@TheTrueMagusX1, I'm not sure miltarism is a good term, but the debate over religion is only likely to become more contentious. As I pointed out previously, religiosity is declining, and in this decline it is the middle ground under the moderates that is eroding first pushing them to one side or the other. The result is a growing segment of the population that is irreligious and increasingly unafraid to say so, while the religious demographic is becoming overall more extreme and, as it shrinks, increasingly fights for its (metaphorical) life. That stratification cannot help but produce conflict, and I don't think conflict is necessarily a bad thing as long as it is honest, earnest, and nonviolent (a standard that sadly is rarely met). The marketplace of ideas wouldn't work without it.
@TheTrueMagusX1, I never said that because A) you never asked, and B) the article isn't about me or you or anybody's individual religious beliefs or lack thereof. I commented on what I'd like to see in video games or art in general dealing with the issue of religion, and on some games that impressed me with their bold take on the subject. Everything else has been off topic. In response to your questions, I don't think you can blame religion for all the world's problems, but I don't think you can let if off scott free either. As I said before, it has both a positive purpose and some nasty side effects. I'm not fond of immature insults, either. In an argument, you should make a point and support it. Satire is fair play, but insults and name calling do nothing to advance a case. I did nothing blindly. I was rebutting a false claim with evidence from the claimant's source. It was very specific.
@TheTrueMagusX1, The person you are disrespecting is a figment of your own imagination. You could try asking what people actually think or believe instead of making assumptions and then attacking those. For example, I believe that all people are entitled to their own preferences and beliefs so long as they hurt no one else and do not infringe upon the same rights in others. I believe people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. While I do not have faith in any deity, I do not mind if others do if that faith helps to comfort them and motivates them to be better people in their communities. I do mind if their faith leads them to stifle diversity or free thought or to spout blatant untruths. I believe that religion has both positive and negative influences. I believe that science, while imperfect (as everything is), is simply the best and really only good tool we have for determining what is true in the universe. I have been a Christian, a Deist, and an Agnostic, among other things. Now I call myself an Atheist because, while nobody can absolutely rule out a deity, the probability of one existing is extremely low given the lack of evidence to support it. So, please, tell me: which of these positions is so offensive to you? Which is so far beyond the pale that I should be insulted for daring to espouse it? And does that say more about me, or about you?
@TheTrueMagusX1, You call people who you disagree with bigots, and we're the insecure ones? I do not take the bible literally. It is filled with metaphor, hyperbole, and myth, and I think anyone who does take it literally misses the real point and loses out on some valuable messages it has to impart (though it unfortunately is cluttered with some bad messages as well). More importantly, a literal reading of the bible is utterly irreconcilable with reality (or even itself). There's an old saying: "Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. Believing something in opposition to all available evidence is just willful ignorance." I agree that its an unfair fight, and picking on YEC's is low hanging fruit, but the AIG/Discovery Institute crew are actively trying to undermine science, education, and religious freedom in America, and somebody has to rebut them with reality, even on a video game message board. If they were not demanding that the bible is a literally accurate historical document, you wouldn't see us responding to that. I don't go around harassing people for their religion, though I am also not afraid to espouse my own stance or to stand up against those who try to undermine science, education, or the first amendment. You claim doing so is arrogant bigotry. I think you need to look in the mirror. Or at least try asking someone you disagree with what they really believe and why rather than projecting your caricatures on them.
@JonathanGudeman, Genesis is pretty clear on this. Day and night created on Day 1, the Sun and Moon created on Day 4. While the moon's not such a big deal, you can't have days and nights without the sun. You also can't have the seed and fruit bearing plants on day 3 without the sun for photosynthesis. If God did create the sun on day 1, then why did he have to go and create it again on Day 4? Was the first one just a prototype? You'd think an infallible deity wouldn't have to do that. The story also describes the sky as a firmament separating waters below from waters above, which is incorrect. It also places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, meaning below the waters above it, so even if you take the waters above the firmament as a vague reference to an atmosphere, it's still wrong. As far as the Earth being flat, there are multiple references. My favorites are in Job, speaking of the Earth's "foundations" and "pillars". Don't worry. I know I won't convert you. Also, I don't think the people who wrote these stories were idiots. I do wonder about people who have access to all of today's knowledge who take these stories as literal history, something I doubt they were ever intended to be by their authors. I'm done, but if you'd like more, try "Some Mistakes of Moses". It's a delightful romp through the absurdity of taking the Torah literally.
@JonathanGudeman, If you are seriously interested in finding out more about the evidence for evolution, there are plenty of sources available. "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a good book laying out the evidence for a very casual audience. If you'd rather avoid atheistic authors, you could try "The Language of God" by the devout Christian Francis Collins. As for the bible never having been proved wrong, that's a tough sell. I mean just looking at Genesis 1, I think we know pretty conclusively these days that the world isn't flat. And that the day couldn't have been created before the sun. Aside from that, you could just google or bing "contradictions in the bible" and see that the book disproves itself, or at least the literalist interpretation of it.
@Burninat0r, Carbon dating doesn't assume as much as you think it does. Scientists understand variability in C-14 production rates (not decay rates) and concentrations and have calibrated their carbon dating scales against known calendars with calibration curves. When appropriately calibrated, they provide very consistent results. As for the 2000 year old snail shells, that's a known reservoir effect.
@gDamascus, I think that's the point. There aren't just two sides. There are more versions of religion than there are people who have ever lived, each in some way distinct from everyone else's. Games usually simplify it down to a black and white, good vs. evil framework, but if treated seriously, the subject would be a lot more complex and nuanced than that.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports# That's a link to a great resource on religious identification and demographics, getting back to my original point. Two important bits of data to note are that men are substantially less religious than women and that younger segments of the population are significantly less religious than older ones. Gamers tend to skew both young and male, so it would not be surprising if gamers were less interested in religion than the general population. It also means that game developers are free to present greater diversity in their depictions of religion, which I'm all for. I'm not sure Assassin's Creed or Dead Space could have dealt with religion in the manner they did if they had been movies or tv shows instead of games.
nparks' comments