"Quite normal" to sing the Qur'an - artist

By Oli Welsh Published 21 October, 2008

BBC report examines LBP recall.

Speaking to the BBC's News at Ten TV programme, Toumani Diabate, the Malian singer of the music track that has caused the delay to LittleBigPlanet's release, has defended his lyrics.

The game was recalled from retailers worldwide last week so that the song could be removed. It features two lines that directly quote the Islamic holy text, the Qur'an, the inclusion of which Sony feared might offend some Muslims.

Diabate, a Muslim himself, doesn't see the problem. "It's quite normal to play music and be inspired by the words of the prophet Mohammed," he told the BBC. "It's my way to attract and inspire people towards Islam."

The BBC report noted that the track was "widely available" through other channels.

However, Sony wasn't prepared to take any risks. "We wanted to eradicate the possibility of the game falling into the hands of the somebody who may deem the music track offensive," Sony Computer Entertainment Europe spokesman Jonathan Fargher told the News at Ten.

The BBC canvassed Muslim community groups on the issue, and they took varying positions.

"Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the actual word of God... If it were to be used in a commercial way, that would upset and cause offence and hurt to many, many Muslims," said Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain.

"The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything," countered Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

The BBC's reporter, home editor Mark Easton, drew a parallel with the controversy Sony faced last year over the appearance of Manchester Cathedral as a battleground in Resistance: Fall of Man, something that offended many in the Church of England. However, in that instance, the game was not withdrawn.

But he concluded that corporations were no longer prepared to take financial risks on religious issues.

"In an increasingly globalised world, people feel more anxious that their their identity will be lost in some corporate, multicultural soup," Easton said. "But the same forces that they think threaten their individuality also give them the power to fight for things they hold dear."

He cited the fatwa declared on author Salman Rushdie, the violence over Muslim cartoons in the Dutch press, and Christian protests at Jerry Springer The Opera as events that had changed the landscape for companies. "Now even the most powerful multinationals choose to steer clear of religious backlash," Easton said.

"Some will see it as political correctness gone mad, others as refreshing corporate sensitivity. But Sony's decision has more to do with hard-headed business."

It's an interesting report. You can view it on the BBC iPlayer; the report starts just over 15 minutes into the programme.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (141) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Spanky #1 3 years ago

    Surely Muslims shouldn't be playing games other than tetris anyway as the depiction of living creatures in art/games/comics etc is actually prohibited under sharia law.

  • Dizzy #2 3 years ago

    Nice marketing trick ;)

  • HarryPalmer #3 3 years ago

    What a farce.

  • SeesThroughAll #4 3 years ago

    They just didn't want to lose the sales to those who might be offended. That's all, just business.

    Oh, and of course, it's a nice marketing trick.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 12:09

  • Redeye #5 3 years ago

    Were Sony's marketing division rubbing their hands with glee at all the free publicity?

    *strokes chin*

  • Kyle #6 3 years ago

    At least it's better than The Sun's take on the whole thing.

  • PameBoy #7 3 years ago

    oh for fuck's sake

    I'm going to call my sackboy Mohammed

  • menage #8 3 years ago

    "We wanted to eradicate the possibility of the game falling into the hands of the somebody who may deem the music track offensive,""

    Pussy.

    Seriously, since when do 2 or so morons dictate the content of many.

    I think they are going to have a hell of a time eradicating all the swastika's and islam references form user generated content.

    At least the game is terrific.
    Edited by 2 at 21/10/08 @ 12:18

  • ruttyboy #9 3 years ago

    You'd have to be pissed off if you a hardline Christian though wouldn't you, the two examples (Manchester Cathedral and Jerry Springer) they were told to get stuffed, but if Mumra is involved everybody runs scared. The Christians need to start burning effigies and 'stuff' to get some proper respect. That or just wake the fuck up and realise it's not the Middle Ages anymore.

  • Freek #10 3 years ago

    "The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything," countered Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

    /Applauds

  • mingster #11 3 years ago

    As mentioned in the other thread....
    Sack-religious Boy

  • Razorus #12 3 years ago

    The artist is right, there was no offence here, but it was a good move on Sony's part because some Muslims would surely find an excuse to cause a fuss. As long as someone is using the Qur'anic verses to paint a positive picture, or not use it for profitable gain, then that's ok. Also, let's not beat around the bush here. The Manchester Cathedral thing is not the same issue. Many games depict religious sites, sometimes destroyed. It's done in films too. The major difference here is that Muslims are much more vocal about being offended and people are generally more afraid of Muslims than Christians. I should know; I am a Muslim.
    Which leads me to my next point which is aimed at Spanky. No, those so-called "laws" are ridiculous. I have a book written by an extremist Muslim cleric which states that a human is forbidden from playing Chess against a computer controlled opponent. Something about the CPU not having a soul, or whatever. Another "law" states that Muslims are not allowed to listen to ANY music unless it is religious chanting. This is all bullshit, written by a minority of crazy zealots. I'm a good Muslim and I can live in a Western society just fine, so please ignore those crazy extremists. I don't think Prophet Muhammed played Gears of War or anything, so all these rules are useless.

  • wattoo #13 3 years ago

    He did, but apparently he couldn't get past level 2.

  • speedjack #14 3 years ago

    I'm going to take a wild guess and say that most 'normal', i.e. mainstream Muslims would have no problem with this.

    Those that would be offended are the minority who probably wouldn't realise they had anything new to be offended about until a lazy journalist desperate to for another story that paints all Muslims as bigoted knee-jerk radicals tells them what a video game is.

    Just a thought.

    /is an atheist

  • Darren #15 3 years ago

    So this Muslim who recorded the song says it's OK to use words from the Qur'an because it's his faith and he feels it inspires people toward Islam?

    While I may not share his faith or any other religion for that matter, I think this guy at least is talking sense because isn't that why people sing Christmas songs or other religious songs? They celebrate their beliefs through song. I don't see what's wrong with it.

    So who is telling the truth then? Is it forbidden to use words from the Qur'an in music... or is it a case of certain people like him bending the rules? And why hasn't the Muslim community approached Toumani Diabate and told him off for being a very, very naughty boy?

    Perhaps the real problem is that Islam needs to change and be made more flexible, perhaps that way more people would embrace it. The way I see it as it stands it is just not appropriate to our western way of life at all, especially if what Spanky says is true. The impression I get is that devoted Muslims must lead very dull lives by our standards... you cannot do this, you cannot do that, blah, blah, blah! Eurgh! It really makes me so glad I'm not religious really... :?

  • Spanky #16 3 years ago

    But Razorus, not trying to be funny but the whole basis of islamic art is based on the principles of not depicting living creatures. It's nothing new, i'm told it's actually stated in the Qur'an(can't confirm, i'll never read it). If anything you're the progressive here but alas i think you are in a minority globally.

  • ruttyboy #17 3 years ago

    Sorry Razorus, but for me it is the same issue, that of people being 'offended on grounds of religious sensibility' and the reaction to it. It doesn't actually matter why and how the offence is caused (as Religion abandons logic as a matter of course), merely that people feel it, but the difference in reaction to the (IMO unreasonable demands) of the various religions is telling.

    As you say, the seemingly greater respect that is paid to Islam is certainly linked to fear as thankfully (in this country anyway) Christians are just not seen as dangerous whereas Muslims are. Whether that is the reality is irrelevant as it is only a perception.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 12:35

  • jonsaan #18 3 years ago

    How many thousands of Muslim themed derogatory levels will be created within a week of launch? How will Sony handle that?

  • SliderNL #19 3 years ago

    I'm glad that I'm an atheïst, it's like what Hans Teeuwen said, religious extremist think they have a monopoly on the truth.
    In the end no matter what you do, say, publish it will offend someone. So who cares.....



    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 12:40

  • BobsUncle #20 3 years ago

    Did everyone see that South Park episode where they remove all christian references at chistmas time, in case they offend non-christians?

    It's scary how close to the truth that episode is... Political correctness will be the death of society.

  • anomagnus #21 3 years ago

    shamboilic climb down by sony

    probably afraid of being blown up, or a repeat of the whole dutch newspaper event

  • septimus #22 3 years ago

    Religion FTL.

    -edit- Oh and music is supposedly against the word of islam. It can cause emotions that aren't deemed appropriate supposedly.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 12:41

  • Ainudil #23 3 years ago

    Of course it is ok to sing the Qu'ran. Have no one heard the prayers?

    On another note: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

    Pulp Fiction recall confirmed!

  • Johnson #24 3 years ago

    That's not from the Qu'aran. It's not even from the Bible.

  • FrankCannon #25 3 years ago

    Yawn.

  • X201 #26 3 years ago

    "BBC's News at Ten"?

    News at Ten is the one on ITV, you know, The one that prioritises stories about Britney Spears and Madonna.

    Try "BBC's Ten O'Clock News"

  • Les #27 3 years ago

    "Can't believe how many people have been stressing out that they are atheists here in the last few days. Who cares? It's not like that makes you better people. In the end it's just another believe-system."

    Can't speak for all atheists but in my case it's because of misconceptions like the one expressed by you. Atheism isn't "just another believe-system" because believe has nothing to do with it. Atheism is about a world view based on verifiable facts. This facilitates rational discussion, something religion does not because of its dogmas (non-disputable non-facts).

    As for whether atheists are better people than religious people, I don't think you can say that in general terms. Though atheists for example tend to be better educated on average than religious people. Personally, but this is rather philosophical, I think it's better to do good because one rationally determines one must do good than to do good because one imagines some sumpreme being instructs him/her to do so.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 13:02

  • ps3owner #28 3 years ago

    @SliderNL

    being an atheïst makes you a communist :). don't blame me, I was in bali earlier this year and it specifically said in the travel guide book, if asked what religion you belong to, don't ever say you are an atheïst.
    Indonesia is mostly muslim, althoug bali is buddhist I think. well, I am a catholic on paper.

  • Dark_Stranger #29 3 years ago

    oh Jesus Christ, opp's, (sorry Christians) what a load of rubbish (sorry bin men), people really need to grow up (sorry old/young people) and get a grip (sorry amputees).

  • Darren #30 3 years ago

    SliderNL - Yeah, I share your view too.

    As an non-religious person, I feel that the concept of religion, any religion that is, is an archaic one and it doesn't fit in with my modern scientific view of the world. It quite often doesn't make sense since it was written thousands of years ago before man understood how the world worked. And it is based purely on faith, a belief in something that may or may not exist. Faith cannot be disproven or proven, it's an anomaly as far as I'm concerned. People will always believe in what they want to believe but ultimately we all die and no-one has yet come back from that "experience" to prove that God really does exist or what happens to us after that. And if God does exist by some chance then I'd like to think that he's not an egocentric that demands his creations worship him. And what makes say the Christian God more "right" than the Muslim one or vice versa. A whole load of people are going to die and suddenly realise that they've spent their entire lives praying to a "false" god... how do we know which is the "right" one? LOL

    I believe that life just is, it happens by accident and serves no real purpose. The universe just is too, no-one created it, it's always been there and always will. And if God exists then who created God? If God has a God then who created him (why is God always a man, why not a woman or an animal, etc., etc.)? When we die, I believe we just cease to exist, the opposite of what we experienced before we were born, and that's the same for every living thing on this planet whether it's an insect or animal. I also know the difference between right and wrong without a book telling me. Basically I consider myself an educated person that can think for myself.
    Edited by 2 at 21/10/08 @ 12:56

  • Les #31 3 years ago

    "So who is telling the truth then? Is it forbidden to use words from the Qur'an in music... or is it a case of certain people like him bending the rules? And why hasn't the Muslim community approached Toumani Diabate and told him off for being a very, very naughty boy?

    Perhaps the real problem is that Islam needs to change and be made more flexible, perhaps that way more people would embrace it."

    The problem is in religion itself. It's not based on logic so it's impossible to have a fruitful discussion about it. Any view is defensible if logic is thrown out of the window. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

  • SEVQA #32 3 years ago

    ‘D I N O S A U R S’

  • seasidebaz #33 3 years ago


    "The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything," countered Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of British Muslims for Secular Democracy."


    I am offended by this comment. I am not in an offence "industry".

  • pjmaybe #34 3 years ago

    One angle on all this that doesn't sit "right" with me is - how the HELL has sony managed to do a pull of all existing copies, and remaster enough replacements in a little over 2 weeks? That's a hell of an achievement.

  • ps3owner #35 3 years ago

    btw. has anyone actually seen the Islamic calendar lately? ... http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_cal...

    I think that explains the reactions. Back in the good old middle ages in europe we were acting quite similar ;).

  • ruttyboy #36 3 years ago

    Because Blu-ray production is scaled up enough at this point for it not to be a concern.

  • Raz76 #37 3 years ago

    That's violence over cartoons in the DANISH press, not Dutch. Jeeze, people don't even remember us when we act like idiots.

  • mingster #38 3 years ago

    Very factually incorrect article..
    It was the Danish cartoons.. not the Dutch.

  • systems #39 3 years ago

    @SEVQA - Dinosaurs are creatures which God wiped out during the great flood. Everything alive in the world today was carried aboard Noah's "Tardis" Ark and saved. Obvious when you think about it.

  • Spanky #40 3 years ago

    IMO the problem is the global media, most muslims in this country and europe in general are progressive, it's when the news filters over to the middle east that the shoe slapping, effigy burning nonsense starts.

  • kangarootoo #41 3 years ago

    A couple of thoughts occur to me (an aethesist, for what its worth).

    1. I can't believe some people are still suggesting this was a publicity stunt. Of course it bloody wasn't. And there ends that ridiculous discussion.

    2. As an aetheist I am utterly UN-offended by this change. It confounds me how angry some gamers get about something that makes barely any different to their lives WHATSOEVER.

    You have two groups of people. One is offended, the other is not. Making the correction isn't going to offend the previously unoffended group, so why not make it? Seriously, why not remove the offense if it makes no difference to anyone else? People harp on as if this change has affected their lives, but it hasn't really. Nobody is being oppressed here, save a few account managers perhaps.

    If there is one thing more bloody annoying than a religeous zealot, its an aetheist zealot who has the gall (or ignorance) to assume that their particular flavour of arrogance and dogma is somehow less self serving.

    Its not what you believe, its what you do. Being an aetheist isn't some kind of license to act like a bigoted cock. Aetheists acting all offended over this are just being stroppy idiot kids, because it doesn't actually make any difference does it. Doesn't it seem ironic to everyone else? I mean, isn't one of the benefits of being an aetheist that we don't get offended by stuff related to belief? Some people just like moaning I guess.

  • Schiraman #42 3 years ago

    Not really related to this whole mess, but just in response to a couple of comments about what it means to be an atheist: it's worth noting that concepts of right and wrong or good and evil are not provable, scientific things but instead are entirely dependant on your beliefs.

    Ultimately everyone bases their actions on their beliefs, the only difference between religious beliefs and secular beliefs is that religious beliefs are formalised. Being an atheist doesn't make you inherently any more rational (or scientific or well educated or whatever), it just makes you rather more vague ;)

    OTOH I'm agnostic and thus even vaguer... ;)

  • Daikon #43 3 years ago

    most muslims in this country and europe in general are progressive

    Oh really? And you base this on what exactly?

    Wake me up when the majority of the EU's muslims OK homosexuality, interfaith relationships and view women as equals to men.

  • kangarootoo #44 3 years ago

    @Les

    "The problem is in religion itself. It's not based on logic so it's impossible to have a fruitful discussion about it."

    I know where that comment is coming from, but it does kind of imply that aetheists are always coming from a point of logic... and that is plainly nonsense. Aethesists for the most part come from the same point as people of faith, i.e. self serving and emotional meatbags with one sort of chip or another firmly lodged on their shoulder.

    An aetheist is simply someone with no spiritual faith. Whether actual logic plays any part in that is rather more down to the individual.

  • kangarootoo #45 3 years ago

    @Schiraman

    +1

  • ruttyboy #46 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    But the change has 'offended' the 'unoffended' group by preventing them from satisying their desires, or at least delaying it. That might be a purile reason and it says a lot about the maturity and level of patience present in your average 'gamer', but it's still true.

  • dr_faulk #47 3 years ago

    "Some will see it as political correctness gone mad, others as refreshing corporate sensitivity. But Sony's decision has more to do with hard-headed business."

    What wonderful commentary!

  • kangarootoo #48 3 years ago

    Just watched the iPlayer feed.

    Maybe over reaction on my part, but it seemed an odd choice of the BBC editors to use a segment of game footage showing both game characters being destroyed by an explosion (the only explosion in the clip) as a backdrop to the final phrase "fear of a religious backlash".

    Coincidence I'm sure...

  • kangarootoo #49 3 years ago

    @ruttyboy

    "But the change has 'offended' the 'unoffended' group by preventing them from satisying their desires, or at least delaying it"

    Really though? Has it really? Some might say that some people from all sides go looking for ways to be offended, and then over react massively when they find the excuse they need.


    "That might be a purile reason and it says a lot about the maturity and level of patience present in your average 'gamer'"

    Eeeeeeeeeeeeexxxactly :)

  • Pogle #50 3 years ago

    An offended Muslim has a greater chance of being a Bomb Wielding Murderer than a member of another faith if recent history is anything to go by.
    Considering the number of muslims and the number of Bomb Wielding Murderers its a pretty small chance but would YOU bet YOUR life on it being small enough?

  • Darren #51 3 years ago

    @Schiraman - But we all know generally what things are considered good (kindly acts, helping people, being polite and nice to people, being tolerant, having patience, etc.) and what is bad (stealing, murder, rape, etc.) plus we have laws in place for those that don't. We don't really *need* religion unless, of course, you're someone who absolutely needs to feel that their life has some kind of purpose and that there is something more once you die. People who are religious tend to be brought up that way IMO but since my own parents are not religious so it wasn't ingrained into me. Same for the rest of my family.

    The belief in God kind of reminds me of how when I was young I was told to believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. I mean for years I strongly believed them and then my parents told me the truth and I know it is so as we all do. It was a nice, comforting belief and I guess that's what religious people must feel too. Only the point where you learn the truth doesn't happen early on in your life but at the precise moment you die... ;)

    By then it's obviously too late to do anything about it! LOL
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 13:46

  • MORZTAN #52 3 years ago

    This is purely a marketing trick by Sony. "Oh my!! Look at this controversial game on the news... Hey, that little guy is pretty cute.. I want that!"

    This is the Sony marketing we know from "All I want for xmas is a PSP", but this time they are succeeding...

  • kangarootoo #53 3 years ago

    @wazzer

    "A Totally obvious marketing ploy."

    Oh please stop. A study of causality would be very welcome here, as people seem unable to seperate the two elements.

    Anyone here heard of Ockham's Razor? Anyone? Anyone?

    [link url=http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham_razor
    ]http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham_razor
    [/link]

    All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

    Another way of understanding it is "One should never make more assumptions than is necessary to explain the facts".

  • Ranger101 #54 3 years ago

    "An offended Muslim has a greater chance of being a Bomb Wielding Murderer than a member of another faith if recent history is anything to go by.
    Considering the number of muslims and the number of Bomb Wielding Murderers its a pretty small chance but would YOU bet YOUR life on it being small enough? "

    Astounding retardation.

    Apply that logic to people holding driving licenses, and you'll never step out of your home.

    But you're not a Bigot or anything, so it's ok.

  • Les #55 3 years ago

    "Ultimately everyone bases their actions on their beliefs, the only difference between religious beliefs and secular beliefs is that religious beliefs are formalised."

    I don't agree with the use of the word "beliefs". Everyone bases their actions on their world view. The difference between the religious world view and the secular world view is that one is based on dogmas and the other is based on one's interpretation of the facts. That different people arrive at different conclusions is beside the point.

    "An aetheist is simply someone with no spiritual faith. Whether actual logic plays any part in that is rather more down to the individual."

    I agree up to some point. What sets atheism apart from religion is that atheism never excludes logic from the discussion while religion does.

  • kangarootoo #56 3 years ago

    @Pogle

    "An offended Muslim has a greater chance of being a Bomb Wielding Murderer than a member of another faith if recent history is anything to go by."

    Rubbish rubbish rubbish. Its easy to pitch things the way you want when you are allowed to include qualifiers such as "if recent history...".

    How recently are we talking here? Choice of religion has far less to do with these things that world politics, and world politics cycle within a generation, which is really no time at all.

    Go back 100 years, 500 years, 1500 years. "If recent history is anything to by" is just another way of saying "as far as I know", which unfortunately is quite a variable to casually throw into the mix.

  • kangarootoo #57 3 years ago

    @Darren

    "People who are religious tend to be brought up that way IMO but since my own parents are not religious so it wasn't ingrained into me. Same for the rest of my family."

    That kind of suggests that your aetheism was ingrained into you though doesn't it? That you are an aetheist because you were brought up that way?

    Just playing devil's advocate here.

  • kangarootoo #58 3 years ago

    "This is purely a marketing trick by Sony"

    Can people stop saying that?! Its like a sponsored stupid or something.

    This reminds me of the time that Nintendo lost a truck load of Wii consoles because they got stolen. And some people actually seriously believed that Nintendo had rigged the whole thing themselves and actually lied to the police about the apparent theft.

    Madness.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 13:54

  • Schiraman #59 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I agree with most of what you've said above, but OTOH I do think there are some potentially worrying implications here: basically this kind of thing is back-door censorship, and it's not so much the particular content being censored in this case that's the issue, so much as the general principle that's worrying. In short: where does it end?

    Also, to briefly address the elephant in the room, the fact that this particular offence relates to Islam doesn't help. There seem to be an awful lot of things that are harmless in the eyes of secular society that are offensive to at least some Muslims and they do tend to be very vocal about it. Giving in to that kind of pressure when, if it were another group, you'd normally ignore it is just another form of discrimination and ultimately helps no-one.

  • Les #60 3 years ago

    "That kind of suggests that your aetheism was ingrained into you though doesn't it? That you are an aetheist because you were brought up that way?"

    You could see atheism as the default human setting. Religion requires reprogramming.

  • Ranger101 #61 3 years ago

    30,720 died due to road accidents in the UK alone last year, there were 247,780 road/accident related casualties in the UK alone.

    YEAH LETS THROW THOSE EVIL MUSLIMS OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR BEING MURDERERS! THEY KILLED EXACTLY....er... none..erm.. in the uk... last year.....


    DOWN WITH DRIVERS I SAY!

    DRIVERS ARE EVIL! BAN THESE BACKWARDS FILTH NOW!

    (What's that.... "most drivers don't choose to kill the people they kill"?... that sounds...even more scarier....)

  • Les #62 3 years ago

    "I know where that comment is coming from, but it does kind of imply that aetheists are always coming from a point of logic... and that is plainly nonsense."

    It's only plainly nonsense because it doesn't, by logic, imply what you imply it implies... ;)

    Atheism is based on logic. This means one can't make any claims that do not follow from logic with an appeal to atheism. This doesn't mean that atheists are perfectly rational beings.

  • Les #63 3 years ago

    "(What's that.... "most drivers don't choose to kill the people they kill"?... that sounds...even more scarier....)"

    Why is randomness more scarier than intent?

  • el_pollo_diablo #64 3 years ago

    I cant even be bothered to be an atheist.

  • Schiraman #65 3 years ago

    @Darren

    My points about belief earlier was that all morality is rooted in belief. Yes, many of us would broadly agree on a definition of good and evil acts - but that doesn't make "X is good" or "Y is evil" somehow factual, they're still just beliefs. Those beliefs are no more or less valid than any other beliefs.

    Religion is basically just a very structured set of beliefs, with a central theme to tie those beliefs together and explain them. Any time you try to rationalise to yourself *why* you believe killing someone is evil, for example, you're basically edging into religious territory.

    I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there's not as big a divide between people who define themselves as religious and those who don't as some people like to believe.

  • Ranger101 #66 3 years ago

    Partial Anatomy of a bigot:

    Spout Crap and feel superior -> Encounter fact that calls your basic intentions into question? -> "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" -> Encounter dodgy opinion coupled with fact? -> Strike and focus on that so everyone forgets the undisputable fact! -> ??? -> Profit.

  • Daymare #67 3 years ago

    Well said, warzin.

  • Darren #68 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo - Not really since they didn't exactly bring me up not to believe in God, it was more that they *never* mentioned God or religion. That's not quite the same thing IMO. Of course, I learnt about religion at school but it was never something I ever took seriously or, indeed, thought much about really. I did enjoy the Old Testament stories though about Adam and Eve (surely we'd all be inbred mutants if this was true!!!), the Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark... they were very fascinating works of fiction.

    I was christened by the way but that was the sort of thing everyone did back when I was born, same as how people who don't go to church still get married there and how athiests still have funerals! I even say "Oh God" a lot but, of course, it's just an expression, it doesn't mean I believe in Him. LOL

  • Daymare #69 3 years ago

    "...it doesn't mean I believe in Him."

    Hehe!

  • Dark_Stranger #70 3 years ago

    these guys are not cowards...
    http://ne ws.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...

  • Psiloc #71 3 years ago

    "The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything"

    I want to shake this person's hand.

  • el_pollo_diablo #72 3 years ago

    Aaaahhhh. Religion.

    The greatest tax fiddle in history.

  • axman303 #73 3 years ago

    Has anyone considered that Sony might have done this on purpose to get some extra publicity and/or get a few more week's development time? Do we know for sure that the Blu-Ray discs were alreadyproduced and ready for shipping?

  • doragor #74 3 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    Have you considered that people like me are irritated at the ease with which a minority of Muslims are offended and the censorship to which that can lead? Because, as with newspapers that chose not to reprint the Danish cartoons, it is (self) censorship.

  • Ranger101 #75 3 years ago

    Hey maybe we should start giving into these "Car's" demands, we should be pandering to them - they seem to be killing more people than anyone.

    Sorry I meant "Automobile".

    All hail our Automobillian masters.

  • Les #76 3 years ago

    "My points about belief earlier was that all morality is rooted in belief. Yes, many of us would broadly agree on a definition of good and evil acts - but that doesn't make "X is good" or "Y is evil" somehow factual, they're still just beliefs. Those beliefs are no more or less valid than any other beliefs."

    I think you would do good to read about the evolution of morality. It's not just "beliefs" but our brains are hardwired to act and feel in specific ways because that enhances the survival prospects of the individual.

  • thefinn #77 3 years ago

    "You have two groups of people. One is offended, the other is not. Making the correction isn't going to offend the previously unoffended group, so why not make it? Seriously, why not remove the offense if it makes no difference to anyone else? People harp on as if this change has affected their lives, but it hasn't really. Nobody is being oppressed here, save a few account managers perhaps.

    The trouble is when we start to preemptively censor ourselves for no reason other than that someone *might* get offended. In this case, the presence of *two lines* of Qur'an quotation in *one song* in a videogame soundtrack caused a most likely quite expensive product recall, all because someone thought someone else *might* take offense. This is entirely different from, for example, the Danish (not Dutch, thank you very much) Mohammad cartoons, which were intended to offend (or more accurately, to exercise and demonstrate the right to cause offense). In a sense, it's similar to the "Jewel of Medina" affair, only in that case, the risk of causing offense was probably a lot greater.

    Also, re the "nobody is being oppressed here" - what Sony is actually doing is caving to the belief held by some radical Muslims that music in general is sinful, unless it is of very particular kind (AFAIK, unaccompanied vocal music with religious - that is to say Islamic - text). That belief *is* the cause of the oppression of musicians in many places around the world. Take a look at freemuse.org.

  • Widge #78 3 years ago

    hey guys! lets talk about BOOBIES instead!

  • Les #79 3 years ago

    @ Ranger101

    You really can't see the strawman you're putting up or are you just fooling around? Just wondering.

  • Ranger101 #80 3 years ago

    "Hey I don't like being told what to do and how to do it, so those people should just shut up and get the hell out of here, because I say so".

  • 3william56 #81 3 years ago

    As I saw in a very nice article a few weeks ago (about the Pope, as it happens).

    "I am an atheist. Which means that I just believe in one less God than you."

  • kangarootoo #82 3 years ago

    @Schiraman

    I think the key question to ask when talking about censorship is "What is the loss that will result from making this change?"

    If someone edits a film, and the result impacts on the ability of the film to convey what it is supposed to convey then it can reasonably be argued that the censorship is tangible, that censorship has taken place if you like.

    If a change is made, and the result of that change on the quality of the product is benign, is it censorship? The dictionary definition if censorship is pretty loose. It doesn't actually carry any negative conotations, but we always discuss the term in a negative light.

    Is this really censorship? If it makes no difference to anybody except an offended minority, what part my own personal experience is being censored?


    @Les

    "You could see atheism as the default human setting. Religion requires reprogramming."

    Well (I am grinning wryly as I write this), tbh, that is exactly what I would expect a programmed person to say of their own personal standpoint. Its certainly what I would expect an aetheist to say. Whatever your beliefs, if you believe them to be correct and you believe everyone elses to be wrong, that distorts you whole approach to the discussion.

    You raise an interesting question about religion requiring reprogramming. Reprogramming by who exactly? If there were ever a classic chicken and egg situation, this is it. The very first person on the planet who thought their might be a creator... who re-programmed them?

    Truth is, becoming religious by "reprogramming" is just one way of developing that belief... and self discovery is another.

    And the EXACT same thing applies to aetheists. Some are born into it (you and me, among others) and some just lose their faith all by themselves without any reprogramming at all.

    I know I sound like an aetheist struggling with their beliefs. I can assure everyone I am not. I can say with almost complete certainty that I will be an aetheist to the day I die. But what I also know is that I was an aetheist BEFORE I really REALLY understood why. I was about 4 or 5 when I first questioned the lyrics of one of the hyms at school, but before then I honestly hadn't given it any thought whatsoever and as a 4 year old singing hyms the idea of God all seemed quite reasonable at the time.

    So my standpoint now is that I know what I believe, and I find the idea that something will come along to change that so far removed from possible that its barely worth considering, but I STARTED OFF that way. So I will require re-programming of some sort (be it experience or lies, it matters not) for my point of view to change. My aetheism really has gone beyond logic and is a core belief that is the foundation of the way I see the entire world. I suggest yours is the same.

    E.g. if someone showed me absolutely irrefutable proof of God tomorrow, I would still have an extremely hard time 'believing' it. Irony, not half.

  • el_pollo_diablo #83 3 years ago

    I'm sorry but it's a computer game. If it has a music track in there that runs the risk of upsetting people then take it out.
    This whole thing is not some huge threat to worldwide freedom of speech.

    This is the problem with both religious people and atheists. They just don't seem to realise that none of this stuff is worth arguing about.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 14:35

  • Spanky #84 3 years ago

    Daikon "Oh really? And you base this on what exactly?

    Wake me up when the majority of the EU's muslims OK homosexuality, interfaith relationships and view women as equals to men."

    You have a muslim pootling along the street in paris, turns a corner, sees two men kissing, shrugs and walks on.

    You have a muslim in tehran pootling along the street, turns a corner, sees two men kissing, he picks up a pipe and beats them to unconsciousness, then calls the police who take them away to prison, then a couple of years later they're hung.

    Bit of a difference innit.

  • Luvbeers #85 3 years ago

    You know this Qur'an rubbish is something to cover up a bigger Sony SNAFU.

  • kangarootoo #86 3 years ago

    @Les

    "Atheism is based on logic"

    Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't doubt that aethism itself is based on logic. But I do doubt that aethists act on logic themselves. I would suggest they are often as irrational as any other human being.


    @doragor

    "Have you considered that people like me are irritated at the ease with which a minority of Muslims are offended and the censorship to which that can lead?"

    Absolutely. But context is everything.

    In this particular case, I would say to those irritated "get over it".

    In the case of the Danish cartoons I would say tto the artist "stop deliberately bating people just to make a feeble point" (its rather more complex than that actually).

    In another case I might say "ban this sick censorship filth".

    In this instance, those objecting to the apparent censorship are over reacting, imo.

  • kangarootoo #87 3 years ago

    @thefinn

    "The trouble is when we start to preemptively censor ourselves for no reason other than that someone *might* get offended"

    Well that is a bit of a strawman tbh. In this case some people were offended. And wheeling out a Muslim who is not offended doesn't really change anything. That is the nature of religion. I challenge anybody to find me a religion within which all followers agree on all doctrine.

    This is really an issue of religious freedom, and if we say that people have a right to religious freedom, we can't just then throw their complaints out because we don't share their faith.

    I know there are some aetheists out there who don't believe in religeous freedom, but they are a) bigots and b) stupid (because they don't realise aetheism is a religion like any other in all ways but one). Edit: ok, thats a bit harsh, but you see my point.


    "I am an atheist. Which means that I just believe in one less God than you"

    Spot. Fucking. On.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 14:45

  • doragor #88 3 years ago

    @ @ kangarootoo

    Indeed. I will get over it. Unlike the Muslims that brought this to Sony's attention were Sony to choose to ignore the issue. thefinn put it better than I can at this time: (been at work for 8 hours so a bit frazzled now):

    ''The trouble is when we start to preemptively censor ourselves for no reason other than that someone *might* get offended. In this case, the presence of *two lines* of Qur'an quotation in *one song* in a videogame soundtrack caused a most likely quite expensive product recall, all because someone thought someone else *might* take offense. This is entirely different from, for example, the Danish (not Dutch, thank you very much) Mohammad cartoons, which were intended to offend (or more accurately, to exercise and demonstrate the right to cause offense). In a sense, it's similar to the "Jewel of Medina" affair, only in that case, the risk of causing offense was probably a lot greater.

    Also, re the "nobody is being oppressed here" - what Sony is actually doing is caving to the belief held by some radical Muslims that music in general is sinful, unless it is of very particular kind (AFAIK, unaccompanied vocal music with religious - that is to say Islamic - text). '

    sorry for the huge copy and paste
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 14:45

  • KreyAtiv #89 3 years ago

    Hopefully they check to make sure nothing else in the game offends other religious groups.

  • Gnort #90 3 years ago

    @Kangarootoo
    You make a lot of good points, but please, it's atheism, (ay-theism) as in the absence of theism, not aetheism (which would be ee-theism). It's not like aether, Aegypt, daemon or any other word that can use the archaic ae (which is replaced by e, not a).

    /Pedant

  • PearOfAnguish #91 3 years ago

    I hear all copies of LBP have been dipped in pig fat.

    "(because they don't realise aetheism is a religion like any other in all ways but one)"

    But, it's not.

  • kangarootoo #92 3 years ago

    @doragor

    Tbh I think "caving to the belief held by some radical Muslims that music in general is sinful" is a tad misleading. I don't think that holding the words of Qur'an as sacred is that radical. Opinion does seem divided on whether the issue is the association with music, or the commercial use.

    Either way, its not really a minority that see this as wrong. The division seems to be more based around HOW wrong it is.

    /goes to look up Jewel of Medina.

  • Daymare #93 3 years ago

    That atheism is based on logic is just plain wrong. I don't find one's conviction based on a speculation derived from lack of evidence any more logical then basing one's belief on some feelings, fear of death and inability to explain the meaning of existence.

    Both sides are just guessing, nothing more. Of course, one side or the other may be right, but they don't know that (they think they do, sure) nor they can prove it.

  • CobraN #94 3 years ago

    If Sony is so afraid of upsetting people, they should not release the game at all, after all it has user created content ability, and looking at past user created content I'm aware of, someone will create something offense, not just to muslims either.

  • kangarootoo #95 3 years ago

    @Gnort

    Man, I actually "corrected" the right spelling a few times.

    Thanks for the info :)

    /also pedant

  • Schiraman #96 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I agree to a point, I'm not terribly bothered about this particular song being cut and I agree that calling it censorship is pretty borderline - but my point is that if big companies start cutting content the second anyone anywhere is vocally offended about it, it's a pretty short road to rampant self-censorship. So yeah, one song cut, no big deal - OTOH it narks me a bit because (a) I see no real need for such a knee-jerk reaction and (b) I don't want to see this kind of thing becoming the norm.

  • MightyMouse #97 3 years ago

    "The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything," countered Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

    Huzzah for Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. If as a society we increasingly go down the route of identity politics, pointing out the most remote differences (1 person got offended, we must withdraw this product etc.), then it really shouldn't come as a surprise when white working class people identify themselves as such, and the only political party who accepts them as a special interest group is the BNP. Racism and facism in general is caused by promoting every minor group as the 'other' rather than concentrating on what everyone has in common.

    This may look like a 'liberal' policy but it causes Daily Hatemail politics. Much as sony may not want anything to do with this issue, they involved themselves when they took this decision.

  • kangarootoo #98 3 years ago

    "I don't want to see this kind of thing becoming the norm"

    That sums it up for me. Each case should be examined on its own merits. In this case I feel it was the right thing to do, but that is by no means a trend even in my own mind.

  • mossychops001 #99 3 years ago

    Can EG a review on the Qur'an please.

    Sounds like a great game to me.

  • mossychops001 #100 3 years ago

    Can EG a review on the Qur'an please.

    Sounds like a great game to me.

  • Schiraman #101 3 years ago

    @MightyMouse

    +1

  • mossychops001 #102 3 years ago

    Can EG a review on the Qur'an please.

    Sounds like a great game to me.

  • jonsaan #103 3 years ago

    Who needs religion when we can hang on every word that Kangarootoo utters?

    ;)

    Love you really.x

  • kangarootoo #104 3 years ago

    Yeah, I lied about being an atheist. I'm a solipsist really :)

  • Les #105 3 years ago

    "Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't doubt that aethism itself is based on logic. But I do doubt that aethists act on logic themselves. I would suggest they are often as irrational as any other human being."

    I repeat: This means one can't make any claims that do not follow from logic with an appeal to atheism. This doesn't mean that atheists are perfectly rational beings. But it does mean that atheists have one less catalyst for irrational behaviour.

    "Its certainly what I would expect an aetheist to say. Whatever your beliefs, if you believe them to be correct and you believe everyone elses to be wrong, that distorts you whole approach to the discussion."

    Again, atheism isn't a belief. It is falsifiable. I agree that if one has maintained a certain understanding of the world for a long time and this is shaken up by a new scientific discovery, it would be hard to accept this better reality. But that isn't a flaw of atheism, that's a 'flaw' of human nature.

  • kangarootoo #106 3 years ago

    @Les

    "Again, atheism isn't a belief. It is falsifiable."

    And therein lies the rub. The statement above is simply not true. The existence of God is NOT falsifiable.

    You cannot provide me or anyone else with empirical proof that God does not exist. Equally, nobody can provide me with proof that God DOES exist, but that is not the same thing.

    Now I agree it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that in the absence of evidence that God exists, it is scientifically safe to assume he does not (ockham's razor again), but that is not the same as proving his inexistance.

    Therefore nobody can state as unequivocable fact that God does not exist, not without FAITH.

  • Jos #107 3 years ago

    Kangarootoo.

    +1

  • Les #108 3 years ago

    "Therefore nobody can state as unequivocable fact that God does not exist, not without FAITH."

    If god shows up, atheism is wrong. If god doesn't show up, atheism is a better hypothesis than religion. No faith required whatsoever, just empirical observations and logic. You're fully right that it's impossible to scientifically prove that something does not exist. It is however scientifically possible to prove that something is very, very unlikely. God is very,very unlikely. An atheist can therefore state that god does not exist. It's the best hypothesis until proven otherwise.

  • kangarootoo #109 3 years ago

    @Les

    For the most part I agree completely. As far as "the best and most likely hypothesis we have so far" I am right with you, no worries.

    "No faith required whatsoever, just empirical observations and logic"

    My point all along is that the two are not mutually exclusive.


    At the risk of descending purely into semantics;

    "An atheist can therefore state that god does not exist".

    An atheist certainly could, but they would be making an unproven statement. They could call it fact all day and all night, but that wouldn't make it so.

    Anyway, we are splitting hairs. We are really about 2 steps short of agreeing completely, so I'm going to let it lie (after I have conveniently had the last word ;) )

  • Monkey_Chops #110 3 years ago

    As a Muslim, I can only say I am relieved that they've omitted nasheeds from LBP. Nasheeds are a fucking travesty against music and good taste.

  • Les #111 3 years ago

    "An atheist certainly could, but they would be making an unproven statement. They could call it fact all day and all night, but that wouldn't make it so."

    I really object to this. I know we're splitting hairs and it's not you I'm concerned about but statements like the above leave way more room for god than there really is. In day-to-day conversations we regularly make claims that are, by the strict rules of logic, not proven 100%. If you would tell your kid that Santa didn't exist when he's 5 or 6 years old you should in fact say something like "it's very, very unlikely that Santa does exist".

    We all live our lives (well above 5 or 6 years old ;) ) like Santa doesn't exist even though it's not 100% proven that Santa doesn't exist. Nobody ever objects (again with the exception of fooled kids) when someone claims Santa doesn't exist. The likelyhood of god existing is somewhere up there in the Santa-likelyhood range. In general conversation therefore, an atheist can claim god does not exist.

  • El-Dev #112 3 years ago

    I suppose it is pointless trying to sell my Religion based beat 'em up to sony now. I always wondered who would win in a fight between Jesus and Mohammed, now we'll never know I guess.

  • Daymare #113 3 years ago

    "The likelyhood of god existing is somewhere up there in the Santa-likelyhood range."

    That's what you believe:)

  • thefinn #114 3 years ago

    "@thefinn

    "The trouble is when we start to preemptively censor ourselves for no reason other than that someone *might* get offended"

    Well that is a bit of a strawman tbh. In this case some people were offended. And wheeling out a Muslim who is not offended doesn't really change anything. That is the nature of religion. I challenge anybody to find me a religion within which all followers agree on all doctrine.

    No. No one was offended, because the game hasn't actually come out yet. Someone was asked by a journalist whether they *would* be offended by the inclusion of such a song in a game, and answered yes. However, chances are that that person wouldn't have known about the inclusion unless Sony had made a big thing of it in the first place.

    This is really an issue of religious freedom, and if we say that people have a right to religious freedom, we can't just then throw their complaints out because we don't share their faith.

    Yes, we can. In fact, if we care about religious freedom, we have to. The guy who wrote the song is also a Muslim, and has every right to express his faith in music if he wants to. By removing it from the game, Sony has taken sides in an intra-Islamic dispute about what sort of music is and isn't permissible (including it wasn't taking sides, since they didn't know, at that point, the content of the lyrics in the song). And by defending these people's right to have their way just because they take offense at something another Muslim does, you too are taking sides in that dispute. Letting people say, or sing, what they want is the neutral stance in these matters, and the one that promotes freedom of religion.

    I know there are some aetheists out there who don't believe in religeous freedom, but they are a) bigots and b) stupid (because they don't realise aetheism is a religion like any other in all ways but one). Edit: ok, thats a bit harsh, but you see my point.

    Well, atheism is not a religion (and I'm not gonna argue the point here, since it is completely peripheral to the matter at hand, and rather complex), but you're right that any atheists that think religion should just be gotten rid of for the greater good are idiots.

  • Les #115 3 years ago

    "Yes, we can. In fact, if we care about religious freedom, we have to."

    Exactly. Freedom of religion is not a right to not be offended in your religious beliefs. It just means that you can practice them without being prosecuted/obstructed in unreasonable ways. Somewhere through the years, in no small part thanks to religious apologists that think religion and reason are on equal footing or in different planes of existence, it became twisted into the travesty it is now.

  • Les #116 3 years ago

    "but you're right that any atheists that think religion should just be gotten rid of for the greater good are idiots."

    I'd love to hear your argument. And I mean it, though I don't agree. IMO the often claimed upsides of religion have their equals in reason, the downsides don't. Therefore the net benefit of religion is negative and the world would be a better place without it. That doesn't mean by the way that I'm in favour of prohibiting religion and forcing people to not be religious. That would be criminal.

  • Les #117 3 years ago

    "That's what you believe:)"

    No, that's what science tells us. :)
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 18:38

  • Daymare #118 3 years ago

    Science tells us (and proves) that god's existence is as probable as the existence of Santa Clause (or any other similar made-up concept that's not directly related to the question of "why is there something and not nothing";)? If so, I must catch-up on some reading and would gladly take tips where to find such scientific treatise:)

    And another thing I always wonder with such topics coming up: are atheists arguing that the "old man with a beard surrounded by angels" doesn't exist or are they dissmissing any sort of concept of god? That, for instance, god is actually nature/universe (universe most certainly is our "parent", since we didn't make ourselves), to name but one.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/08 @ 19:06

  • Les #119 3 years ago

    "If so, I must catch-up on some reading and would gladly take tips where to find such scientific treatise:)"

    Betrand Russell (with his teapot) or Dawkins' The God Delusion are good starting material.

    "And another thing I always wonder with such topics coming up: are atheists arguing that the "old man with a beard surrounded by angels" doesn't exist or are they dissmissing any sort of concept of god? That, for instance, god is actually nature/universe (universe most certainly is our "parent", since we didn't make ourselves), to name but one."

    From Wikipedia: Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[8] and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

  • Daymare #120 3 years ago

    With all due respect to both authors (haven't red Dawkins yet, but I vaguely know how he approached the problem), quick Google search informed me you can find many books that work as anti-thesis' to the works you've mentioned. The problem is we tend to favour books that "ring true to our already determened ears", especially in this regard, so I'm not surprised by your selection.

    In any case, it's all still and nothing more then speculation - if one sounds more believable, it still doesn't make it The Undeniable Truth (a Plausible Possibility, perhaps).

  • Les #121 3 years ago

    "quick Google search informed me you can find many books that work as anti-thesis' to the works you've mentioned."

    If you want to laugh, I suggest you try reading some of them... :)

    "The problem is we tend to favour books that "ring true to our already determened ears"

    True, I don't think many religious people would actually read them or be convinced by their arguments as they appeal to logic. Doesn't say anything about the strength of their arguments though. And we have to form our views on the world at some point, it can't just all be based on what we already believe/understand as we're not born with a completely worked out view on life. Some of us form better views than others.

    "I'm not surprised by your selection."

    You shouldn't be, it's what you asked for! :) I could hardly refer to books that try to make a case for the opposite to what I conclude based on my personal investigations in the subject matter if you ask for sources that support my conclusions...

    "In any case, it's all still and nothing more then speculation - if one sounds more believable, it still doesn't make it The Undeniable Truth (a Plausible Possibility, perhaps)."

    Yes, everything is speculation to a certain extent. Some things are just less speculative than others.

  • thefinn #122 3 years ago

    "I'd love to hear your argument. And I mean it, though I don't agree. IMO the often claimed upsides of religion have their equals in reason, the downsides don't. Therefore the net benefit of religion is negative and the world would be a better place without it. That doesn't mean by the way that I'm in favour of prohibiting religion and forcing people to not be religious. That would be criminal."

    Indeed, and that's my point. Notice I said "gotten rid of". I'm not sure the world would be a better place without religion (unless the reasons people turn to religion were also to disappear, anyway), though it's certainly possible. Forcibly eliminating religion would be a) evil and b) an exercise in futility - which is the part of the post I responded to I was agreeing with.

  • avatarirl #123 3 years ago

    Guardian article by Sherine

    Cross posted for infinite justice!

    Sony are afraid of LBP becoming the new Pokemon, and err, 'witches' being beheaded and women being sentenced to death for being gang raped.

    Thats what Sony are afraid of.

  • wayneh #124 3 years ago

    I think I'm agnostic, I can't believe until I have proof but I won't dismiss anything without proof.

    @Les
    After reading this and your comments on the previous thread I tend to agree more with your world view.

    @Kangarootoo
    I don't get you, you always seem to jump on the PC bandwagon and don't seem to have any set beliefs/views of your own. I remember you from the 'WipeoutHD fails epilepsy test' thread. You really need to get some convictions(not criminal) in your life.

  • bonker #125 3 years ago

    ""Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the actual word of God... If it were to be used in a commercial way, that would upset and cause offence and hurt to many, many Muslims," said Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain.

    "The number of stakeholders in the offence industry has just grown and grown and grown. Everybody gets offended about everything," countered Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. "

    Hmm, male member of Muslim Council of Britain vs female member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

    Guess who's going to win that one ...

  • bonker #126 3 years ago

    "2. As an aetheist I am utterly UN-offended by this change. It confounds me how angry some gamers get about something that makes barely any different to their lives WHATSOEVER. "

    It has nothing to do with religion.

    It has nothing to do with games.

    You are either very stupid and/or very young and/or a piss-poor student of history if you can't see what the real issue is here or understand where it is ultimately going to lead ...

  • bonker #127 3 years ago

    "This time last week about 99% of the population hadn't heard of this game, now I reckon a fair bit more then that are now aware of this games existence..

    A Totally obvious marketing ploy.
    You can always count on anti-islam stuff getting the attention of the press..

    Real classy sony.
    /slow clap. "

    It would be the worst marketing decision in history if they've manufactured this 'crisis' for publicity. Even by Sony's usual standards.

    Granny Public is now at least 50% less likely to pick this up at Xmas for young Joey Public given the 'offense' / 'Muslim' connotation.

  • bonker #128 3 years ago

    "An offended Muslim has a greater chance of being a Bomb Wielding Murderer than a member of another faith if recent history is anything to go by.
    Considering the number of muslims and the number of Bomb Wielding Murderers its a pretty small chance but would YOU bet YOUR life on it being small enough? "

    Clearly, Roger Sony wouldn't ...

  • bonker #129 3 years ago

    "YEAH LETS THROW THOSE EVIL MUSLIMS OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR BEING MURDERERS! THEY KILLED EXACTLY....er... none..erm.. in the uk... last year..... "

    WTF?????

    What are you on about??

    You can't be suggesting that noone in the UK was killed by a Muslim last year??!!

    The law of averages alone says Muslim drivers will have killed around a thousand (some may argue more) going by your figures as they make up 3% of the population, never mind their record regarding, er (/PC mode on), 'family disputes' ...
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/08 @ 02:30

  • bonker #130 3 years ago

    "I agree with most of what you've said above, but OTOH I do think there are some potentially worrying implications here: basically this kind of thing is back-door censorship, and it's not so much the particular content being censored in this case that's the issue, so much as the general principle that's worrying. In short: where does it end? "

    Here:

    [link url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/ article4749183.ece
    ]http://ww w.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...[/link]

  • bonker #131 3 years ago

    "I agree to a point, I'm not terribly bothered about this particular song being cut and I agree that calling it censorship is pretty borderline "

    FFS, it's not borderline censorship at all, it is 100% censorship.

    If you are forced into removing/altering material that you have produced against your own free will then that is censorship. End of. Sony were forced to take the action they took because they felt threatened.

  • kangarootoo #132 3 years ago

    @Daymare

    "quick Google search informed me you can find many books that work as anti-thesis' to the works you've mentioned"

    Reminds me of the time I was convinced that polar bears covered their noses when hunting, backed up by google searching. A friend then put in the same search string as me but added "myth" to the end, and got an entirely different set of results :)

    @Les

    Despite my joke about having the last word, I am still following the discussion. I am just bowing out personally as I'm sure most people are sick of the 'sound of my voice' by now. And you know I bloody agree with you really, I just like debate :)

  • kangarootoo #133 3 years ago

    @wayneh

    Its like this. I have plenty of very firmly held beliefs and feelings about the world at large, but simply saying "this is what I think" isn't how I like to conduct myself on here (well, sometimes it is I guess).

    If there is one thing that drive me nuts (clearly, there are rather more things than just one) it is a thread that just descends into name calling. So when I see a proper debate developing on a thread I try to fuel it by posing as many questions as possible.

    When I chop and change from thread to thread, it is no reflection of my own beliefs and does not mean I don't know how I feel about a host of issues. I am just playing devil's advocate because I like reading the results (and actually I genuinely believe a lot of posters on here prefer debate to name calling too).

    I realise this sometimes makes me look like an annoying twat who enjoys disagreeing with everyone, but I'm prepared to take a bullet for the team on that one :)

  • Les #134 3 years ago

    "I just like debate :)"

    Yeah, me too. It's more fun than the average game. Must say the level of this debate has been quite good so far, thanks everyone for the contributions.

  • Daymare #135 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Reminds me of the time I was convinced that polar bears covered their noses when hunting, backed up by google searching. A friend then put in the same search string as me but added "myth" to the end, and got an entirely different set of results :)"

    Well, religious intellectuals and just plain intellectuals discussing concepts of god (a big portion of philosophy, which, I'd humbly say, is a very appropriate field for discussing this problem) are most certainly not a myth. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/08 @ 10:11

  • old_skool #136 3 years ago

    Everyone has a religion, even ' Atheists'. The only difference is that atheists substitutes God with something else, either their own ego's or their possesions, money, families, work etc.

  • zedzee #137 3 years ago

    If someone dressed up their Sackboy as a priest and made him run around in a church graphic, wielding a sword and 'killing' little spikey weeds or similar, Sony would not bat an eyelid.

    It seems that Sony can desecrated Christianity's places of worship left, right and centre (as in Resistance: FOM), yet even the mere mention of a few lines from the Quran is deemed deeply offensive! All that the track does is MENTION lines from the book, it's not saying ANYTHING bad against it or anything else for that matter.

    So why is Sony not treating all religions equally? Why no clear and unreserved apology about the fire-fight in Manchester Cathedral in R:FOM, yet in LBP's case, not only is an apology issued but probably Sony's last chance game at re-establishing itself in the current generation of console wars, as being back on top (because let's face it, it's trailing both Nintendo and MS badly at the moment), is WITHDRAWN from marketing altogether.

    Cowards! Sony just didn't want any burning effigies outside their HQs worldwide or worse still...well, I'll leave that to your imagination.

  • wayneh #138 3 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    Ok fair enough just sometimes you come across as Mr PC.

  • Les #139 3 years ago

    "Everyone has a religion, even ' Atheists'. The only difference is that atheists substitutes God with something else, either their own ego's or their possesions, money, families, work etc."

    If you mean that everyone has a view on life you're right. But that's really stretching the definition of religion (according to the Oxford dictionary "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods";).

  • old_skool #140 3 years ago

    "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods"

    Les, you might not agree or want to admit to it, but this is what your 'logic' and 'reason' is to you. It's this infallible status which you ascribe to it, the only truth in your world, that alone gives it the power of a god.

  • Les #141 3 years ago

    "It's this infallible status which you ascribe to it, the only truth in your world, that alone gives it the power of a god."

    Again, it's stretching the meaning of "god" quite a bit. Logic is just a method examining the world. In itself it tells you nothing and it certainly doesn't create anything or performs miraculous acts. It just leads to a perpetual process of building better and better hypothesisses to explain the world.

    Logic lead to the god hypothesis ages and ages ago. By lack of the tools and technology, let alone the ages of philosophical examination that we nowadays can build upon, it was the best hypothesis at the time. However, science has moved on since then, leading to better explanations. Unfortunately what began as an hypothesis to explain the world perverted into something to control people (regardless of whether this was with good or bad intentions) and around it were built institutions that profit from keeping it alive.