-"That is a completely wrong take on religion." - Says the guy rejecting the highly dogmatic nature of religion.
-"you're assuming that religion is a very practical answer to a very unpractical question" - No, I've come to the carefully considered conclusion that religion is a highly irrational answer to a practical question.
-"your assuming that the answer throws out all other knowledge." - That would be what the evidence supports, so I wouldn't call it an assumption. The very purpose in making a god is essentially like cheating. If you can force your made up answer into as many minds as possible, then who cares what the real answer is?
-"Do we have any concrete evidence that leads us to an undeniable truth? Nope. We don't." - A statement that neither contradicts any viewpoint, nor supports one, religious or otherwise.
Every single question raised in a religious text (mind you, there are those, such as Buddhism, that aren't really religions despite their reputation, and thus can't quite be described this way) is promptly and very clearly answered. Like I said, the answer is ALWAYS faith in god and the strict adherence to the morals your particular deity demands. There are times when those morals are *obviously* not a bad thing, but that's beside the point. Texts like the Bible, Torah and Qur'an purposely leave as little room as possible for interpretation. I *could* go on about how these texts are just parables, but then said texts would, in view of FAR greater extant works, be worthless. They tend to teach some nasty things, after all.
@ObeseChipmunk Just thought I'd mention... There really is no rational way religion could possibly viewed as a search for truth.
The one unifying aspect of all religions, every last one, is that they serve, in and of themselves, as answers, not as questions. They do not, under any circumstance, seek truth. They seek to further the truth they think they've already found. It's easier to pretend you already know the answer (god, the answer's always god, apparently) than to try and actually figure something out.
A core aspect of the Abrahamaic religions is, after all, an almost complete rejection of knowledge and in its place, the embrace of faith (you know, believing whatever certain people tell you without a shred of evidence).
@WolfGrey @ObeseChipmunk @00J @Gravity_Slave It sounds to me like the experience allowed Levine to make the character less one-dimensional. I mean, there needs to be SOME reason people would side with this Comstock guy, even if it's not a reason many of us could identify with.
I have a rather hostile view of religion, but it sounds to me like this probably did indeed make for a better game, and at no point did Levine's words seem to indicate that it was any less offensive for it.
@Gravity_Slave So... You don't know how this news thing works, do you?
He's given stories to write up, and he writes them. That's it. If you people are incensed by stories that aren't quite face-meltingly important, then stop reading news articles. Anywhere. You'll only ever be disappointed.
@bubba_1988 @projectpat72988 @vault-boy It sounds like they're being a bit defensive because the average GS user is nowhere near informed, and many of the comments here demonstrate that.
Whenever there's news about Cliffy B., weirdos come out of the woodwork to go on about how they don't want to hear from him (yet insist on clicking these articles). So it's understandable that anyone on the other side might sound biased.
@projectpat72988 I don't think any games journalism website is in the habit of ignoring industry celebrities just to make sure no one calls them a fanboy. Also, you see tons of other people getting coverage.
@Shadeslinger04 @parrot_of_adun But they would need that tech they patented a little while back to do that. It couldn't work as simply as it does for online access, since they would be dealing with physical storage, and not just allowing/denying online access. And so far, that tech seems absent.
parrot_of_adun's comments