call for gays to be lynched, that evolution and all of geography are wrong.

The most offensive thing to me about the anthropocentric notion of the Christian God is not that he punishes a lot of people, it's why he punishes them. Supposedly God created human beings to worship him. Or, if we're going to take genesis literally, then he created us first as pets, and then once we became conscious of good and evil he started demanding that we worship him. This is probably the most offensive idea that I can think of. Added to this is the fact that God created us to enjoy things that he deems bad, so we have to suppress our own nature and grovel before him because his love is the only thing that can give our lives meaning.

People talk a lot about God's love being so great, but it seems to have a lot of strings attached. The relationship seems rather one-sided. We have to give up everything and worship God and submit to his every request and when we misbehave he tortures us. Supposedly he still loves us even when he sends us to hell; "I only hit you cuz I love you so much baby! Please don't make me hit you!" Sounds to me like God needs to lay off the Jack Daniel's.

Of course I can hardly be mad at an entity that doesn't exist. What sickens me is the mindset of the person who came up with this crap. I find the notion of an uncaring universe quite comforting. I can create whatever values I want and live my own life without some supernatural entity breathing down my neck. What kind of person is so insecure and self-hating that they need to create some sort of divine disciplinarian to punish them and make them feel even more guilty? Well, Nietzsche has already answered that particular question in The Antichrist and On the Genealogy of Morals.

 

[ccggenius12]

I'm pretty sure a doctoral student knows what problematization means.

You'd be surprised. There are college professors who don't know that a modem needs to be plugged in to work.

OT: Wow, so he completed his doctorate by writing a paper stating the obvious? This country...

 

[Krion_Vark]

Right, and Eve being made from Adam's rib and just two breeding pairs repopulating the earth in a few thousands years without being crippled by inbreeding. Not to mention how this DOES contradict both science and the "theistic evolution" as mentioned.

So the Bible stating that Adam and Eve are THE FIRST humans created and doesn't mention God making any other humans automatically means that God didn't make any other humans after Adam and Eve?
You have to take Religion with a HUGE bag of salt 90% of the time but you also have to put some thought behind what some things in the bible state.

The bible said mankind were created from Adam and Eve. That in itself is nonsense and contradicts the archaeological record of ape-like creatures gradual evolution into modern humans.

Sorry, grain of salt or bag of salt, there is no excusing how the Bible is full of false claims, as has been proven by science. The bible's word has about as much weight as Aesop's Fables and other stories.

We can get into the whole evolution debate if you would like but we do not have proof that they evolved into humans we know that they evolved into human like not necessarily human itself though since we did not observe it and that is the only definitive proof there is.

That's nonsense, we HAVE seen this evolution in the fossil record, accurately dated for each of the remains and confirmed further with study of genetics.

These "human like, not necessarily human" used complex tools, wore clothes, communicated verbally, cared for their sick and made art and jewellery. We know this from the archaeological record, how those with poorly injuries meant they were nursed to stay alive even though they didn't recover.

You're just being arbitrary to say these are not THE missing link of human evolution from primates. And just to clear up any confusion, we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, they are our "cousins". We have a common ancestor, they chimps and gorillas went one way, the path of living in the forests of fruit and forage. The path that would lead to humanity had far more evolutionary pressures that lead to us standing tool-users.

I find it funny that you are stating that Humans evolved from apes but then use the known ancestral humans and not stating anything about Lucy or the fact that there are quite a few steps between her and the ones that you are stating. You haven't said anything to prove that you are right or that the bible is wrong.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Organized religion is violence.
So much blood has been spilt in the name of a god.