Feature Article

Bioshock Infinite Turns American Religious History Into A Nonsensical Nightmare

GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

As BioShock celebrates its 15-year anniversary, we take a look back at the religious critiques of its acclaimed sequel, BioShock Infinite.

BioShock is celebrating its 15-year anniversary today, August 21, 2022. Below, we take a look at how the religious commentary in its sequel, BioShock Infinite, lacks the sharpness it needs to resonate.

Playing BioShock Infinite at launch, several things stuck in my mind as a young Mormon. Zachary Hale Comstock, the game’s principal villain and cult leader, is a kind of Brigham Young: a fiery prophet, claiming visions and prophecies while he grasps at power. His floating metropolis of Columbia is a kind of Salt Lake City: a grim capital on the cloud, both a refuge and a prison. Though the game is drawing on a melting pot of historical and fictional inspirations, these parallels have kicked around in my mind for nearly 10 years. Creative director Ken Levine even named Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as inspirations for Comstock in an interview back in 2013. To the game's credit, these are touchstones rather than full-on parallels. In turn, though, the depiction of Comstock and his religion lacks precision: Rather than haunting resemblance, it plays as frivolous caricature. It is that flatness that fuels the game's best-remembered false equivalences between the revolutionary Vox Populi and the white sepulchers of Comstock's floating city.

Part of that caricature is the game's reluctance to clarify Comstock's particular theology. We can infer that Comstock's religion (which never gets a denominational title) believes in modern miracles, as Comstock claims to have spoken to an angel and produced a miracle child. It practices baptism by immersion. White supremacy and racism are woven into every aspect of its doctrine. It uplifts the founding fathers to the level of sainthood. Besides these basic traits, there is no context for Comstock's religion. There are no adjacent movements or sects. Though Comstock's journey to become a prophet began with a baptism, the game never makes clear what group he entered. This lack of specificity unties Comstock from any particular historical moment. BioShock Infinite seems to draw more from the conservative Tea Party movement--which, though politically focused, had a devotional character--more than any specific religious group, especially from the time period.

Still, the parallels to Utah and Mormonism remain. Before the game begins, Comstock's floating city seceded from the United States. After the death of prophet Joseph Smith at the hands of mob violence in 1844, Brigham Young led a caravan to settle in what would become Utah. Thousands of Mormons would follow over the next decades. The territory was then under Mexican control until joining the US in 1850, and was the home of many indigenous peoples, including Shoshone, Paiute, and Goshute.

The key difference is, of course, that Columbia is a dream city floating in the sky. No people could have lived there before, and so Columbia imports, rather than imposes, the sociopolitical structure of a segregated United States. Though the massacre at Wounded Knee features into the game's plot, there are no voiced indigenous characters and only racist cartoons appear in a propagandistic museum level. Intentionally or not, the floating city means that the game can largely sidestep the issue of colonial occupation.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

While Columbia's lower classes are not explicitly enslaved, they are segregated and overworked. Columbia's secession from the US enables it to practice "more extreme" forms of institutional racism. In history, Mormons brought slavery from the US to Utah. Three enslaved men--Hank Wales, Oscar Smith, and Green Flake--came with Brigham Young's party to the Salt Lake Valley. There was an enslaved population in Utah until slavery was outlawed in the territories. Therefore, the history of slavery in Utah is fundamentally connected to the US's own support of the horrific practice. Although BioShock Infinite positions Columbia as an extremist deviation from the proper United States, the Mormon settlement of Utah is best understood as a particular, if peculiar, instance of the US's expansionist colonialism.

Columbia is curiously unified outside of the main two factions. There are people who do not neatly fit into either the revolutionary Vox Populi or Comstock's Columbia, but they are few and far between. Mormonism, in contrast, was subject to a flurry of schisms and divisions, even in its early years. Not every Mormon traveled to Utah. Some of those who remained in Illinois formed a church of their own, under the leadership of Joseph Smith's son, Joseph Smith III. When the church in Salt Lake City ended the practice of polygamy due to pressure from Washington, paving the way toward statehood, the church suffered a mass exodus of polygamists. The point is that Christianity, as much as any other site of meaning-making, is controversial even among its adherents. Because BioShock Infinite passes by the schisms and conflict that define American Christianity, it cannot offer a holistic criticism of its failings.

To be clear, the issue here is not a lack of "historical accuracy" or "respect for the subject matter." BioShock Infinite is science fiction through and through; it intends to represent an alternate world. Additionally, institutions as massive as Mormonism and American Christianity can take the hit. However, these gaps between the real history and the fiction serve to distance Comstock's faith from real-world groups. What criticism it hefts up lacks specificity and bite. What resonance it might have lacks real faith. In fact, the longer the game goes on, the more Comstock's religion becomes about the game's internal mythology, a backdrop to its interest in inter-dimensional drama and alternate selves.

While Comstock and crew do have clear inspiration points, the Vox Populi, led by Daisy Fitzroy, have no coherent resemblance to any real revolutionary moment, especially in the United States. They are called Anarchists, but unlike anarchism, they have no vision for a future world. All they get are slogans and blood. The game eventually labels them as too violent and moves on. The way BioShock Infinite can get to a statement like "The only difference between Comstock and Fitzroy is how you spell the name" is through these ideological vagaries. It's telling, for example, that Columbia's religious art never depicts Christ and the cross. Even the game's Ku Klux Khan is clad in dark purple, rather than white. It's also telling that Fitzroy, even more than Comstock, comes from nowhere, with no clear connection to any real-world history.

It might seem like there is a lot to unpack here and in some sense there is. The history of American Christianity, even of Mormonism in particular, carries the weight and blood of this country's history. However, BioShock Infinite does not conjure that history, nor its weight or blood. Rather, it is content with faded caricature, with a vision of Christianity that is too fictional, self-obsessed, and distant to truly offend or resonate.

Grace Benfell on Google+

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com


Back To Top
138 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for OrionMD
OrionMD

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I feel like i read that and got no where. This wasn’t so much an analysis of Bioshock Infinite as it was a personal confession of self-loathing that the author is Mormon, and he is ashamed that Mormons had slaves. He even qualifies slavery as a “horrific practice,” as if we haven’t been beaten over the head with that sentiment the past 3 years.

Look, you were born white into a Mormon family, it’s not your fault. Slavery was abolished over 100 years before you were born, it’s not your fault. You have never enslaved anyone, it’s not your fault. You have swallowed the slavery bait though, hook, line, and sinker, and that is your fault.

Was slavery terrible? Yes. Did it do serious damage to an entire subset of people? Yes again. Is it the worst thing to ever happen in the history of humanity? Not even close. People have been screwing over other people since the first 2 people met. At some point you have to stop feeling guilty about things you had no control over. I’d say almost 160 years is a reasonable time to start letting go.

12 • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: Slavery's legacy still affects society today, so I wouldn't write it off like it's no big deal. You go too far, there. Otherwise I agree.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@VANGUARD003: So why focus specifically and solely on black slavery? You know the Barbary Slave trade was also a thing, right? Also indentured "servants" in the US were slaves in all but name and were often treated worse than slaves because if they died on the job before they reached their contracted term or otherwise earned enough to buy their freedom, then the owner wouldn't have to pay out.

The Irish were treated especially poorly by the US historically, and yet in the modern day they get roped in as "white" and told they have "privilege" the same as any other white person who supposedly never felt persecution for their race, which is an abject lie if you understand history.

This notion came to a head a few months ago when Whoopie Goldberg made that stupid comment about the Holocaust not being about racism, because the Jews and the Germans were both white. Clearly the Germans didn't think that they were the same race. Seriously, these people are trying to actively reformulate historical events around modern sentiments in such a way as to destroy the actual lessons of history simply because it goes against the narrative.

The problem is that literally every people on this planet have been subjected to slavery and have been slave owners, so why do we choose to singularly focus on only one specific people that were enslaved?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By VANGUARD003

@Akriel_Boulve: "So why focus specifically and solely on black slavery?"

Because it has effects that extend into today. Is there anybody you can point to who suffers in the present because of the barbary slave trade?

Same thing with indentured servitude, and being irish. Sure those things sucked at the time, and they were real. Is anybody suffering because of their irishness today? Or because their great-great-great-great-great grandpa was an indentured servant?

I'm not sure what point Whoopi Goldberg is trying to make by saying that. Sounds like she's being a twat.

"why do we choose to singularly focus on only one specific people that were enslaved?"

Because the effects of that slavery still affect that group today, and have influences on our society.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@VANGUARD003: Actually yes there are plenty of people that can trace back misfortunes caused by the barbary slave trade. There are also plenty of people who can trace back severe affectations that arose from the mistreatment of the Irish and the Italians from the same time period as the African slave trade. Plenty of assets were seized or never disbursed, family members were captured, sold and sometimes killed, and all of those things have the same knock on effects as you want to point to with regards to the African slaves.

The difference is that no one seems to give a crap about it because they erased that part of history by lumping all people with pale skin into a catch all category of "white". It has brought about a grand display of historical ignorance by way of political agendas. Just because no one cares and the white and asian victims had to pick themselves up does NOT mean that they didn't suffer and have the same knock on effects.

Let's look at some other inconvenient truths. Blacks in the 60's were doing far better than they are today in a number of ways. The divorce rate of blacks in the 60's was lower than it was with whites, 78% of black children were raised in 2 parent households, but now that has been inverted such that over 65% are raised in single parent households. Gang membership rates, wealth distribution within the black community, rates of domestic violence and many other statistics have been rising, not falling since the 60's as well.

Why is that?

Are we more racist today than we were under Jim Crowe? Demonstrably not.

As a point of comparison let us consider the Asians. They suffered similar and worse treatment, with Chinese being the primary slaves of the west coast, and yet they are beating white people in virtually every standard metric. They earn more, are more well educated, have longer life spans, have higher happiness factors., etc etc. If the legacy of slavery, indentured servitude, and even the internment camps were survived by all these groups, then why is it only the Africans who seem to be affected by past slavery today?

It's because they are pretty much the only group who has been able to monetize this victimhood narrative through things like affirmative action (something that is actually harming Asians right now per the Harvard lawsuits) and welfare initiatives. Turns out monetizing "white guilt" is lucrative business.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By VANGUARD003

@Akriel_Boulve: "Actually yes there are plenty of people that can trace back misfortunes caused by the barbary slave trade. There are also plenty of people who can trace back severe affectations that arose from the mistreatment of the Irish and the Italians from the same time period as the African slave trade. Plenty of assets were seized or never disbursed, family members were captured, sold and sometimes killed, and all of those things have the same knock on effects as you want to point to with regards to the African slaves."

So where are they, and why aren't they speaking up? The real fact is that the nature of black disempowerment in this country has been of a fundamentally different nature than that of any of the groups you mentioned. And if it weren't, I think the proof would be in the pudding and you'd see those groups of people speaking up about it. Nobody cares because it's not an issue. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but again, I don't see irish people and italians banding together to air their grievances because, fact is, AS those groups, they don't have grievances against society on the same level as black folks.

I have a basic assumption that I make, which is that if people are crying about something, it's not about nothing.

Do you mean to tell me that black people en masse are banding together to parasitize society for their own gain?

That's racist, bud. If you think all black people are in on some scheme, you are an idiot and you have swallowed a narrative.

Have you ever met and talked to a black person that didn't agree with you? Lots of black folks know somebody who's been shot, or who's gone to jail for minor drugs, or has had some unpleasant experience with cops that was the result of blatant profiling.

"why is it only the Africans who seem to be affected by past slavery today?"

Because because vestiges of slavery still exist today for blacks in a way that it doesn't for other groups.

Here's a link: https://youtu.be/X_8E3ENrKrQ?t=0m21s

You're talking about the sixties, but this was '88, and you can see the same strategies and ideas playing out even in today's politics. Racism is alive and well, it just exists in the systems. You don't need slave owners anymore because you can pass laws that keep black people down and call it "fair."

And for the record, I don't believe in affirmative action because I think it's a band-aid that doesn't work and helps concerned white people feel like they've done something without fixing the problem.

I think you need systemic solutions that help the bottom first and foremost--if black people are at the bottom at disproportionately high rates, they will be disproportionately helped. You also need to NOT pass laws that hurt or keep certain people down in practice, even if you can argue that in purpose they are fair.

In other words, don't be color blind, but also build systems that treat the people of this country as a unit, and not a bunch of individual groups. That way white people who genuinely struggle and are at the bottom get helped, too.

But you need to understand my friend, that any nonsense narrative that blacks have it easy or that racism is over or yaddayaddayadda is more expression of that very ugly form of political engineering that my dear friend Lee Atwater so succinctly described in the video above.

Don't be a sheep.

Here's a bonus embarrassing quote from 1980 that you can actively see playing out today in policies around the country from the joke of a political movement you seem to subscribe to: https://youtu.be/8GBAsFwPglw

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: No one is supposed to feel guilty about it. But no one should forget about it, or sugar coat it in history classes. It is also important to know the long term domino effect that slavery had on black americans that lasts even today. Bioshock Infinite is actually an interesting look, if not an exaggerated caricature, of what history classes might look like if many extreme-right fundamentalists get their way when it comes to history class curriculum. Again, teaching this stuff is not supposed to make white people today feel guilty.

3 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: I'm pretty sure you haven't actually been listening if you think that the message is that white people are not supposed to feel guilty about what happened in the past. I can point to several prominent figures that actively do call for things like reparations. No one would pay reparations if they didn't feel responsible, because then it wouldn't be a reparation (meaning payment to repair damage you caused) they would call it donation or philanthropy.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Akriel_Boulve: requests for reparations are not about the wrongs current living people have done, but for the generational damage done, especially through institutionalized racism that put people at a distinct disadvantage over a long period of time.

To be clear, I wouldn't support payouts of cash to specific individuals, but rather grants that could help pay for free education to help close the gap that generational disadvantages have caused.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: Except that it is. In forcing me to pay someone else because someone who looked a bit like me in the past (but wasn't related to me because I have no slave owners in my lineage) did something bad to someone of a different race in the past who may or may not be an ancestor of any particular black person living today, is saying that I must pay for the crimes of my supposed forefathers except that they committed no such crime.

You do realize that Affirmative Action has been in place for over 50 years right? And the results of that are that the black people are in a worse state now than they were 50 years ago by almost every metric we have to measure. Are we more racist now than we were under Jim Crowe? No of course not.

The issue is that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. Trying to "help" black people by giving them preferential treatment for things like SAT scores to get into Ivy League schools, ends up setting them up to fail because they don't actually measure up to their fellow students and end up doing worse as a result. It is literally setting them up to fail. Thomas Sowell has many well articulated studies and data that are easy to follow concerning this topic, I'd recommend looking him up if you'd like to learn more.

In any case, there's a reason why the Asians (who suffered similar and worse treatment than the Blacks) are doing better than Blacks, and even White people, and it isn't that we are an Asian-supremacist nation that is trying to keep all the other races down. It's because they have a very strong culture focused on family, education and personal development that drives them to the heights of success, and they didn't need reparations or handouts to get there. In fact I would argue that if they had been given those things, they would have been worse off in general, as evidenced by the degradation of the conditions in the Black community in the past 50 years.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Akriel_Boulve: I absolutely disagree with your assertion for why black communities are struggling today, but it has become quite clear that further discussion will be nothing more than a waste of time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for OrionMD
OrionMD

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: I wouldn’t say that history classes make slavery seem like it was just a walk in the park- pretty sure almost no one has ever had that impression unless they just like to bury their head in the sand. And while current race relations is far to complex an issue to get into on a gaming message board, one would be hard-pressed to not admit that fostering guilt isn’t a strategy used to promote support for topics or solutions.

6 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: I am not saying history classes are currently doing that, but there are many right-wing candidates in this upcoming election across the country that are proposing just that: a curriculum derived from Christian fundamentalist alternative schools that sugercoats our history so that students view the US as the best country in the world. And many charter schools currently shade their history lessons in such a way that mimics some aspects of Bioshock Infinite. I have seen it happen in these schools as a teacher of over 10 years. They paint the founding fathers as infallible figures in history that are only to be looked up to, while ignoring many of their faults (and atrocities in a couple of cases). Most schools, especially public schools, teach history decently enough though. So it isn't an issue currently as much as it could be an issue moving forward if certain people are elected.

I have also never seen any college level CRT curriculum that attempted to make anyone feel guilty at all. I am sure some people DO feel guilty after learning about stuff, but that is down to the individual, not the curricular approach.

2 • 
Avatar image for OrionMD
OrionMD

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: being critical of history and teaching it accurately is important. The problem with how it is taught now is that it swings to the other end of the spectrum. Instead of presenting historical figures as important albeit flawed humans, they are now viewed and judged through modern standards that they have no possible way to live up to. The way that history is now taught is beyond disingenuous. Holding Columbus to 2020s standards is preposterous. People act like his treatment of indigenous people was an outlier and he was a horrible person. Truth is, that’s how interactions went back then. There was war, strife, and a general fight for survival. Pretty sure none of these despicable historical figures were concerned about how many tiktok likes they were going to get not would they if it were even possible to explain it to them. We’ve completely lost perspective when dealing with history, so now the solution is to tear down statues, so self-righteous we are.

2 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Boodger

@OrionMD: You teach it exactly how it happened. And leave nothing out. And if people today have a distaste for these figures because of their own modern lens, fair enough. But you don't sweep history under the rug just because it might turn people off to these historical figures.

Also, statues are far different than history books. You don't go visit a statue to learn about history. Statues glorify people, they celebrate them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: Literally no one is saying to sweep history under the rug. Critical Race Theory enthusiasts make this erroneous claim that Conservatives are trying to erase the history of slavery but that is not the case. I would join hands with you in calling for a stark fact based retelling of history, but very few on the political left feel the same. This is evidenced by how well received the provably ahistoric 1619 Project was received by the left and the attempt to incorporate it into k-12 schools teaching curriculum.

Also, people often DO go to statues to learn about history, and no not all statues are about glorification. A monument, of which statues are a part of, are there to be a physical reminder of something. Whether that be the glorification of soldiers at Iwo Jima or a reminder of slavery (Emancipation Memorial) or something to be roundly mocked like the statue of Lenin in Portland.

The meaning of a statue is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. People who look at statues of Jefferson might see a great man who helped found this nation, others see a statue to a slave owner. Both are technically true, but I don't think anyone actually truly believes that the statue was built to glorify slavery, if they were being honest with themselves.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: What's really ironic here is the author is suggesting the game should have done exactly what it was criticizing: we should zealously examine and critique all of the elements of society that we dislike and cancel anyone we deem wanting without trial. Now here's a game featuring a religion that zealously judged anyone whose ideals didn't line up with their own, burning them at stakes and destroying their temples upon entirely one sided judgment.

3 • 
Avatar image for OrionMD
OrionMD

269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Barighm: well that is political culture in a nutshell. Judge harshly and ostracize those whom we disagree with, celebrate and give a pass to those with whom we agree. Everyone is turned into a simple caricature of themself by the other side, the nuances of humanity be damned. We’ll just continue circling the drain until we all fall in. Self-critique is not a human strength.

4 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: That may be true of modern politics, but we are in a vastly more unstable state than we have been in a long time. Back in the 90's you couldn't hardly tell a Democrat from a Republican, because Centrism was the name of the game at the time. Now we are at a time of extreme partisanship which is definitely a problem, but one that appears to be starting to remedy itself.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: There's a way out, but it's gonna take strength and leaders we can trust.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@OrionMD: And yet plenty of us are capable of self-critique.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Willing to bet the author of this article is not practicing any religion at all. It doesn't sound like an article a Mormon would write. Or a Christian.

14 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: Probably not any more. They did say they were a "young Mormon". The implication of that sentence is that they eventually left the religion. They still have all the knowledge and perspective of once being a part of it.

4 • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@boodger: Well I never really expected anyone at Gamspot to be religious anyway.

2 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: Probably better that way. Religious people lack the critical thought necessary to properly review anything.

4 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: Nice to see people who claim to be against bigotry engage is the exact same kinds of bigotry against the people they don't like. Atheists only comprise 3.1% according to Pew Research Center, meaning that 96.9% of people are religious. Sorry but there are a lot of very intelligent religious people out there. You just don't like believing that could possibly be the case, just because they believe in some sky daddy. Which is utter nonsense.

And I say this as an Atheist myself.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Boodger

@Akriel_Boulve: religion is a blind spot for intelligent people that follow it. And it is one hell of a blind spot. It takes many serious leaps in logic, and a very big leap in faith, to follow any religion. And anyone that does follow a religion must be questioned as far as critical thinking goes. They may be intelligent still, but its not a given immediately.

For the record, I don't hate all religious people. My own parents, bless their hearts, are very religious.

2 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: Well the issue is that for a lot of people religion isn't worshipped in orthodoxy, it's more of a communal thing and they pick and choose which parts they want to believe. The problem with angry atheists who want to squash out religion, is that you often try to force the fact that they are not fully orthodox as proof that they aren't actually religious, which is kind of nonsense.

For instance Jordan Peterson claims to be religious, but he doesn't specifically believe that all the stories are literal. He sees them as important allegories and lessons and believes that science doesn't have all the answers and never can have all of them because religion isn't about explaining the universe's mechanics but rather it's about addressing the meta-physical concerning things like: Why do we exist? and Why should we be kind to one another? Atheists can certainly look at these topics, but we tend to do so from a much more cold and calculating perspective, ie there is no true purpose to life, we simply exist out of universal happenstance and that morality is a pragmatic thing, but if you can get away with fraud, murder, etc and it doesn't cause the unraveling of society, then there's no real karmic reason not to.

I think religion actually is a very necessary part of society, which is why literally every society and tribal people have had religion. It gives us a social focal point and very few people fully buy into the religious narrative. Sure you can have some bad things happen as a result of religion, but let's be frank, religion is generally only used as a political cover for most of the bad things that are attributed to it, ie the Crusades and other holy wars. Plenty of secular wars are fought over stupid pieces of land that no one actually wants (see India and Pakistan).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Akriel_Boulve: A little over 20 years ago, when I was in college and had started to see the world outside of the religious box my parents kept me in growing up, I said many of the same things you are saying now. It was almost stockholm syndrome, I was certain I didn't want to be religious anymore, but still too hesitant to actually say anything bad about it. I said, literally word for word, "religion is a necessary part of society" very often in conversations about society, morality, and religion. I have since refined my thinking on it.

Religion was a necessary part of our evolution, but it is not a necessary part of society. Not any more anyway. Religion is the byproduct of a simple species finally gaining the ability to think about more than just surviving, and they start looking at the world around them and trying to associate meaning to it all. And things like the sun and the stars, lightning storms and tsunamis and all manner of other natural occurences look spectacular to simple minds, and they attribute these things with gods. Then, a few smarter than average people make up stories to get people to fall in line. It's hard to make wicked people follow laws, but its easy to make people think some all powerful deity is watching everything you do. If the boogeyman will steal your soul for killing or stealing, you probably think twice about sinning. And yet, in all that time, plenty of religious people have killed, stolen, maimed, wronged, etc. all the same. Crime isn't exclusive to atheists.

Now fast forward thousands of years. People are more evolved. Smarter. We have discovered more. Religion is not needed any more to make society function. If every religion suddenly came to a full stop, we would just keep on chugging without a hitch. Today, the religious person chooses to not sin because they think they are being watched. The atheist chooses to not sin because they just don't want to. Honestly, between the two, I trust the person who just chooses not to do it based on their own whims, rather than the one choosing not to do it because "I kind of want to, but I'm worried I'll get in trouble with my god". And before you say it, I realize that plenty of religious people also choose not to sin because they don't want to, but the point still stands. Atheists are not "cold and calculating". The argument is there that all the law abiding atheists choose not to do bad things simply because they just don't want to, while there are certainly people out there afraid to do the bad things they want to do because they are scared of hell.

It is also cherry picking for someone to believe some parts of the bible, and say the rest is allegory. That takes even more leaps in logic than just straight up believing the whole thing. At least the person who believes all of it is just gullible, but the person picking and choosing what they want to believe in the bible is willfully allowing themselves to be duped by a book they don't even fully trust. The bible is fascinating, but I consider the entire thing allegory. Every last word is a work fiction made by men throughout history, and it is frightening that people actually think it is more than that, and then go out and vote.

And to be clear, I have never argued that religion is the root of all evil. It is a man-made construct. Man is the root of all evil. Without religion, people would have gotten in to just as many wars. It just would have been over something else.

Anyway, this has all been spectacularly off topic. Though I do enjoy arguing about religion more than racial equality, which is a big part of why I am going to mostly abandon that discussion. The original point was that it is absolutely silly for the original guy I was replying to, to complain about the article not being written by someone who is religious. The religious don't have the necessary tools to engage thoughtfully in discussions about the trappings of religion. An article talking about the portrayal of religion in Bioshock Infinite would be downright dull if the person writing it was religious.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for JVII
JVII

690

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

4 • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@JVII:

Two things: First, if atheists understood the bible better than Christians, they wouldn't be atheists.

Second, you're linking an NPR article. That's basically taxpayer funded leftism/atheism. As someone who practices, nearly every member of our church KNOWS those very things NPR says that we don't. So is my church in the small percentage who doesn't understand basic Catholic doctrine, or is NPR just full of crap? I'm willing to bet NPR is just full.of crap.

5 • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: NPR is one of the best sources of easily accessible news in the US today. There are better sources, but not as readily available. I could see someone saying CNN is very leftist, but NPR is far more impartial and fact based than CNN, Fox, and the plethora of popular news sites online.

Also, your first point assumed that the logical conclusion of understanding what the bible says is that people accept it as truth, which is silly and comes across as arrogant and nearsighted.

3 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: NPR used to be much better, but their bias has become much more clear in recent years. Even most independent bias checkers put them well within the leftist territory. I used to listen to them driving to work and felt they had a mild bias but now they spend far more time editorializing and focusing almost exclusively on left wing guests and talking points. They are more fact based in their reporting most of the time, I'll give you that, but they also are very picky about what they choose to report on.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Akriel_Boulve: Its no mistake that the reliable news is left leaning. NPR is left of center, and that is exactly where someone wants to be. The right is in a very transitory and unstable place. It is less the republican party and more the trump party these days, as any conservative politician needs a trump endorsement in their political campaign to have a fighting chance. What made the republican party appealing at all over a decade ago has completely mutated. So it comes as no surprise to me that reliable sources of news like NPR have leaned a bit more left recently, as that is in a direction away from where the craziness is.

2 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@boodger: Reliable news is left leaning? You mean like how they continue to claim "the walls are closing in" and the false Russia narrative, oh and how about those "nuclear secrets" Trump supposedly had at his Florida home. You really think that one's going to pan out? We shall see but I am highly doubtful considering they were just there in June and could have seized them then, but ok.

I'm not a big Trump supporter, but I recognize that TDS is definitely a thing and the entire left wing media apparatus is infected with it.

The left media is also literally reading from the same playbook as many compilation videos of various outlets using the exact same wording in their talking points have shown.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of Fox or OAN or most other right wing news sources either, but to say that left leaning is more accurate is a farce.

Both sides of the main stream media are propagandizing and you have to go to primary and independent sources to get the full picture. You now need to have a healthy diet of mixed news sources and pick out the common elements as most likely being true.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Akriel_Boulve: yes, reliable news tends to lean left of center. Of course there are going to be people that go way too far to the left. But as a general statement, not factoring in the extremes of both ends, I would say that there is less crazy on the left than there is on the right, at least these days. There is not one "right leaning" news source i trust.

I had to look up what TDS meant. The reason he is even still in the conversation is not because of an obsession by the left, but because he has made very real and loud assertions of running again in 2024. And because every.single.campaign. in this year's election season makes it clear that Trump endorsed them. Trump himself is nowhere near as scary as "Trumpism", the actual cancer spreading through the Republican party. And when any Republican politician speaks out about it, they get cancelled by the right. These days, to be a successful republican, you have to be in lockstep with "Trumpism". Trump himself, honestly, strikes me as a bit of a simple guy who got in way over his head. His supporters are far more cringe.

In Arizona, the leading Republican candidate running for Governor (endorsed by Trump) recently herself endorsed a well known anti-semite, and has strongly advocated for revised curriculum in school that would force religion into the classroom, and sweep a lot of real history under the rug. This is not an outlier, this is the Republican party today. Even people who might not normally vote left are being forced further in that direction because of how crazy the right is getting, which is a damn shame. The party has transformed a LOT in the last 10 years.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By lagbolt68

@boodger:

Arrogant and near sighted? Bro you know what's arrogant? People telling me they understand a religion and book better than someone who actively practices and has read the book. The most influential and book in the history of mankind I might add. Also, WOW. The sheer ignorance of thinking NPR is a credible news source. You must not be much of a critical thinker yourself.

2 • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: You are not thinking too hard if you think this is a reasonable response. The same type of thing someone could have said to Galileo when he tried to point out the earth orbits the sun.

"You know what's arrogant? You [Galileo] telling me you know the science better than someone who's read the science. Moron!"

Not saying the other guy is brilliant, or that you don't have a point, but you're making yourself look like a dumb dumb.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: Love seeing a microcosm of all the criticized elements of religion and this article right here in the comments, lol.

2 • 
Avatar image for teshammutna
TeshamMutna

488

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@lagbolt68: That's because Christians blindly follow the faith without questioning it or they ignore whatever doesn't fit their view at the time

4 • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@teshammutna:

So why are you blindly following atheism? Have you even been to church? Have you read the scriptures? Have you tried seeking Him out? If you did, I wager you didn't try hard.

2 • 
Avatar image for Akriel_Boulve
Akriel_Boulve

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: One cannot "blindly follow atheism" because atheism has a total lack of conscript. There is no manual on what an atheist is or is not supposed to be. Most of us have actually sought out religion and found it lacking.

Let me ask you, have you ever looking into other religions, such as the Hindi faiths, to ensure you got the right one? What about something less focused on specific major deities like Shintoism or maybe something closer to home like the other Abrahamic religions?

Likely you are in the same church that your parents were and never actually challenged the teachings and your own faith (presuming you actually read the bible, which a surprisingly few number of Christians actually have).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for boodger
Boodger

2521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: again, it is arrogant to assume the only logical conclusion to understanding religion is to believe in it.

I spent the first 18 years of my life going to church and reading it every night. Then i grew up and gained critical thinking.

Whats the difference between your faith and muslim, buddhist, or jewish faith? Nothing. You all have a gut feeling you are right, and you all pretend that hunch is your god speaking to you

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@teshammutna:

Oh I promise you friend. I'm not blindly following. I hope one day, you'll understand.

4 • 
Avatar image for VANGUARD003
VANGUARD003

418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: I'm sure he feels the same.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for JVII
JVII

690

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

Edited By JVII

@lagbolt68:

1) Lmao

2) Your lack of reading comprehension demonstrates the exact point of the research. NPR didn't "write" the research, they referenced a study by the Pew Research Center, which is a nonpartisan research organization. You're trying to argue against facts from an actual scientific study when you lack the capacity to even read a sentence and understand that a research study is being referenced.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

3 • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By lagbolt68

@JVII:

I know that's Pew research. I read the article dude. Also, NPR can selectively frame any article any way they want. They can make any statistics look bad.

The devil is in the details. You have to know what the questions are and the demographics of where they are asking the questions. The way a question is asked can be tricky and if you're in Detroit you're going to get a bulk of answers one way as opposed to if you're in rural Texas. You need to know all that to know the accuracy of the research. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it can be misleading

Also, NPR has done that before by the way. They have taken statistics and twisted those found in research polls to suit their agenda.

3 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@JVII: Usually because they actually read it, and noticed it made no sense, hence why they aren't religious. The religious rarely actually read it, they just get told what is in it by their churches.

4 • 
Avatar image for lagbolt68
lagbolt68

87

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k:

Well Mormonism doesn't make sense. Even the founder Joseph Smith's story is non sensical.

4 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@lagbolt68: None of them make sense.

4 •