Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[CleverCover]

You know, I always feel late to these conversations, because I never pick up on these kind of threads until someone else points it out to me. I always see something else.

In ME2, I didn't see a religion. I saw a people changed from something normal into something grotesque through force and brainwashing. None of them chose to become Collectors.

In AC, some of them truly believed that what they were doing was for the benefit of mankind. Some of the others were just using the religion to further their own goals. Like how it is in real life.

I thought the lesson was to not be sheep?

Although, it's not the videogame that put me off organized religion. It was the religious people themselves that put me off organized religion.

 

[dobahci]

Would you really be happy taking on the role of a practising Muslim or one who is completely silent on the issue of religion. How about a Scientologist? Or are you REALLY more hoping for a Christian one.

...

But I think the main reason is that if you actually make the protagonist religious, that a huge proportion will just think the protagonist is a gullible idiot for believing in such things. Like being genuinely paranoid about breaking a mirror for 7 years bad luck, it comes across to many as superstitious.

Honestly, I'd love to play as a religious character. A practicing Muslim, or Christian... even a Scientologist. Sure, why not? I like my characters to be interesting and believable and well fleshed out. They can have flaws, and superstitions, and religious faiths, and maybe occasionally struggle with their faith or suffer an internal debate upon the ramifications of their beliefs, agonize over the potential hypocrisy or self-contradictions of the deity or holy book or church they've always trusted.

At least a character like that would be interesting. They would be human. For a lot of people, being human includes at least some religious faith. Better a gullible religious protagonist than another stereotypical wisecracking irreligious hero who can do everything well and is handsome and charming and has a witty response to everything. We have just a few too many of those.

Safe bet is NOT to make your protagonist afraid of some invisible sky man who they've never experienced and was just told about in Sunday School.

If this is how you think of all religious people, then... I don't know what to say. They're not all mindless sheep, despite what you may think. They have feelings, and thoughts, and most of them are probably pretty good people who want to see the world become a better place. Most of them are sincere -- they truly believe. Some of them may have felt the presence of god at one point, experienced some life changing event that renewed their faith when they were going astray. I thought I experienced something like that too, once, back when I was a Christian.

Now I'm an atheist, so I know those feelings and that experience did not originate from anything based in fact or evidence... but I know how real they felt at the time. So I don't judge those who are religious, I don't think I'm better or smarter than they are. Because I know how real it can feel. I have both religious and atheist friends, and religious relatives, and I don't try to tell them they are gullible idiots who can't think for themselves. What would give me the right to judge someone who doesn't think as I do? Then I would be committing the same crime which we secular people are so quick to lay at the feet of religious folk.

 

[Baresark]

It's not usually religion that is guilty of these things, it's usually people within that religion that guilty.

Without it's people, religion is nothing.

as for his "entire argument"...how the fuck would you know what his ENTIRE argument is? the articles only gives a very brief summary and a few react quotes.

Point. When I stated entire, I meant everything I had read within the confines of this article.

LoL, while true, not every member of a religion represents the same religion in exactly the same way. There are peace loving Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. There are also warmongering Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. It goes to reason that while the religions may be the focal point of of both sides, the people are the ones who choose to represent it as such in either case.

snip

Because if it's only people representing a religion who use it to inflict harm that doesn't reflect at all on religion itself. The various world religions represent the largest and most stubborn cults of superiority. They are fictions invented to make the members feel superior to everybody else, just the same as nationalism. It's a propaganda tool to make people feel part of a larger group so that they can be manipulated more easily.

Look at war time propaganda, even now. Both sides leverage religion over the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan - listen to some of the shit George Bush said about the War on Terror, think about the demonising of Islam (not all that difficult in combination with extremist terrorism admittedly). It's been this way forever:

Why did Egypt have a totalistarian with the power to force people to waste their lives building giant triangles in the Desert?

His people thought he was a god.

Why did the feudal system work?

The peasant believed that their king ruled with God's will. It was God's will that they were ruled over by an upper class whilst they had essentially no prospect at all of moving up in the world.

The vast majority of large injustices that I can think of can be attributed to religion or more widely to people making shit up to protray their group as superior to everyone else. It should be stamped out.

There's my angry gamer rant

As to the article, it's not exactly controvertial it's just a funny that he seems unaware of just how much large scale evil religion has inflicted on the world.

I am not calling any of those things into question at all. Those things are all true. But I have met few people who worship any religion that fit your descriptions of the ills of religion, who act superior to anyone. Religion is just an institution, it's nonsensical to blame them for how people choose to interpret their values. I have known people who tried to tell me that Islamic people want me dead, no matter what. But I did grow up around a Muslim family that would never hurt anyone. And I had met some of the people they attend Mosque with and they were all good people to who accepted me as their equal, despite not being Muslim. My girlfriend is Lutheran, I occasionally attend a service where she is doing a solo in the Choir and everyone accepts and welcomes me their, despite not intending to ever be a part of their church or religion. These things do not discount the things you mentioned, but things you mentioned are not a direct result of religion, but people interpreting the religion how they see fit. You think all Japanese emperors were descendants of Amaterasu for all time? Or do you think someone twisted the religion to say so?

A good friend of mine thinks religion (specifically Catholicism) is the most evil thing ever. I'll tell you what I tell him, you give them way too much power. You give one man the responsibility of all the evils Catholicism may do. No one has that kind of power. At worst, he has to stand by and let it happen, but he doesn't have a hand in all of it. And he may be as much a slave to awful people as the religion and it's purveyors are. No one knows for sure. But no one has come to me acting superior or wanting me dead because I am not with them. I do feel like to be around in the modern age though. There is not really a stranglehold on people these days, at least not in first world countries where I can jump on the escapist and meet folks like yourself who don't share my opinion, and that is okay with everyone.

 

[Treblaine]

Natter

My, you do like to rant. None of that has to do with anything I'm asking.

What is wrong with having a religion or religious character, not even the protagonist, and perhaps not even central to the plot, serve as a non-antagonistic and even helpful force in a game? Are you really so bigoted against EVERY SINGLE RELIGION, EXISTING OR NOT, that this seems like an absurd and offensive concept?

Well yeah, I DO think it's ridiculous to believe in invisible and totally undetectable consciousness that apparently personally made every last tiny bit of the universe... until science proved it didn't.

And I find it offensive when organisations exploit that belief to enforce inflexible dogma which has imprisoned and persecuted scientists in the past and still today invades our science classrooms. That trolls the funerals of dead servicemen with the Westbro Baptist Church. That justifies and encourages mass suicide attacks with (but not limited to) Islamist Terrorism.

I'm not saying atheism is a cure all. Replacing Russian Orthodoxy Church supported Tsars with the new ideology of Stalinist communism is just replacing one absolutist dogma with another.

I don't have a particular problem with benign and personal religions any more than I have a problem with children who believe in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy. I don't even care that they are public, just that they do not deliver these veiled threats of damnation that will dupe the young and impressionable by being tricked into Pascal's Wadger, and from there the dogma.

I want to see religions evolve beyond the superstition, that the philosophies they espouse stand on their own merits, not because "god says so" or that "if you don't you'll be tortured for eternity" but that in their own way we can rationally discuss them and agree that they are right for both society and the individual.

I'd be so sad if these (benign) religious traditions died, I have been to so many weddings and ceremonies. These are important, more important than if god exists or not. I think religion could exist as more like fan clubs exist for fictional media, like the trekkies. This things that Captain Picard says are profound even though we all know he is a fictional character portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Study the philosophy of the bible without depending on every word as divine, debate the relevance and morality of the bible rather than translations and interpretations

Some things definitely have to go:

 

[omicron1]

While atheism itself has some rather vicious purges to its name

I'm genuinely interested, give me examples of atrocities done in the name of an absence of belief.

The wikipedia article on state atheism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism] reads like a who's who list of incidents. The French revolution, Albania during the cold war, Cuba, North Korea... I'm not surprised they aren't more widely known, though - they don't fit with the narrative.

Have any examples that aren't based around fanatical belief in a political institution, but on an actual lack of belief?

Examples:
French Revolution: Radical leftist Jacobins aiming for collectivist republican values, see religion as a threat to what essentially becomes state-worship.
Mexico: Ruled by a member party of Socialist International for seventy years, based around 'democracy for the workers'.
Albania: Communism, and Hoxha, who was aiming for a cult of personality.
Czechoslovakia: Communism
Soviet Union: Stalinist interpretation of Marxism, cult of personality around Stalin (later lightened in the Khrushchev era)
People's Republic of China: Maoist interpretation of Marxist-Leninism, cult of personality centred around Mao Tse Tung.
Cambodia: Complete restructuring of Cambodian society to agrarian values due to the conflict with Western imperialism, children taught complete devotion to the Khmer Rouge.
Mongolia: Also Stalinist.
Cuba: Push towards a secularist state, violence minimal, restrictions on religion minimal. Has to do with Castro using communism in a nationalist perspective rather then fanatically devoting himself to it.
North Korea: State-worship and worship of Kim Il-Sung/Kim Jong-Il/probably Kim Jong-un soon enough.

Don't get me wrong, I think that a complete focus on religion as the cause for the majority of human conflicts often underplays the effects of other factors, but all the examples you gave are all based on the fanatical devotion to some brand of leftism, which you could argue is a religion in itself. None of your examples are a logical challenge to modern-day rational atheism and its complete rejection of fanaticism. Instead you're arguing against irrational atheism driven by a fanatical, faith-driven belief in something other then religion.

Quite true - most if not all of these examples may be easily explained as political/ideological fronts using atheism as a cover or a byproduct.

...So why are people so unwilling to do the same for religion? Why do people believe it's religion itself at the heart of things like the (atrocities committed during the) Crusades, rather than a product of the political entity at the heart of the historical church, using religion as a cover?

I'm not arguing for "evil atheism" here; just bringing up diametric counterpoints to the viewpoint commonly expressed within this thread - that religion is the sum of all evil in the world. My conclusion is simple: Religion is responsible for evil to exactly the same degree that atheism is responsible for the various events I linked to. One must take all or nothing; one cannot vilify the one and ignore (or sanctify) the other.

 

[Kimarous]

snip

And once again you completely fail to tie it in with gaming, as is my focus.

You're just using this topic to vent out your anti-religious bias. I'm done talking with you.

 

[Kimarous]

Anyways, back on topic. Religion has always been an interesting plot driver for many stories, I don't see what makes it so different for Videogames... And this may be the result of me not playing the game, but what does Mass Effect 2 have to do with Religion?

Mainstream geth versus Reaper-serving "heretics", Legion quoting part of the bible and mentioning a time he provoked a religious conflict, Samara's Justicar code and references to a goddess, Thane praying for his sins, Hannar espousing about The Enkindlers...

That's what comes to mind at this time. There might be more.

 

[Evilpigeon]

I am not calling any of those things into question at all. Those things are all true. But I have met few people who worship any religion that fit your descriptions of the ills of religion, who act superior to anyone. Religion is just an institution, it's nonsensical to blame them for how people choose to interpret their values. I have known people who tried to tell me that Islamic people want me dead, no matter what. But I did grow up around a Muslim family that would never hurt anyone. And I had met some of the people they attend Mosque with and they were all good people to who accepted me as their equal, despite not being Muslim. My girlfriend is Lutheran, I occasionally attend a service where she is doing a solo in the Choir and everyone accepts and welcomes me their, despite not intending to ever be a part of their church or religion. These things do not discount the things you mentioned, but things you mentioned are not a direct result of religion, but people interpreting the religion how they see fit. You think all Japanese emperors were descendants of Amaterasu for all time? Or do you think someone twisted the religion to say so?

A good friend of mine thinks religion (specifically Catholicism) is the most evil thing ever. I'll tell you what I tell him, you give them way too much power. You give one man the responsibility of all the evils Catholicism may do. No one has that kind of power. At worst, he has to stand by and let it happen, but he doesn't have a hand in all of it. And he may be as much a slave to awful people as the religion and it's purveyors are. No one knows for sure. But no one has come to me acting superior or wanting me dead because I am not with them. I do feel like to be around in the modern age though. There is not really a stranglehold on people these days, at least not in first world countries where I can jump on the escapist and meet folks like yourself who don't share my opinion, and that is okay with everyone.

I would never suggest that individuals are inherently worse for having religious beliefs. I don't live in a vaccuum, I have friends and family who believe and this is a topic I avoid like the plague around them in the same way I try very hard not to mention I'm a pacifist around my cousin who's serving in the marines.

However, their shared belief and the power that imparts upon people who have no right to it is a bad thing.

Here's a modern example: Catholicism is widespread in Africa, wikipedia just told me that it accounts for over 1/8 people on the entire continent. Now Africa has a huge problem with aids, Catholicism also happens to have a problem with contraceptives. These are related.

So there is a cheap, effective preventative measure out there to slow or stop the spread of aids. I don't think it's right that more people die than necessary due to some jumped up old man in sparkly robes spouting what I consider to be blatant falsehoods. I'm happy for people to believe whatever they like so long as they keep it to themselves and don't harm anybody. I'm not happy when people's beliefs spill into the rest of the world where they're used and abused by everyone and anyone to gain power.

The superiority comment is aimed at one of the more destructive elements of many religions and is shared with even more distasteful ideas - rascism for example. I'm trying to claim that all religious act they're better than everyone else due to their beliefs, though some do. But that's true of everyone. I think it's a big reason why these kinds of beliefs exist though, it really helps the self esteem when you're able to think of yourself as better than other people, no matter what the reason is.

I'm not trying to demonise anyone specifically - the Pope isn't evil, just wayyyyyy out of his depth - I just don't think that organisations like the major religions should exist. It's wrong that people uplifted due to irrational belief rather than any real qualification or ability should have a say in important issues that decide the fate of nations. I absolutely hate the way government in US seems to pander to the religious, the most powerful country in the world should not be giving any of that power to the kind of idiots that get backed by the 'religious vote'. It's not something I percieve so much in my own country's politics (UK) but it's certainly there.

But yeah, it's nice to be able to debate this.

All hail our Lord Saviour the Internet for He hath brought us together from the far corners of the world to have pointless discussions on gaming websites. Amen.

 

[Treblaine]

Would you really be happy taking on the role of a practising Muslim or one who is completely silent on the issue of religion. How about a Scientologist? Or are you REALLY more hoping for a Christian one.

...

But I think the main reason is that if you actually make the protagonist religious, that a huge proportion will just think the protagonist is a gullible idiot for believing in such things. Like being genuinely paranoid about breaking a mirror for 7 years bad luck, it comes across to many as superstitious.

Honestly, I'd love to play as a religious character. A practicing Muslim, or Christian... even a Scientologist. Sure, why not? I like my characters to be interesting and believable and well fleshed out. They can have flaws, and superstitions, and religious faiths, and maybe occasionally struggle with their faith or suffer an internal debate upon the ramifications of their beliefs, agonize over the potential hypocrisy or self-contradictions of the deity or holy book or church they've always trusted.

At least a character like that would be interesting. They would be human. For a lot of people, being human includes at least some religious faith. Better a gullible religious protagonist than another stereotypical wisecracking irreligious hero who can do everything well and is handsome and charming and has a witty response to everything. We have just a few too many of those.

Safe bet is NOT to make your protagonist afraid of some invisible sky man who they've never experienced and was just told about in Sunday School.

If this is how you think of all religious people, then... I don't know what to say. They're not all mindless sheep, despite what you may think. They have feelings, and thoughts, and most of them are probably pretty good people who want to see the world become a better place. Most of them are sincere -- they truly believe. Some of them may have felt the presence of god at one point, experienced some life changing event that renewed their faith when they were going astray. I thought I experienced something like that too, once, back when I was a Christian.

Now I'm an atheist, so I know those feelings and that experience did not originate from anything based in fact or evidence... but I know how real they felt at the time. So I don't judge those who are religious, I don't think I'm better or smarter than they are. Because I know how real it can feel. I have both religious and atheist friends, and religious relatives, and I don't try to tell them they are gullible idiots who can't think for themselves. What would give me the right to judge someone who doesn't think as I do? Then I would be committing the same crime which we secular people are so quick to lay at the feet of religious folk.

I think religion is just too deep an issue and would contradict too much with me as it's pretty simple way out of these dilemmas by concluding this is just some old dogma that doesn't mean anything. I think you'd have to spice it up in the game world by leaving some ACTUAL evidence that the god in question exists. It wouldn't be very relevant to real life, but interesting at least.

"If this is how you think of all religious people, then... I don't know what to say. They're not all mindless sheep"

Yes, I know they have feelings, thoughts and are good people. Like many people I was one of them. It is precisely because of that that they can come to believe in god.

What will happen after I die? Fear of death. Reasoning that it can't all just end. And where the heck did all of this come from? The mountains, the sea, the sky? How?

God is the Occam's Razor of thinking and feeling about the world and the entire universe; the simplest explanation. Some person, an all powerful being did it. And THEN the leap in logic is made that he can both read your thoughts and actually cares about what you are thinking.

The thing is some things have very complex explanations, it is hard to explain evolution through natural selection in a quick and simple way. But not as hard as trying to explain nature by the simple rule that "god made it".

Holding this belief in the god of the bible for so long cannot reflect well on a character.

So much of the basic education that you need before you can even apply for the typical highly skilled job you play in games, this education is in direct contradiction with the bible. The bible which is the sole indication that god-the-creator would exist. The testimony that this feeling of "closeness" with some being some occasionally feel is the creator of the universe... rather than a ghost or something else.

So I get the impression adult believers have either critically poor education, that didn't even do basic geography on the age of the earth. Or they have some huge weakness of character that means they are utterly dependent on a belief in god, that they will reject or excuse what they have learned because they are dependent on this belief system. Dependant because they cannot accept death being final, or self-control without an omniscient judge.

 

[Estranged180]

Only one thing I can say about the OP, and I didn't even say it.

"More blood has been spilled and lives have been lost in the name of God than for any other reason" - George Carlin

 

[Rednog]

Wow what a misleading title, a guy reviews 5 games and gives his opinion on them and it is suddenly a study?
Oh and he is a doctoral student in journalism....so how does his opinion hold any weight in terms of religion and games?

 

[Rad Party God]

Broken Sword says hi.

Yes, there are crazed zealots and whatnot, but in that game, it has heavy religion influences, almost every character is religious and not all of them are crazed homicidals or anything, just a small group.

 

[KraGeRzR]

Check all that apply

[x]called out on some sketchy interpretations
[ ] proved that the bible doesn't support the rape of women

Too broad - I countered what you posted, but I can't counter that. Specifics, please.

Fact of the matter is - you're too ignorant of something you condemn, just like most of the other people in this thread.

Hell I'm pretty ignorant of my own Bible, but I can still counter most of the crap spewed in this thread, mostly because I have YOUR ignorance on my side to do it with.

Give me a challenge, please.

Number one: I thought God's morality was universal and absolute? If he is so flexible to the mores of today to permit and prescribe RAPE OF PRISONERS OF WAR but somehow doesn't apply today, then how is Christianity unable to accept adult homosexuals who consensually and mutually love each from marrying?

Where the hell did you get that. It looks unrelated to my original post. I said that God encourages marriage with captives in order to decrease the rape of prisoners of war THAT ALREADY HAPPENS, EVERYWHERE.
Marital rape is a different issue - but I question the assumption that the prisoners of war were forced into the marriage.

Number two: So why was Galileo Galilei vilified by the church for giving evidence that the Earth was not the centre of the universe?

I'm not Roman Catholic. I didn't villify Galileo, nor would I centuries ago.

l2understand the denominations.

 

[-Dragmire-]

... New Study Says History "Problematize" Religion as Violent.


Hmmm... random thought, can anyone remember a jrpg for the ps2 that had the main cast attack the Vatican? I can't remember it's name.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

I feel like this entire thread is one big troll

after 5 pages it still seems like there's about 4 ppl that bothered to actually read the article and comprehend what it contained.


btw: while this study hasn't been published online yet, here's a sample of his work:

http://gregperreault.com/?p=101

and here's him answering some questions about the current issue:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/02/27/new-study-claims-video-games-depict-religion-problematic-light

ps: he didn't pick the various titles that sites used. His study doesn't "claim Video Games Depict Religion in Problematic Light", that's just copy editors doing what they do best: totally mangling content to increase traffic.

 

[Kimarous]

Wallbanger

Creationism. Theistic Evolution. Two different viewpoints, neither representing religion as a whole. This is why you RESEARCH the things you are criticizing instead of ignorantly going "I don't like it, therefore I don't need to understand it."

AND WHAT DOES YOUR BLATHERING HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIDEOGAMES?!?

 

[pwnzerstick]

Whats in the bible/almost any religious text? Sex, violence, more sex, more violence. I'd hardly say that its very difficult to make religion seem problematic.

 

[Azuaron]

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.

You've been reading too much Dante and too little Bible to be able to speak on this matter with authority.

Oh, so you are telling me there is no concept of Hell as a place of eternal torture in the Bible? And how you will be sent there if you don't do certain arbitrary things beyond just being a good person?

That is exactly what I'm telling you. The modern concept of Hell was extrapolated and dramatized by a very few phrases that basically say, "If you reject God, God will reject you in the afterlife, and that's gotta suck."

Anyway, I'm not using the bible for this basis because NEITHER DOES CHRISTIANITY! Almost every denomination (including my former denomination) not only picks and chooses which part of the bible they want to follow but every translation has been hugely and unscrupulously adulterated. From all this I was told by a priest that hell awaits those who don't follow the guidance of the bible, THAT is where I get this from.

If someone says to you that Newton's Third Law of Thermodynamics stated that energy could be neither created nor destroyed, would you believe them? And, upon finding out that not only is that not the Third Law of Thermodynamics, but that the Laws of Thermodynamics were discovered hundreds of years after Newton, would you suddenly disbelief all of physics because some guy said something erroneous?

Because that's what you're saying. Some guy said something that's incorrect about Christianity, so you're throwing out the whole thing.

If Christianity was JUST about the bible, then why do churches exist for priests to give sermons? Why isn't the sole message just "read the bible"?

This is a complicated problem. First, most people, including lots of Christians, can't be bothered; it's a huge book. The clergy is, essentially, a profession devoted to studying the Bible and handing out the most relevant parts to their congregations. Most clergy encourage Bible reading. If you find yourself in a church that discourages Bible reading, that is most definitely not a Christian church, but has co-opted Christianity for their own purposes (Catholic church circa the Reformation).

Second, it's not as simple as just reading the Bible. It's not a pulp novel. There's no narrative flow. There's not even always a clear ordering of events. Passages that are almost certainly metaphors are lumped together with passages that are almost certainly depictions of historical events. The Bible has been hand-copied and hand-translated so many times, that it's sometimes hard to know if a word in our modern translations actually says what the original writer intended. Beyond that, archeological finds of old letters occasionally completely contradict translations that we've been using for centuries. For instance, everyone knows this: what's the number of the beast? 666, right? Actually, the oldest known copy of that portion of Revelations, which was recently discovered, lists the number of the beast as 616 (sorry death metal bands, you could very well be using the wrong number).

Asking why there are clergy is like asking why there are mathematicians. It's math, just do it yourself, right?

They hide behind the bible, cherry picking what supports their organisations contemporary whims and defend the bible as infallible. It's artificial legitimacy. The homophobia seen in the modern church does not come from god. It comes from people, who look for excuses in the bible.

Sadly, that's how many Christians read the Bible (Westboro Baptist Church being the current worst offender of which I'm aware); once again, it's a big book, so certain passages get passed around like memes on 4chan and crazy people are still crazy even if they become Christians.

Nevertheless, is that any worse than you falsely claiming "central tenants" of Christianity without even having read anything in the Bible to support that claim? There's enough wrongheaded cherry picking on all sides of this particular debate.

If you want to turn a reasonable Christian atheist, get them to actually read the entire bible rather than have select passages read to them and "interpreted" by the priestly hierarchy.

I was an atheist for 19 years. I grew up an atheist in an atheist household with atheist parents and an atheist brother. Then I read the Bible and became a Christian. The entire Bible. I'm currently on my second read through, this time with a chronological Bible, which means the passages are in historical event order instead of the traditional arrangement (I'm reading Discworld in order as well; I like reading things in order). Next, I'll probably get myself a concordance (translation disagreements cause way more arguments than they probably should). There's a guy who recommends reading a different translation of the Bible every year, and does so himself (you'd think eventually he'd run out of translations, but they keep making new ones).

I have not read the entirety of the modern English translations of the bible as used by the Anglican Church.

So you have zero credibility.

Also, why are you singling out Bibles used by the Anglican Church?

But please continue.

I have not read the Torah either. Nor the Qu'ran, nor Sruti of Hinduism, nor Svetambara of Jainism. Nor the Homeric Hyms of greek mythology, nor Dianetics of Scientology. All claim to have universal significance but none have a shred of evidence to convince me to read them. I read Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and decided that was a waste of my time, so why bother with all those?

You claim that they claim universal significance, but if you haven't read them, how could you possibly even know that they claim universal significance in the first place? Homer's Iliad and The Odyssey actually don't. They weren't even claimed to be true by Homer or his contemporaries (in fact, my wife was telling me the other day about a competing version of the events in the Iliad written by a contemporary of Homer's where the Greeks lost).

Furthermore, any evidence they would offer to you as to their ultimate veracity would be discovered by reading them. Saying, "I haven't read them because they haven't given me any evidence to convince me," is like saying, "Well, I haven't really payed any attention during this trial and I slept through all the court proceedings, but that guy's totally guilty. Oh, it's a woman? Whatever, totally guilty."

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well yeah, I DO think it's ridiculous to believe in invisible and totally undetectable consciousness that apparently personally made every last tiny bit of the universe... until science proved it didn't.

Ermm... You do realize that all subjective consciousness in undetectable, right? Prove to me that you're conscious and not merely a complex bundle of matter and energy that behaves in certain ways.

There are plenty of problems with the idea of God and creationism, but scientific inquiry hasn't disproved these ideas outright. It has effectively disproved the doctrine that the world was created in seven days etc. But someone could still say that God created the big bang, etc. They can't be disproved in the strongest sense, but their story is so arbitrary and needlessly anthropocentric that there's no reason to accept it.

I want to see religions evolve beyond the superstition, that the philosophies they espouse stand on their own merits, not because "god says so" or that "if you don't you'll be tortured for eternity" but that in their own way we can rationally discuss them and agree that they are right for both society and the individual.

I'd be so sad if these (benign) religious traditions died, I have been to so many weddings and ceremonies. These are important, more important than if god exists or not. I think religion could exist as more like fan clubs exist for fictional media, like the trekkies. This things that Captain Picard says are profound even though we all know he is a fictional character portrayed by Patrick Stewart. Study the philosophy of the bible without depending on every word as divine, debate the relevance and morality of the bible rather than translations and interpretations.

Yes.

Don't get me wrong, I think that a complete focus on religion as the cause for the majority of human conflicts often underplays the effects of other factors, but all the examples you gave are all based on the fanatical devotion to some brand of leftism, which you could argue is a religion in itself. None of your examples are a logical challenge to modern-day rational atheism and its complete rejection of fanaticism. Instead you're arguing against irrational atheism driven by a fanatical, faith-driven belief in something other then religion.

By defining your form of atheism as a rejection of fanaticism you seem to be committed to a paradox. If atheism is by definition a rejection of fanaticism then it must, by necessity, be rational. Defining one's self as inherently rational and hence all who oppose you as inherently irrational at the outset is itself a form of fanaticism. Conclusion: Atheism is not by definition a rejection of fanaticism by Reductio ad absurdum.

While some forms of atheism might be movements to reject what is seen as fanaticism, you can't simply assume or define it as a rejection of fanaticism. While the abstract concept of atheism might only be a negative view, i.e. a rejection of theism, pretty much all instantiated forms of atheism go hand in hand with a positive metaphysical belief system: either materialism or some broader form of physicalism. In fact, most atheists argue their point by appealing to these metaphysical worldviews. However, neither believing in physicalism or just rejecting the notion of God keeps you from being a fanatic about something else, e.g. nationalism or Marxism.

The point is that you can't conveniently define atheism to exclude anyone who exhibits fanaticism about something other than religion. Hardcore Marxists have a completely legitimate claim to atheism. Atheism is completely compatible with fanaticism.

 

[Treblaine]

Number one: I thought God's morality was universal and absolute? If he is so flexible to the mores of today to permit and prescribe RAPE OF PRISONERS OF WAR but somehow doesn't apply today, then how is Christianity unable to accept adult homosexuals who consensually and mutually love each from marrying?

Where the hell did you get that. It looks unrelated to my original post. I said that God encourages marriage with captives in order to decrease the rape of prisoners of war THAT ALREADY HAPPENS, EVERYWHERE.
Marital rape is a different issue - but I question the assumption that the prisoners of war were forced into the marriage.

Number two: So why was Galileo Galilei vilified by the church for giving evidence that the Earth was not the centre of the universe?

I'm not Roman Catholic. I didn't villify Galileo, nor would I centuries ago.

l2understand the denominations.

Right, so God merely acknowledges and tolerates rape of prisoners of war... even though today wars are fought without mass rape of captives and rape of prisoners of war and civilian population is considered the most heinous war crime.

Couldn't god have said something against that. I mean is he such a pushover that he'll allow what people are doing at the time but just insist that they marry their rapists... this STILL isn't looking good for your god. Is he afraid of cock blocking some rapist soldiers? Or is it more likely the PRIESTS who made up delivered (nudge-wink) "God's word" didn't think it would fly to say the most badass killers can't rape an pillage all they want just after they've proven they are best at iron-age warfare.

And nice out on the Roman Catholic thing, it's not your problem, it's something apparently only those Catholics would do. I thought the split from Catholicism was over the Pope's authority and power to excommunicate, not interpretation of the Bible's ordering of the universe.

What about all the protestant Christians pushing creationism in the science classroom? Or are you part of a separate denomination from that? Not your problem. Still reading from the same book, but not YOUR problem?