Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[Syzygy23]

I challenge everyone and anyone to tell me exactly how violent religion is by attending one, just ONE church service on a Sunday.

The only rule is it can't be the West Borrow Baptist Church, those guys are just fucking insane.

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?

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?

So you think it's okay to blame a diverse group of people for what an annoying, vocal minority do?

And here I was thinking atheists were progressive. (Nudge - wink, see what I did there?)

 

[emeraldrafael]

Other than using a word in a way Im almot certain is wrong, its not that bad of an article considering it mentions religion. he's right on a level, but then again, reading the bible alone isnt exactly helping by saying organized religion isnt violent.

BUt really, theres not much that can be said. The anti religious will bash this, the super religious will say he didnt go far enough, and the moderate (read reasonable) religious will nod thoughtfully and move on, cause they worship in their own way.

 

[Evilpigeon]

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.

There is a difference between rejecting all religious beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple opposing beliefs to all be rational. It all depends upong your end goal.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that, as there is no evidence for a god, there is no reason to believe in one. It does not assume that all opposing views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

 

[Handbag1992]

He forgot SMT2 where you try to kill God. He'd have a field day with it.

Or Bayonetta, where you succeed.

 

[Evilpigeon]

I challenge everyone and anyone to tell me exactly how violent religion is by attending one, just ONE church service on a Sunday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNVqMClOazA

This seems fairly violent and crazy. It was on the first page for "sermon on hell youtube"

 

[wilsontheterrible]

Lets just go with Psalm 137
"Joyful is the one who takes, and dashes his children against the stone."
See, i was raised christian, and forced to read the bible several times. Of course, i quickly learned the bible is more fucked up then ripping a dudes spine out in Mortal Kombat, and refused to go to Brainwash Scho-..... I mean Sunday School. :3 Honest.

Psalm 137 as translated reads "Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones." The full quote is actually about a phrophesy after Babylon did the exact same thing to them. It was a fairly common practice at the time. Later verses of the Bible specifically forbid these actions.

I cant speak for protestants or those of other faiths but as a Catholic that is well versed in Church doctrine I can state that the all doctrine for the past two hundred years have unilaterally condemned the use of force. If anybody took a few minutes to learn anything about cannon law they'd learn that the reason the Church has the Pope and the Cardinals is to ensure that the interpretation of the bible remains a living entity that paces the development of civilization.

I was raised secular. I didn't attend any church and only had a vague idea of Christianity while growing up. While studying history in high school I found the story of the Catholic Church in all of its complexities to be utterly facinating and I fully converted when I was 20 after extensive reading on its history and traditions. I'm no bible thumper but I take issue when people take specific verses out of a massive book and claim that the entire work is flawed without any consideration towards its development or impact on history.

 

[Treblaine]

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?!?

Theistic evolution still contradicts the bible... completely. Even the bible's description of the world and the universe. It defies logic to believe in god because the bible says he exists, even thought so much of what the bible says about the world is demonstrably wrong. The bible is utterly discredited, why believe in its god?

Theistic evolution is just the god of the gaps. That basically god made the big bang simply because our models of the universe are not advanced enough of say for certain where the matter that made the big bang came from.

And what is so special about a god that has had no influence on the universe for the past 13.75 billion years? And where this gods only influence that time was to create a load of mass and energy (of the lowest entropy) in an extremely small point. Why would thinking about this force, assuming it even has a personality, have any effect? Does he still grab our consciousness after we die and decide to give us infinite pleasure or infinite pain? All based on the myriad of commandments and stipulations in his book we agree is full of amazing inaccuracies.

I wouldn't think much of my protagonist who'd pray to a force that made the Big Bang, nor if he believed his consciousness would be grabbed by this. It's too much. I'd have to woner about what other things they are superstitious about. What other dogma would they so willingly follow without evidence and in the face of discrediting contra-evidence.

As to on topic, you may have missed this:

"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."

I don't have much confidence in a character who believes in such fairy tales. They either have very poor education, very low ability in critical thinking or have significant psychological weakness to delude themselves into believing in such things. This does not make for a compelling character unless he is supposed to be pathetic and mentally weak.

I didn't want to push this point to much, but I do not have much confidence in religious people and that's nothing against you nor anybody, I just can't see how they could reasonably conclude such things.

UNLESS if in this fictional world it was actually shown their religion was actually real.

Like in Star Wars, Jedi are referred to as a religion on several occasions but The Force is an actual demonstrable, predictable and repeatable aspect of the natural world. The religion is much more a philosophy on ethical and sustainable use of those who can use this force mainly through willpower. And it's shown there actually is life after death, characters not only talking with ghost but them relaying insight they could not have known before they died so it's not a hallucination based on memory, probably.

Or like Constantine of Hellblazer. There you go for a positive Theist. OK he's a cynical bastard and it's not exactly very faith based as he has so many directly interactions with agents of heaven and hell but at least he believes. Though interestingly it doesn't show him doing that on blind faith.

 

[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?!?

Theistic evolution still contradicts the bible... completely.

And how would you know? You don't read the bible. And no, it doesn't.

Don't act like you're an authority on the matter, because you clearly aren't doing your homework.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

There is a difference between rejecting all [religious?] beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple contradictory [opposing] beliefs to be rational.

I agree. What I'm saying is that you can't define atheism as a rejection of fanaticism without falling into fanaticism. It can certainly be something that strives to reject fanaticism, but it cannot be assumed to do so at the outset.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence. It does not assume that all contradictory views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

Again, I agree. Blind Sight seemed to be defining atheism as a rejection of fanaticism. However, defining atheism in the manner you suggest doesn't preclude atheism from being compatible with fanaticism. What's more is the fact that Atheism isn't "the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence". Atheism, as it is classically defined, is a rejection of the existence of God, not a rejection of every single religious tradition. You seem to be redefining it.

And you realize that if you do redefine it in this broad way you must now deal with the doctrines of all major religions? That's a tall order.

 

[honestdiscussioner]

I love how they start out saying "video games problematize religion", then say "well they basically problematize everything they contain since mostly everything in them is tied to violence".

Thing is, religion is tied to violence. Not to say it is the same thing as violence or is always violent, but neither do video games always tie it as such. Look at Dragon Age: Origins, the Chantry is a force for both good and evil . . it's almost as if they tried to be nuanced about it. Perish the thought.

 

[Jegsimmons]

and here come the non theist calling religion violent despite its just people who are violent and religion (well the big ones) are totally against it.

hell political ideology such as nazism and communism has cause more deaths in 100 years than religion in the past 1500 years.

how ever...yes they have a point in this study, but i think its only coincidence.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nevermind the centuries of warfare, racism, intolerance, and bigotry spurred on by religious leaders. Videogames are the real problem.

To be fair, what medium has protrayed it as a problem before video games?

Certainly not movies, music, novels, history books, plays, paintings, interpretive dance, or shadow puppets.

 

[Something Amyss]

and here come the non theist calling religion violent despite its just people who are violent and religion (well the big ones) are totally against it.

hell political ideology such as nazism and communism has cause more deaths in 100 years than religion in the past 1500 years.

how ever...yes they have a point in this study, but i think its only coincidence.

Funny you should mention the Nazis, since the Nazis' "political" agenda was largely driven by Hitler's religious beliefs. Not even really just Hitler.

I'd like to see your sources and numbers on that, though. Could be an interesting read.

 

[Treblaine]

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."

Last things first.

I live in England. Anglicanism is the religion of the Church of England and the religion of our monarch. Logically I should follow this religion just like the member of an indigenous tribe is more open to the myths that the chief says than those passed on by visiting missionaries. That's just to address geographic priority.

You say I have zero claim to credibility, but why have you not read these other holy scriptures from around the world? You haven't got much claim.

I know enough about each of those religions that, just like the Christian Bible, all of those holy scriptures claim to be the universal truth. They are not a particular religion for a particular geographic region that excludes wherever you are from, they talk about YOU, in fact ALL of us. They pertain to your fate and place in the universe.

So, why have you not read the holy scriptures of Islam and followed the teachings? Arguably they are the most up-to-date version of Abrahamic religions incorporating Old Testament, New Testament AND the teachings of Prophet Muhammed. SO why have you not read the Qu'ran and why are you not then a practician Muslim? You weren't raised with one or the other, why did you choose the Christian bible?

Yes, Homeric Hymns are pushing it, but can you so easily dismiss the Book of Mormon? Or Hindu and Jainist scripture?

"Furthermore, any evidence they would offer to you as to their ultimate veracity would be discovered by reading them."

The same thing is said about all the other holy scriptures of different religions, so why haven't you read them? Anyway, people I trust have checked already. There is not a shred of evidence in any of those holy scriptures, it's all to be taken entirely on faith. It's pure circular logic. "the box is red because this sentence is true"

I just want to know why you believe the Christian Bible over all the other religions and their texts? Why should ANYONE follow the scriptures of Christianity over Hinduism, Islam, Jainism or even Scientology or any of the other religions?

 

[GrandmaFunk]

To be fair, what medium has protrayed it as a problem before video games?

Certainly not movies, music, novels, history books, plays, paintings, interpretive dance, or shadow puppets.

if only the author had broached that very topic.

oh wait:

"This is part of some ongoing research that I'd like to continue and maybe eventually make into a book--looking at religious depictions in different eras of video games. Yes, I found that there was this connection between religion and violence, but that's a conversation that's been happening in Western society for centuries. In early games like the Atari, it was hard to tell those stories. With the dominance of Nintendo and their licensing process, we didn't see alot of those stories--religious elements were mostly censored out of the games. So it's fascinating to see how video games have entered the conversation."

 

[cocoadog]

No, history says religion is violent.

 

[Evilpigeon]

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.

There is a difference between rejecting all [religious?] beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple contradictory [opposing] beliefs to be rational.

I agree. What I'm saying is that you can't define atheism as a rejection of fanaticism without falling into fanaticism. It can certainly be something that strives to reject fanaticism, but it cannot be assumed to do so at the outset.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence. It does not assume that all contradictory views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

Again, I agree. Blind Sight seemed to be defining atheism as a rejection of fanaticism. However, defining atheism in the manner you suggest doesn't preclude atheism from being compatible with fanaticism. What's more is the fact that Atheism isn't "the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence". Atheism, as it is classically defined, is a rejection of the existence of God, not a rejection of every single religious tradition. You seem to be redefining it.

And you realize that if you do redefine it in this broad way you must now deal with the doctrines of all major religions? That's a tall order.

Whoops stupid errors sorry, I'm getting tired.

I think I'm going to give in here because you're correct.

Surely however, the must be a better, more detailed definition. Just as Mormonism isn't officially Christian because of some technicalities of theirs beliefs. Atheism can't possibly be used as a blanket term that includes all religions that don't believe in God. I mean that would mean that states like North Korea are Atheist, despite their official religious cult that deifies their leaders. Or the ancient greeks etc...

Anglicanism is the religion of the Church of England and the religion of our monarch.

I can't take the church of england seriously, even to the extent I can take any religious group seriously. Any mention just brings this to mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg

 

[Blind Sight]

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.

Well the conclusion that religion is the sum of all evil is an inane notion to begin with, people who make that argument essentially fail history. I think the issue mainly emerges from the concept of faith more then anything else. In regards to the atheism vs. theism debate, theists essentially have the burden of proof. Atheism is the root negative point, in the same way that you assume that no unicorns exist because there has never been substantial proof, atheists view the issue of God(s) the same way. The problem emerges when the notion of 'faith' is used as a justification for belief. Due to the historical experience of violent religious actions I think the issue emerges that faith can be used as a justification for violent extremes, and more moderate individuals are intimidated by that. Another issue comes from the fact that fundamentalist groups of all faiths typically spread a lot of bad press (I mean, look no further then Rick Santorum to see why atheists see Christians as dangerous when he's preaching sexual attitudes that are about nine decades out of date).

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.

Did I say that atheism as a concept is incompatible with fanaticism? No. I said that rational atheism (not my term by the way, it's used as a historical descriptor for Enlightenment era atheist theorists and post-modern atheists that come to the conclusion based on empirical analysis) was not compatible with it, while irrational atheism (another historical descriptor used for atheism such as anarchists in the late 19th century) is completely so. A rational atheist is an atheist in the negative sense, they've come to the conclusion and that's largely it (they may write about it however, but that's pretty much the extent to how their belief affects public discourse) while an irrational atheist is one in a positive sense, i.e. they're trying to actively change the system to undermine religion/spiritualism. In the same way that there are fundamentalist religious groups and moderate religious groups, there are rational and irrational atheists (one builds their consensus on empiricism, the other embraces atheism due to another pre-existing doctrine). The difference is not in their lack of faith, but how they exercise that element of their philosophy. I was NOT, I repeat, NOT saying that atheism is by definition the rejection of fanaticism, so please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

There is a difference between rejecting all [religious?] beliefs as fanatical and rejecting fanaticism. It is possible to believe in something and for multiple contradictory [opposing] beliefs to be rational.

I agree. What I'm saying is that you can't define atheism as a rejection of fanaticism without falling into fanaticism. It can certainly be something that strives to reject fanaticism, but it cannot be assumed to do so at the outset.

Atheism isn't the belief that everyone else is inherently wrong, it's the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence. It does not assume that all contradictory views are inherently wrong and thus is not a form of fanatacism.

Again, I agree. Blind Sight seemed to be defining atheism as a rejection of fanaticism. However, defining atheism in the manner you suggest doesn't preclude atheism from being compatible with fanaticism. What's more is the fact that Atheism isn't "the belief that none of the available religious solutions are valid, based upon existing evidence". Atheism, as it is classically defined, is a rejection of the existence of God, not a rejection of every single religious tradition. You seem to be redefining it.

And you realize that if you do redefine it in this broad way you must now deal with the doctrines of all major religions? That's a tall order.

Whoops stupid errors sorry, I'm getting tired.

I think I'm going to give in here because you're correct.

Surely however, the must be a better, more detailed definition. Just as Mormonism isn't officially Christian because of some technicalities of theirs beliefs. Atheism can't possibly be used as a blanket term that includes all religions that don't believe in God. I mean that would mean that states like North Korea are Atheist, despite their official religious cult that deifies their leaders.

Well, that's the classic definition. Yeah, some religions might be considered atheistic in the classical sense if they lack the notion of a deity. But definitions change over time. Given the historical significance of the term I would come up with a new term to avoid confusion. It's probably better called 'anti-religionism' or 'anti-supernaturalism' but both of those terms have their own issues.

 

[Jormankpi]

Ah yes, "religion", how could we have dismissed that claim.

Anyway, either he was really bored and couldn't find a more or less interesting topic to base his work on, or this topic looks "solid" in the eyes of the university teachers, who are into discussions on religion, and don't know jack about videogames, thus ensuring that their ignorance of half of this research is gonna lead this research to appraisal, for it shows religion as a subject of attack (missused) by videogames. Oh well.

Oh and next subject will be "Hellsing anime depicts church as pure brute force, violates religion as a whole", by another unknown author.