Zack & Wiki offends Islam

By Games Industry.biz Published 2 August, 2007

Capcom removes phrase.

Capcom has removed an Islamic phrase from forthcoming game Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaro's Treasure, following a series of complaints, GamesIndustry.biz is reporting.

Religious group The Council on American-Islamic Relations has praised the publisher for its sensitive actions in removing "Allahu akbar" ("God is most great") from the in-game dialogue.

"We appreciated Capcom's willingness to address Muslim concerns about the use of a religious phrase in an inappropriate context and applaud the company's swift response," said CAIR communications coordinator Amina Rubin.

Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaro's Treasure is an exclusive title for Nintendo's Wii, due for release later this year. The offending phrase was included in a recent promotional movie for the game.

"We have already contacted the team working on the game, and the phrase has been removed from the game and will not be heard in future videos released to the public," confirmed a spokesperson from Capcom.

Open GamesIndustry.biz's chest for more industry facts.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (182) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • chrisjm #1 5 years ago

    so they are saying god isnt great? most strange.

  • RobertFoster #2 5 years ago

    Why is saying "God is most great" a bad thing? I thought he was a pretty nifty chap myself.

  • Arnold__ #3 5 years ago

    Whew... Capcom averts the mandatory jihad. For now.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 14:55

  • Razz #4 5 years ago

    It seems the phrase was used out of context.

  • WinstonChurchill #5 5 years ago

    It's very hard to avoid making vaguely racist comments when things like this happen.

  • gaijin #6 5 years ago

    there's a prophet/profit gag to be had here, but I'm no the man to make it.

  • TonyCocaCola #7 5 years ago

    Is Islam on the blob at the moment. Cant do anything right these days

  • menage #8 5 years ago

    Next up - African zombies white!

  • The-Bodybuilder #9 5 years ago

    So why are people already attacking islam now?
    A strong phrase used in islam (and known to all) is used out of context. Capcom amends it, the council praise it. The end.

    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:19

  • septimus #10 5 years ago

    Zack & Wiki offends Islam

    What doesn't?

  • Freelancepolice #11 5 years ago

    Swiftly and cleanly delt with, kudos capcom

  • TonyCocaCola #12 5 years ago

    The more wound up you get the more people wind you up.

  • Genji #13 5 years ago

    Maybe people would be happier if the Muslims actually did declare jihad against Capcom.

    Message: if something offends you and your religion, don't make a complaint. Just suck it, or declare jihad.

  • RedPanda #14 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • TonyCocaCola #15 5 years ago

    @Confounder
    People have made games like that. But they're crap,
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:14

  • SBfistfun #16 5 years ago

    ZOMFG get a life you n00bs

  • Thamuhacha #17 5 years ago

    What was the context?

    I am completely appreciative of their point of view if the phrase was used in a demeaning or sarcastic way.

    But if the issue is that it was used in a game then ... that's a bit shit

  • Genji #18 5 years ago

    "My money's on one of them hindu characters with lots of arms. "

    Nah. Everyone knows all Buddhists are deity-class martial artists. It goes to follow that Buddha could kill all gods with his eyes closed.

  • hulahoops #19 5 years ago

    " Why is saying "God is most great" a bad thing? I thought he was a pretty nifty chap myself."

    Oh I dunno. Seems to act like an absolute c**t to me.

    I demand a religious democracy. If anyone's in charge they've been fucking things up royally for the last few thousand years.

  • JediMasterMalik #20 5 years ago

    These comments here are stupid (no change there then).

    The phrase, which is used and used to show people as muslims, was used in the game to represent a tribe of monkeys drinking blood or something to that effect. Of course offence would be taken. Both the council and Capcom have acted very well in this matter, and both are to be commended. (It was probably just blind ignorance that it was included in the first place, little defence as that is)

  • mossychops001 #21 5 years ago

    Whats a Muslim?
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:18

  • brooza #22 5 years ago

    Can we sort this religion thing out once and for all. How about a god beat-em-up.

    My money's on one of them hindu characters with lots of arms.

    Goro?

  • Genji #23 5 years ago

    "The phrase, which is used and used to show people as muslims, was used in the game to represent a tribe of monkeys drinking blood or something to that effect."

    O_o

    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:34

  • mattigan #24 5 years ago

    What makes mocking Islam so much worse than any other joke?

  • Dermoth #25 5 years ago

    This is the new marketing, surely? Include something that's offensive to somebody, remove it, count column inches. bonus points for using Islam, obviously, as that ups the ante considerably and gets lots of fun Islamophobia debates going.

    Some code got changed. Let's all have a fight.

  • Xerx3s #26 5 years ago

    I wonder if we need to tip toe around as much if the text was 'Jesus is great' (or something like that).


    Some people have the longest toes in the world. Better beware the creative industry doesn't trip over them. :/

  • knocker #27 5 years ago

    Yes, it's a ridiculous over-reaction, but it's a bit rich to criticize it here. Eurogamer, a place where people routinely get themselves into a rage ..

    ... over f'king videogames.



    (admittedly nobody's blown themselves up over it yet, but give it time)

  • TonyCocaCola #28 5 years ago

    @bengalibengali
    You're saying those producers should apologize or be killed? dont you think thats taking it a bit far. Calm daahn mate

  • miiiguel #29 5 years ago

    I don't think they do.

    They seem to prey a lot, though..., wich is quite annoying. There's this dude that uses the bathroom for that. He's a good DBA though, very good.

  • mossychops001 #30 5 years ago

    Why don't they offer a free Bacon sandwich and a can of special brew with every game order?

  • Arnold__ #31 5 years ago

    Right. End of the thread. Now back to the caves to recite some scripture by candlelight.

  • mattigan #32 5 years ago

    Actually just read the monkey drinking blood thing, and in this instance, I think they are fully justified in taking offence.

  • JediMasterMalik #33 5 years ago

    @Genji - We don't, which is sorta the point. Being represented as blood drinking tribesmen is a wee bit offensive.

    I also don't see this as an "over reaction" at all, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask for it's removal.

  • Genji #34 5 years ago

    "I wonder if we need to tip toe around as much if the text was 'Jesus is great' (or something like that)."

    If it was spoken by a tribe of blood-drinking monkeys... then yeah, I think people *might* be offended. Just a possibility.

    @JediMasterMalik

    Thanks for the info, but I wasn't being serious. :-)
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:26

  • The-Bodybuilder #35 5 years ago

    Who is this patlike that dares to edit my post without my consent?

    BRING HIM TO ME. I want to smite him.

  • miiiguel #36 5 years ago

    German games come with green blood (so I heard), Manhunt 2 banned, "hot coffee scandal", me thinks the weirdness is not "Muslim-exclusive".

  • patlike #37 5 years ago

    Certain phrases have no place here, BB, whether or not they're quoted. Hope you understand.

  • The-Bodybuilder #38 5 years ago



    So my post gets edited whilst this (barely) human's post is left?
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:35

  • mattigan #39 5 years ago

    except by virtue of his piety

    Please elaborate?

  • mossychops001 #40 5 years ago

    People have every right to take the piss out of a religion and people who follow a religion.


    So up yours jews, Christians, Mulims and Jedi's

  • miiiguel #41 5 years ago

    Please elaborate?

    Please don't.

  • patlike #42 5 years ago

    Sorry, BB. Missed that.

  • Arnold__ #43 5 years ago

    No, Muslims are very tolerant. Except when it comes to freedom of speech of course.

  • EmiliasHorse #44 5 years ago

    @Patlike
    Agreed

  • The-Bodybuilder #45 5 years ago

    >"Certain phrases have no place here, BB, whether or not they're quoted. Hope you understand. "

    No I do not. Come here for some smiting. ;-)

    But what about Genji's post?

  • t8yman #46 5 years ago

    fuck em. allah doesnt exist, neither does god, jesus, mohammed or any of the other fuckers.

  • The-Bodybuilder #47 5 years ago

    Damn patlike. You're pretty swift when it comes to censorship.

    You just made my previous post worthless.

  • mattigan #48 5 years ago

    As muslims we fear allah and our purpose is to worship him. And live our lives in peace

    And those who don't have no "excellence" over those who do?

  • patlike #49 5 years ago

    :D

  • Genji #50 5 years ago

    Muslims complain about being portrayed as cannibalistic monkeys? What next? BANNING CHOCOLATE?

    Freedom of speech *demands* that we offend as many people as possible.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #51 5 years ago

    So up yours jews, Christians, Mulims and Jedi's

    Why don't the Jews get a capital letter. Is it because you think they're inferior?

    Anti-Semite! Ban him now!

  • miiiguel #52 5 years ago

    I thought BB was the Bengali m8..., silly me...

  • Arnold__ #53 5 years ago

    Im not sure, but somewhere, somehow, someone is entitled to compensation because of this. Isnt that what getting 'offended' is all about?

  • The-Bodybuilder #54 5 years ago

    Honestly patlike, why not just close this comments thread?

    This is just gonna end up like every other God-based thread in the forum. People who "have the right" to attack religion will just go n a rampage (just because you have the right, doesn't automatically mean you should do it).

    IMO, this is doing more harm to EG than good. Just makes this place look like it's filled with degenerate bigots (which it is, but you can't let everyone know that).

  • mossychops001 #55 5 years ago

    derka derka jihad.

  • ruttyboy #56 5 years ago

    I think he's referring to the only TRUE prophets when they said:

    "Be excellent to each other!"

  • The-Bodybuilder #57 5 years ago

    BengaliBengali, just leave this place, for your own sake.

  • knocker #58 5 years ago

    Any fool knows it's the catholics that drink blood we call it transubstantiation*.

    *I only add that word so some no-mark doesn't find it offensive and delete my comment again.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 16:29

  • patlike #59 5 years ago

    BB - It's cool. I'll keep an eye on it. And there's an ARMY of us watching, so we'll do it in shifts :)

  • miiiguel #60 5 years ago

    I think the Bengali guy is cool. Why should he leave ?

    I also think there's a bit of paranoia on the freedom of speech "holy cow" side too...
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:46

  • Chaote-Imagicka #61 5 years ago

    Blood drinking monkeys?

    Has anybody actually seen a screenshot or video clip for this game? From what I've seen of Zack and Wiki blood drinking monkeys sounds about as likely as Princess Peach giving Mario an onscreen hummer in the next super mario bros.

  • mattigan #62 5 years ago

    Well if any man has no excellence over another except in his piety, then aren't they being judged on whether they follow Allah or not?

    Based on your previous quotes, am I not (as a non-believer, in any deity) technically inferior to you?

    Edit: Spelling
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 15:47

  • sickpuppysoftware #63 5 years ago

    Muhammad secret unlockable character!

    You read it here first*





    *Probably the only place you'll read such a barefaced lie.

  • mossychops001 #64 5 years ago

    All I Said Was This Piece Of Fish Is Good Enough For Jehova.

  • The-Bodybuilder #65 5 years ago

    >"BB - It's cool. I'll keep an eye on it. And there's an ARMY of us watching, so we'll do it in shifts :) "

    Good luck, because it's gonna be one looooooooong thread.

  • TonyCocaCola #66 5 years ago

    @bengalibengali

    I dont really consider the war on terrorism' a war on muslims. I think the terrorist do though

  • The-Bodybuilder #67 5 years ago

    >"I think the Bengali guy is cool. Why should he leave ? "

    Becuase people are purposefully inticing him into a never-ending argument.

  • Genji #68 5 years ago

    "I dont really consider the war on terrorism' a war on muslims. I think the terrorist do though"

    I doubt it. Some of them probably do, but only because they've been convinced that way by smarter terrorists who use the whole "war on Muslims" thing to rally support.

  • The-Bodybuilder #69 5 years ago

    @ disc

    That's really bad.

    But many here won't see it that way.

  • TonyCocaCola #70 5 years ago

    @genji.
    Thats what i just said

  • Genji #71 5 years ago

    @disc

    ...wow. From my experience, Japanese people have no clue when it comes to racism. This just confirms it more.

  • afghan_jones #72 5 years ago

    On the one hand, it is sensitive of Capcom to remove it.

    On the other hand I do wonder how quickly they would have acted if they had offended Buddhism, Christianity or any other faith?

    At the end of the day, religion is a personal belief. Rightly or wrongly, people can hold different beliefs and so people can basically say whatever the hell they like about religions. If someone says something stupid or offensive it will come off that way and make the person who said it look foolish, nothing more.

  • gaijin #73 5 years ago

    it looks to me like someone used something from the sound library without checking what it was... -10 that researcher.

  • t8yman #74 5 years ago

    @ bengalibengali

    please, do not take personal offence at my rant, I find ALL religions equally delusional.

    I actually posted the comment before I had read the postings, I didnt realise there was a muslim participating in the discussion and had no intention of trolling for a rise.

    I still stand by my view, please understand, but it wasnt meant to inflame anything.

  • TonyCocaCola #75 5 years ago

    chant07.wav

  • afghan_jones #76 5 years ago

    @Genji

    Its not racist. Islam is not a race it is a belief.

  • knocker #77 5 years ago

    @disc

    Bloody Hell. I thought someone was being ironic.

    There is a fine line between questioning religion and plain bloody ignorance that panders to people's bigotry. I think this crossed the line.


    (Comment about socratic irony removed in the interests of calming things down a bit)
    Edited by 2 at 02/08/07 @ 16:02

  • mossychops001 #78 5 years ago

    Muhammad is not looking to hot in this game, He's got a bald head and no top on.

    Looks a good game thoe!..

  • Dermoth #79 5 years ago

    You know, I suspect for any sweeping generalisation made about muslim people, I could easily find 950 million muslims who disprove the rule.

    "Muslims are tolerant-sarcasm"

    Yeah, and ain't you just a pillar of liberalism, with your blanket generalisations about ONE BILLION PEOPLE.

  • Genji #80 5 years ago

    "Its not racist. Islam is not a race it is a belief."

    Fine. Islamophobic. Anti-Islam. Whatever. A lot of Japanese people still have no idea how certain things can be offensive to races or religions.

  • SuperMario #81 5 years ago

    Thats all they shout, now its in a game they dont like it? very strange.

  • Genji #82 5 years ago

    "Thats all they shout, now its in a game they dont like it? very strange."

    Have you seen the video?

  • mossychops001 #83 5 years ago

    Jews are classed as a religion and a race, you get black jews and white jews, and arab jews, funny that!!!!!


    They must make up as they go alone!!!!!

  • JediMasterMalik #84 5 years ago

    Racism is no longer necessarily only offence to a race, religion and nationality can be counted as racism.

  • TonyCocaCola #85 5 years ago

    Isnt jedi a religion now?

  • Kryon #86 5 years ago

    Dirka dirka? ...dirka dirka dirka! That is all.

  • UmBongo #87 5 years ago

    OK im going to throw a spanner in the works here.

    As a Muslim myself, i think its great "Allahu Akbar" is said neutrally in a game. As long as its not always Hollywood stereotype of Muslims as bad guys but done like the youtube vid (it was just background voice yes).

    So whats the problem? Leave it in. Why did CAIR ask for it to be removed? Unless im missing something................?

    In Peace & Goodwill

  • JediMasterMalik #88 5 years ago

    It's not said neutrally, it's said by cannibalistic blood drinking monkey tribesmen.

  • Shrike #89 5 years ago

    Circular arguments against religion aside, it's interesting that it's CAIR once more in the media spotlight here. They're a small group, and I wouldn't go as far as to say that they represent American Muslims or Islam in general. They have some dodgy friends and have come out with a few Prince Philip-esque corkers in the past..

    Seems like another opportunity to jump in front of the media has been snapped up..

    @Cannibalism

    It really, really looks like Heinz cream of chicken soup, to me.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 16:28

  • mossychops001 #90 5 years ago

    Racism is no longer necessarily only offence to a race, religion and nationality can be counted as racism.

    Yes your right JediMasterMalik unless its towards a white person (i.e Chav, White Trash)

  • Xerx3s #91 5 years ago

    So up yours jews, Christians, Mulims and Jedi's

    Why don't the Jews get a capital letter. Is it because you think they're inferior?

    Anti-Semite! Ban him now!

    Jedi's > jews. Obviously. Unless they are Jedi Jews. Then they can strike for maximum damage.

  • Tonka #92 5 years ago

    Please let it stop.
    This matter has been dealt with in a very nice fashion by everyone except people on various forums. The change has no effect on the gameplay what so ever. Just drop it. Let it rest.




    Let it be

  • Xerx3s #93 5 years ago

    Racism is no longer necessarily only offence to a race, religion and nationality can be counted as racism.

    Yes it is. You are looking for another word. It's discrimination. Neither apply to posts here.

  • Carlo #94 5 years ago

    GIHAD!

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #95 5 years ago

    @Xerx3s:
    Jedi's > jews. Obviously

    You tell that to a Jedi who tries to stare into the Ark of the Covenant. That'll wipe the grin off his melting face.

    Hmmm... this argument seems to have wandered away into Lucasfilm.

  • Kryon #96 5 years ago

    "Yes your right JediMasterMalik unless its towards a white person (i.e Chav, White Trash"

    Is chav a racist term? isnt it more like 'mods/rockers' (of the 60s) I don't think the word 'chav' is racist in itself, it's just seen as a negative term because most chavs are knobs, not because of colour/religion afaik...

  • t8yman #97 5 years ago

    @ ashed

    yep, its about time someone spoke the truth on religious issues.

  • UmBongo #98 5 years ago

    JediMaster. I see. I didnt realise that. Bit of a sick joke then and im glad CAIR got involved.

    You can be a force for good or a force for bad.

    You choose..

  • SmileyDudette #99 5 years ago

    For goodness sake.

    Why the heck can't we all just get along?
    Edited by 2 at 02/08/07 @ 23:29

  • afghan_jones #100 5 years ago

    @ Genji & others

    Racism is not the same as being offensive to someones beliefs at all.

    Everyone is born into their race, it is simply a matter of their genetic lineage and where they are when they are born. People have no choice over what race they are when they are born and no one race is better or worse than any other. (Beyond that, different races cultures may differ naturally which is something of a factor but by and large there is nothing inherently better or worse about what race you are).

    Which system of beliefs one chooses to subscribe to is your own personal choice and entirely subjectve to the individual.

    So therefore no one should be criticised due to their race as they didnt choose it and no race is better or worse anyway.

    Their religion however, is entirely their choice and therefore people are free to criticise it as much as they like. This doesnt mean we all have free reign to be insensitive cunts to each other but it does mean that if someones beliefs or opinions differ from yours and you are offended as a result they are not automatically in the wrong.

    Personally while I am all for stamping out racism around the world, I think it is worrying that we are increasingly afraid to question and challenge beliefs and ideas for fear of causing offence.

  • The-Bodybuilder #101 5 years ago

    >"GIHAD!"

    Atleast spell it right.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 17:02

  • YourMessageHere #102 5 years ago

    I was all ready to say something like "as long as games bow to this kind of pressure they have only themselves to blame for not being taken seriously relative to other kinds of media", but then I watched that video. This is, basically:

    Generic sound effect used
    Storm in teacup created
    Generic sound effect removed
    Storm in teacup quelled
    Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of int0rweb

    Oh and what makes anyone think that was blood that the monkey things were drinking? It's beige.

  • The-Bodybuilder #103 5 years ago

    >"yep, its about time someone spoke the truth on religious issues. "

    Yes, because it's NEVER EVER been done before.
    No sir-e-bob. Not on the EG forums, not in ANY other internet forum. Heck not even on channel 4.

    You are the first one.
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 17:06

  • kangarootoo #104 5 years ago

    I've just watched the vid. So here are my thoughts.

    I can understand how some people wouldn't be happy about the included phrase in the context in which it was used. Also, its inclusion has no real point (as in it doesn't drive story or anything else like that) and actually seems entirely out of place so I can totally understand why Capcom were quite happy to remove it.

    it seems some people on here think there is inherrent value in offending others, jsut for the sake or if or to make some half arsed freedom of speech point. Freeedom of speech is one thing, setting out to offend someone else for no reason other than to enjoy causing offense is something quite different (and is utterly childish).

    bengalibengali, I think you have shown great patience and restraint on this thread given some people set out to dliberately goad you over something you obviously feel strongly about, so + to you for that. I guess you just have to put that down to the internet being full of kids who derive pleasure from upsetting others.

    Some people seem to forget that religeon is just a faith system. Some people will get very aggressive about how religeon is apparently evil because it "tells everyone what to do", without realising that preaching aethesism like a zealot is exactly the same thing they say they detest so much. In my experience grumpy teenage aethesists (I used to be one, still an aethesist now, but I grew up and lost the grumpy part over a decade ago) can often be far worse in attempting to excercise control over others than those they villify for the same reasons.


    Anyway, I'm rambling on. So in summary.

    Offense was caused, and its easy to understand why. Capcom had no reasonable objection whatsoever to removing the source of the offense... so they removed it. Thats it. No big deal. Nothing more to see here other than ammunition for bigots (who could frankly find ammunition anywhere).

  • miiiguel #105 5 years ago

    hummm, pretty funny how most cross-lovers seem to be surprised with such feelings by muslims (the dirka dirka comment is a red-neck classic...), when, just to give a recent example:
    Church of England sues Sony over Resistance: Fall of Man

    http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...

  • afghan_jones #106 5 years ago

    You missed this then.
    "As a muslim I demand Those producers apologise or kill them."

    That was a bit of a bonkers thing to say.

  • miiiguel #107 5 years ago

    Or do the civilized way: "sue them!"

  • mossychops001 #108 5 years ago

    Lets not give any religion the time and energy, people that adhere to it are all brainwashed in some way.


    Its all a religion PR war.

  • miiiguel #109 5 years ago

    I'm going to do the Hard missions on Tenchu Z..., and score the remaining 50G...

  • miiiguel #110 5 years ago



    "You know if this was out in america and it had this It probably worth trying!

    yeah, don't mess with god dollar!

  • afghan_jones #111 5 years ago

    "Thank you for those who showed dignity and understanding"

    care to justify your 'apologise or die' comment in that light?

  • miiiguel #112 5 years ago

    ooooooh I dig the chicks @ the bottom of the page!

  • JediMasterMalik #113 5 years ago

    Looks like they finally found a way to get a Katamari game to sell. ;)

  • miiiguel #114 5 years ago

    afghan_jones: I honestly believe it wasn't a literal comment, come on... If some arab says I'll head shoot you while playing Sain't Row you'll freak out ?

  • RicTheNinja #115 5 years ago

    how is that offensive??
    so saying the words 'God Is Great' in another language is called as offensive now??

  • SuperMario #116 5 years ago

    "Thats all they shout, now its in a game they dont like it? very strange."

    Have you seen the video?

    Yes and its very funny

  • miiiguel #117 5 years ago

    In Tenchu Z one has to kill some vile western foreigner dealers (in feudal Japan), who seem to be dutch.

    Bengali: have you ever tried ignoring the things that might offend you (up to a level) ?

  • The-Bodybuilder #118 5 years ago

    >"care to justify your 'apologise or die' comment in that light? "

    I thought the fact that it was so painfully obvious to be in jest was more than enough to justify his comment.

    >"how is that offensive??
    so saying the words 'God Is Great' in another language is called as offensive now?? "

    /sigh.

    This is what I hate about these sorts of threads. Repeats the same bleemin cycle.
    How's about you go and read previous comments? The answers are right there (the phrase is quite obviously associated with islam, and is being said by blood-drinking tribal monkeys should be enough).

    But even after this, people aren't gonna read, they are gonna ask the same stupid question, and rinse and repeat.

    It's quite bizarre that I, as a Christian (boo, hiss) spent this thread defending muslims.

  • numptyboymatt #119 5 years ago

    Monkeys drinking blood in a cup in a computer game saying it is offensive whereas shouting it whilst dousing yourself in petrol and trying to blow up an airport is acceptable. At least we got that one straight.....

    /sighs

    /marvels at the wonder that is politcal correctness

  • smelly #120 5 years ago

    "marvels at the wonder that is politcal correctness"

    But nowadays by being politially incorrect, you risk getting someone threatening to blow you up.

  • Xerx3s #121 5 years ago

    You tell that to a Jedi who tries to stare into the Ark of the Covenant. That'll wipe the grin off his melting face.

    Yeah but that's just because the midichlorian count is off the chart.

  • Xerx3s #122 5 years ago

    Church of England sues Sony over Resistance: Fall of Man

    I seem to recall a similar backlash from gamers and people alike with that as well. Did you just point out that gamers don't like the bull from religion and other things?

  • Bidermaier #123 5 years ago

    Just like the local Granada (quite important spanish town) mullah said, We will use their democracy to destroy their democracy...

  • Kryon #124 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    "Which system of beliefs one chooses to subscribe to is your own personal choice and entirely subjectve to the individual. "

    I can't entirely agree with that, only because religion is forced upon children at birth in many cases and I truly believe that if forced to believe something from birth it can and does alter your perception as an adult (for this reason I am against religion of any kind). I would have no problem if they let people choose at a mature age that they wanted to believe in ghosts,aliens, false gods, whatever but I think it's unfair to fill childrens minds with BS from some pathetic book and force them to adhere to it and believe it or face death.

    Anyway, yeah, the rest of your post was pretty good :)

  • numptyboymatt #125 5 years ago

    "But nowadays by being politially incorrect, you risk getting someone threatening to blow you up"

    @ smelly - I know, I was being ironic. Apparently nowadays merely disagreeing with someone when it comes to religion is un-pc and thus offensive - there really isnt any point arguing anymore as all people do is feign offense and play the race/religion card - whichever gets them more attention really.


    edited for rubbish spelling and total lack of any grammar whatsoever
    Edited by 1 at 02/08/07 @ 20:20

  • Isere #126 5 years ago

    "As a muslim I demand Those producers apologise or kill them."

    @afghan_jones

    As The Bodybuilder already pointed out, that was clearly a joke.

    As a Muslim myself, I almost didn't want to come into this thread because I knew it would mirror the usual hostility towards Muslims found elsewhere these days.

    It is then a joy to see that even if few and far inbetween, there are still people like kangarootoo who have an independant opinion. One which is actually theirs and not just a rehash of something else they saw someone else say.

    Upwards of 22% World Population is Muslim, pls don't let the actions of a few people make you intolerant of the rest. I couldn't emphasize enough that Islam is a religion of peace and does not condone the killing of innocent human beings of any religion.




  • PuffyPipe #127 5 years ago

    Allah Akbar is a powerful phrase!

    I hear it shouted by murders in Iraq when a westerner gets his or her head cut off.

  • seasidebaz #128 5 years ago

    i am offended by the word "the"

    it must be removed from all literature immediately, because i am offended.

  • Kryon #129 5 years ago

    "i am offended by the word "the" "

    You just said it! TWICE no less! BLASPHEMER! Stone the infidel!

  • seasidebaz #130 5 years ago

    woohoo 5 mins til someone saw my mistake hehe i shall blaspheme no more

  • kangarootoo #131 5 years ago

    I was going to write some grumpy rant about stupid people making piss poor jokes and comments that do nothing more than demonstrate how stupid they are, but what is the point. You can't apply logic to something that is based entirely on its absence. A goldfish is too stupid to understand that its just a goldfish, and I tend to view bigots in the same light.

    Not saying everyone negative poster on here is a bigot, but ffs at least try and make the jokes funny if you are going to bother.

  • chicknstu #132 5 years ago

    "Capcom has dialogue that offends someone. Capcom removes dialogue. Everyone is happy, and nobody gets killed"

    See, life is so simple sometimes. :)

    Stu xxx

  • Genji #133 5 years ago

    "Personally while I am all for stamping out racism around the world, I think it is worrying that we are increasingly afraid to question and challenge beliefs and ideas for fear of causing offence."

    Fine, but monkeys dancing around drinking out of skulls shouting "ALLAHU AKBAR" isn't a very useful "challenge" at all. Save that comment for a discussion where it is actually warranted.

  • Scimarad #134 5 years ago

    While I'm about as far from being religious as you can get, I can definitely see how this would cause offence. But as has already been said, Capcom obviously agreed it was a bit uncalled for and has removed the offending remark.

    As for all the insults...I'd say that's just about the level of maturity normally displayed on these forums. What do you expect from a bunch of kids?

  • Azazel #135 5 years ago

    I can definitely see how it would cause offence too... And understand it... and... bah, I hate organised religion.

  • afghan_jones #136 5 years ago

    @Genji

    Yeah, obviously in this instance I dont think Capcom really knew what they were doing and werent trying to make a point or anything. I was commenting more on the wider issue of rleigious censorship which seemed to have opened up. (certainly wasnt suggesting that the crazy cartoon monkeys were intended by Capcom to bea knowing religious satire or anytihng.)

    @Kryon

    Agreed, religion is generally ingrained from a young age and so there is usually a lack of free choice in a person's formative years. However, in my eyes, that makes it even more important to allow people to question and challenge their beliefs and the beliefs of others rather than declaring all negative comment on one faith or another to be off limits for fear of causing offence.

  • Dark_Stranger #137 5 years ago

    @ mossychops001 - "Whats a Muslim?"

    Its a breakfast dish consisting of rolled oats & dried fruit

    or is it a flame grilled dish server at Airports (runs for hills).
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 09:24

  • Stebop #138 5 years ago

    Always nice to be accused of racism for believing that ALL religion is inherently stupid (as well as harmful in one way or another). I'm willing to bet most people on this thread don't give a flying fornication about peoples' ethnic origin, but making life decisions, not to mention threats, based on fairy tales is another matter. Anyone interested in the most righteous cause of atheism (I know that word can leave a nasty taste in the mouth, even to the non-religious but it's not a dirty word, honest) or has the cojones to actually challenge their faith may want to check out some Richard Dawkins (natch!), Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great ( the best of all!) or Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. All that said, my faith in Odin remains unshakeable. Arf arf.

  • kangarootoo #139 5 years ago

    "or is it a flame grilled dish server at Airports"

    Yes I know its only a joke, but my worry about that sort of joke is that there are legions of people out there thick enough to have that sort of comment form their world view.

    A terrorist is someone who causes a terror. A muslim is someone who follows Islam. A person MAY be both, may be neither, may be one or the other. They are NOT joined at the hip.

    I would also say that it is not Islam (or any other religeon) that makes people do bad things. It is hate and fear. Someone feeling unhappy with their lot is a prime target for recruitment by someone who is full of hate. Relieon may be used as the excuse, but it is not truly the cause.

    People say blame chritianity for the crusades, but they would have still happened under a different flag.

    It always boils down to the same thing. Someone either fears someone else, hates them for what they have done and wants revenge, or is jealous of someone else's lot.

    The majority of muslims are good people, just like the majority of chritians are good people, just like the majority of aetheists are good people. Reason being... the majority of PEOPLE are good people. Bad people are bad people for all sorts of reasons, the religeon system they follow is not one of the reasons. Excuses are as interchangeable as socks.

    Aesop was a wise old dude. His Wolf and Lamb fable makes a better job of explaining the point I am trying to make.

    http://209.10.134.1 79/17/1/2.html

  • kangarootoo #140 5 years ago

    @Stebop

    "Anyone interested in the most righteous cause of atheism"

    Hehe. You are one of the archetypal grumpy aehtesists I was describing earlier. Are you really so incapable of seeing how similar you are to the religeous preachers you dislike? Even the phrasing you use is the same. You have found your religeon; it so happens it doesn't involve a god, but you preach it will the same zeal and aggression as any minister or cleric.

    I should note (as I doubt very much you have read this thread) I am also an aetheist, just so you don't make any incorrect assumptions and go off on a rant at me.

    Edit: typos I can't be arsed to fix.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 09:48

  • Stebop #141 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    I am grumpy dude and with good reason, but I aint a zealot. Being a rational human being I am fully able to admit that there is a chance that a God or Gods exist but considering that there is no empirical evidence for such a thing I remain utterly sceptical. As for the use of religious language, I was using it as a joke (a weak one admittedly), a person would have to be a fool to use tsuch phrasing unknowingly. So in answer to you, no, I'm not so blind to see that Atheists sometimes employ the same tactics as religious whack-jobs, after all we're really just talking about persuasive (or at worst, coercive) language. The real diffference is empiricism, I like proof as the basis for a moan not shamanism and allegory as indeed do you as fellow non-believer.
    A spirited attack you launched there old chap(ess) but entirely unwarranted, I was mostly kidding around, perhaps I should sign post it a little more. Still, I guess I'm not the only one gulity of making assumptions (in your case that I'm retarded. Ouch). Peace.

  • afghan_jones #142 5 years ago

    @kanga

    some religions do make people do pretty bad things to be honest though. Its just that peoples definition of bad can vary wildly.

    tolerance of homosexuality, treatment of women, treatment of other faiths/races, plus other stuff. Not to mention that Scientology is technically seen as a faith by its members and I'd view some of their beliefs and practices as very harmful indeed.

    Im not saying Islam or any other faith is inherently bad but neither are the inherently good and I think it is dangerous to assume that religions are all built on an equal moral foundation as they simply are not.

    Also, people are not mostly good. They are just people and all people have the capacity for varying levels of niceness and horribleness.

  • Razorus #143 5 years ago

    As a Muslim, I didn't find the use of the phrase God is Great offensive at all but it depended on the context. If its true that there is a scene where a tribe of monkeys drink blood and yell Allahu Akbar, then I can clearly see what's offensive, though many of you here don't.
    If the monkeys had said anything else like "Praise God" or some other tribe thing, then it wouldn't be bad. But they actually said "Allahu Akbar" in Arabic, so Capcom have basically connected this tribe of monkeys with Muslims. No other religion says "Allahu Akbar", see?
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 10:47

  • kangarootoo #144 5 years ago

    @Stebop

    I did go off on one a bit, sorry about that. Lets continue in a lighter spirit :)

    "The real diffference is empiricism, I like proof as the basis for a moan not shamanism and allegory as indeed do you as fellow non-believer."

    We can go off down a very philosophical road here, but even science is in essence a matter of faith. The foudnation of any scientific proof is a theory, and to form (and in turn test/prove) any theory you need at first to make some assumptions. These can be extremely basic assumptions such as "I am really seeing what my eyes tell me I am seeing", but assumptions none the less. In the current case the assumption would be "the total absence of proof that God exists, is proof that He does not". I'm sure you can see how there is still some pretty strong assumption behind that statement regards how the universe works.

    I guess the issue I have with some aetheist points of view is the refusal to accept that faith is a part of all aspects of human life. We believe, or we do not believe. Whatever road we take to the final conclusion, it always boils to down to that in the end.


    @afghan_jones

    "some religions do make people do pretty bad things to be honest though"

    Free will always exists. Anyone has the choice to say "this is wrong, I choose not to follow this path any more".

    I would actually suggest that a muslim who kills innocents in the name of God is deluded and does not sufficiently understand the basis of their own faith. bengalibengali earlier quoted several good references that demonstrated how terrorists apparently acting in accordance with holy law were in fact simply not understanding their own faith sufficiently (or perhaps choosing to be selective in their interpretation to serve their own agenda).

    In summary, a good person will not follow rules that run contrary to them being a good person, and a bad person will always be able to find a way of justifying their bad actions.

  • knocker #145 5 years ago

    "I guess the issue I have with some aetheist points of view is the refusal to accept that faith is a part of all aspects of human life."

    I agree with this wholeheartedly - and think that at it's most extreme atheism comes across as arrogant and insensitive. And is almost a religion in itself (if not why the evangelising).

    However, this is nothing compared to people who take religion to it's most extreme. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atheists with blood on their hands, but they usually follow some equally blind doctrine with a religious fervour.

    If you look at religious conflicts after all there's usually an underlying social/political cause.

    "In summary, a good person will not follow rules that run contrary to them being a good person, and a bad person will always be able to find a way of justifying their bad actions."

    Entirely true. but there is the slight extra bit where 'religions' abdicate an entire group of people from responsibility for their actions - with the promise they will be rewarded in heaven, paradise, valhalla etc.

    I'm an atheist, though I do respect other people's religions. In the majority of people it's a crutch - and not a bad one. Most of them have at their core a pretty reasonable way of living your life.

    Ultimately though, none of this has any relevance to this debate. But more relevance than the bigotry pretending to be so-called satire.

    (speaking as someone whose piss poor attempt at satirizing bigotry came across as bigotry yesterday. Apologies to anyone offended for getting it wrong)


    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 11:39

  • TonyCocaCola #146 5 years ago

    @Razorus
    Im sure the whole thing was an accident, they probably just have a library of sounds and picked out that particular one because it suited the situation, I doubt they even realised what it was

  • Genji #147 5 years ago

    "Funny, for a religion who's main prophet slept with a six to nine year old girl, they sure get offended easily."

    /yawns

  • kangarootoo #148 5 years ago

    "but there is the slight extra bit where 'religions' abdicate an entire group of people from responsibility for their actions"

    I'm not sure that ability is unique to religeon. I'm sure there are countless historical examples of situations where groups of people have found themselves acting in a way contrary to their own values because they have found themselves in a situation or group which was able to "hijack their senses".

    Some of the actions of soldiers in recent middle east conflicts can be attributed to this, the smae occurred in Vietnam and WW2. Even something like the May day riots is a version of the same. Mass hysteria is a powerful thing, as is the presence of a powerful central character. Stolkholm syndrome is another example perhaps.

    My point is that people can have their inherrent values overruled or misdirected by all sorts of social engineering type situations. Religeon is not the only form of social structure (deliberate or otherwise) that could be accused of this from time to time.

  • Genji #149 5 years ago

    "Genji, are you advocating sleeping with a six to nine year old girl? REALLY?"

    Only if she's good.

  • TonyCocaCola #150 5 years ago

    Whats best about sleeping with 20 year old girls?



    Theres 20 of them.

    Sorry, i know im goin to hell

  • Stebop #151 5 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    No need for apologies my marsupial chum, we've all jumped in at the deepend before.

    I'll state I'm with ya all the way with regards to the meta-physics and the stirling work you're putting in (you too Knocker) counteracting the reactionary, biggoted juvenalia on this thread (I was dissappointed until I remembered it's the school holidays).

    One wee query though, with regards to

    "My point is that people can have their inherrent values overruled or misdirected by all sorts of social engineering type situations. Religeon is not the only form of social structure (deliberate or otherwise) that could be accused of this from time to time."


    Couldn't it be argued that while all forms of social structure have the capacity for terrible things, these things are more likely to occur in a religious context or a context that is religious in all but name ie; the personality cults that grow up around chaps like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and countless other very naughty men?

  • afghan_jones #152 5 years ago

    "My point is that people can have their inherrent values overruled or misdirected by all sorts of social engineering type situations. Religeon is not the only form of social structure (deliberate or otherwise) that could be accused of this from time to time."

    But that is assuming people have 'inherent values'. I dont think they do. There is an instinct to protect the young & bonds with family but beyond that every other value is pretty much imprinted by the society they live in. In that way, some one who is coached from birth to believe that killing in the name of their god is ok, that is one of their core values but certainly not one they are born with. So I dont think we should think of religion as overruling peoples base values as for people who are born into a religion, their base values are usually broadly in line with those of their religion.

    It is this which allows people to commit some truly awful acts in the name of religion as they are not ovveriding their inner values, they are in acting in accordance with them.

  • afghan_jones #153 5 years ago

    Also, just for balance, I do think religion can have a very positive impact upon people. While anti-religious types are often quick to mention the crusades, spanish inqusition, witch burning and jihad as negatives (which they are), Im not sure it is even possible to put numbers on the lives that have been saved by religious charities such as CAFOD, not to mention that most concepts of law and order around the globe are built from the 10 commandments.

    Basically religion and faith are not inherently bad or good really, its just down to people and how they interpret and use their faith.

  • Stebop #154 5 years ago

    "Im not sure it is even possible to put numbers on the lives that have been saved by religious charities such as CAFOD"

    Or the millions of lives ended by Catholic organizations telling people in various parts of the Third World that condoms actually INCREASE your chance of contracting HIV/AIDS. Sounds like a pile of dog-tod but several Catholic bishops have done exactly that.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 12:33

  • Les #155 5 years ago

    "Basically religion and faith are not inherently bad or good really, its just down to people and how they interpret and use their faith."

    Personally, I don’t believe in “bad” or “good” as metaphysic principles, just like religion, they’re a human invention and only apply to human behavior.

    But for me handling out of religious motives is always worse than performing the same action based on one’s own unclouded reasoning. So donating to a charity because of fear of going to hell or to please some God is worse than donating to the same charity because you feel with the group that the charity supports.

  • mcmothercruncher #156 5 years ago

    An issue I have with some religious folk is with their lack of questioning.
    If someone genuinely examines their parents religion, other religions, atheism and so on and then decides that religion "d" is right for them, then I can completely respect that. If they are just regurgitating zombie-like their parents "truths" and blindly using "faith" as the prop, then they deserve to be exposed to a certain amount of ridicule.


    As Dawkins said, very neatly summing up the 'reasonable' atheist view for me; "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"


    Finally, just to balance up the Muslim links posted earlier, here are some atheist ones;

    <a href="http://www.secularism.o rg.uk/">The National Secular Society</A>
    <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/ ">Richard Dawkins.net</A>
    <a href="http://www.rationa lresponders.com/">The Response Squad</A>
    Edited for duff linking.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 12:48

  • afghan_jones #157 5 years ago

    @stebop

    Id not heard of anyone actually saying that. If they have thats pretty messed up. It seems more likely they would have said stop having casual sex altogether but what the hey.

    @Les

    Agreed on the 'good & bad' thing, where human beings are concerned, everything is a shade of grey and points of view vary greatly.

    On the charity thing, a lot of religions promote charity not to avoid hell but because they are founded on the principles of helping others and doing good deeds.

  • afghan_jones #158 5 years ago

    @mcmothercruncher


    Im sorry but militant atheists are the worst.

    If you find that religion doesnt appeal to you in any way and you see no proof for god then thats fine, feel free not to believe in it. But why try and force others down the same path? What difference does it make to you?

    For a lot of people, religion is central to their lives and makes them want to be better people. It helps a lot of people get through some tough times. I agree that we should question and challenge our beliefs and those of others but not in this way of just attacking peoples core values.

    I personally find atheism quite disturbing when it is used to cut away other peoples beliefs but does not replace them with anything new.

    Edit: Sorry, that sounded a bit harsh, I guess I dont just 'get' atheism as an option.
    Edited by 1 at 03/08/07 @ 12:55

  • kangarootoo #159 5 years ago

    @SteBop and afghan_jones

    In response to both your points together, I suppose what I am getting at is that religeon is just one way of controlling people's actions. Yes, people that are born into a certain situation will have their "inherrent values" guided from the off, and in such cases their values are not being distoted by faith (or whatever it might be) but in fact are created by it. But that could equally stand for someone born into poverty, civil war, a situation of racial tension.

    What I am saying is that all the things people accuse religeon of "doing", all the things that people say religeons are capable of, are not exclusive to religeon. All the good aspects and all the bad aspects can be seen in other forms of social control that have nothing to do with deities.


    P.s. I think I have mispelt religeon every single time I have written it. its just one of those words that my brain can't get right, depite my attempts to look it up and remember the correct spelling. I just can't change it seems :) (unless I am so convinced of my failing that I wouldn't know if I did spell it correctly).

  • kangarootoo #160 5 years ago

    "Basically religion and faith are not inherently bad or good really, its just down to people and how they interpret and use their faith"

    Absolutely.


    "Or the millions of lives ended by Catholic organizations telling people in various parts of the Third World that condoms actually INCREASE your chance of contracting HIV/AIDS"

    That is what I would describe as a bad person using religeon as a flag for their own selfish agenda. Whatever your beliefs (which is where the anti-contraceptions tance stems from) lying to enforce it is I'm sure not part of the ruleset covered by the relevanty holy book. I tend to think that if you can't argue your point with fact, it suggests that your point has little substance and should therefore br scrutinised internally.


    "Personally, I don’t believe in “bad” or “good” as metaphysic principles, just like religion, they’re a human invention and only apply to human behavior."

    I agree with this completely. I just user the terms good and bad as lunguistic vehicles that allow me to make a point. And I figure people generally understand the context of the use.


    @mcmothercruncher

    "An issue I have with some religious folk is with their lack of questioning."

    Oh mate, some of the most unquestioning people I have EVER met were aethesists, and this remains consistently the case. Reason being that the majority of aetheists are of course convinced they are right on such fundamental principles as to even ask the question is ludicrous in itself.

    I tell you what though, the majority of the aetheists I have met are some of the worse informed people I have ever met too. You show me an aetheist that has read the Bible and the Quran and I'll show you a badger on a surfboard.

    Time for a metaphor.
    Person A says their favourite food is baked beans. Under scrutiny you discover the only food they have ever eaten is baked beans. What value do you now attribute to their opinion?

    Person B says their favourite food is chips. Under scutiny it turns out they have travelled the world, eating foods from every 'corner', but eventually settled on chips as their favourite. A wholly differrent value could perhaps be attributed to their opinion.

    Most of the aetheists I have met are person A. I think that sums up my point reasonably well.

  • Les #161 5 years ago

    "I personally find atheism quite disturbing when it is used to cut away other peoples beliefs but does not replace them with anything new."

    What can it possibly replace them with besides reason?

  • kangarootoo #162 5 years ago

    Hope?


    ...hehehe, look at me going all floaty light. I tell you what though, floating through space as we are, all absolutely going to die one day, with nothing much to until then but live out our lives... what is more important, being right in the 'true universal understanding' sense or being happy?

  • kangarootoo #163 5 years ago

    Ah, a goldfish. Hello goldfish.

  • TonyCocaCola #164 5 years ago

    I wonder if the eternal debate on religion will finally come to a conclusion on this gaming thread...

  • kangarootoo #165 5 years ago

    Well our record on these things is not exactly spotless...

  • mcmothercruncher #166 5 years ago

    On the contrary Kangarootoo, I couldn't disagree with you more. If you took the few paragraphs you wrote and replaced the word "atheist" with "believer" I'd probably be on the same page as you, such are the entrenched views of both sides I suppose.
    I've yet to meet an atheist who hasn't thoroughly thought through the religion question before coming to their (rational) conclusion. I'm not saying people who feel that Religion doesn't make sense to them and never think any deeper than that aren't out there though, along with their religious opposites who inherit their beliefs from their parents and never question further. Re: the Dawkins quote- the religious also inherit an atheistic stance about every other deity mankind has ever believed in previously, from Thor to Shiva to Wotan to Zeus etc- a phenomenon I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about frankly.

    Sorry fella, I can see you mean well from your previous posts, but the metaphor you used is just purile. Seeing as you started it though... ;)
    If person A. has had their favourite food viewpoint supported by rigorous peer group reviewed scientific research, whilst person B. just has "faith" that their favourite food is best and cannot point at any single piece of evidence to support themselves then I'd be proud to be in the "A" group. Blind faith is no badge of honour but something the secular humanist world is gradually weeding out as civilisation develops.

  • TonyCocaCola #167 5 years ago

    Even science has huge blind spots. Couldnt that be considered blind faith? A few hundred years ago the earth WAS flat, we know jack about the universe. The furthest we have been is the moon and we dont even know whats at the bottom of the ocean. How can we be so sure about anything.

  • afghan_jones #168 5 years ago

    "I personally find atheism quite disturbing when it is used to cut away other peoples beliefs but does not replace them with anything new."

    What can it possibly replace them with besides reason?"


    Reason and religion dont have to be mutually exclusive. All atheists are not automatically logical reasonable people. They are human beings and just as irrational and illogical as people wh follow a religion.

    In any case, atheism is based on faith as much as any religion really. Lack of proof for argument 'A' does not necessarily make argument 'B' true if you get what I mean.

    A lack of what you might deem conclusive proof (no idea what that might be) for the existence of a god doesnt automatically mean that no god can possibly exist.

  • mcmothercruncher #169 5 years ago

    You're right TonyCocaCola, there's lots science can't explain. What it can explain it does via peer reviewed evidence and when it can't it'll either acknowledge it's making assumptions and be able to show the reasoning behind them or hold its hands up. Religion is so very distant from that sort of intellectual honesty.

    Bottom line- if I, against all logic and without a shred of evidence, insist that there is an orange at the centre of the earth then the onus is on me, the orangigiousperson, to proove that that is the case not the other way around.

  • afghan_jones #170 5 years ago

    "You're right TonyCocaCola, there's lots science can't explain. What it can explain it does via peer reviewed evidence and when it can't it'll either acknowledge it's making assumptions and be able to show the reasoning behind them or hold its hands up. Religion is so very distant from that sort of intellectual honesty. "

    Please dont try to make out that all scientists are logical vulcans.

    scientists work on theories, and many would argue to the death on one theory versus another. 'Science' is not a unified field of people all logically working towards the same thing, it is a disparate group all working on their own theories towards their own conclusions. Methods of gathering evidence in all fields vary wildly and affect the evidence itself in nearly all cases.

    Oh and as an orangeist or whatever, the whole point is that no one really has to prove it. If thats what you want to believe then go right ahead.

  • knocker #171 5 years ago

    "but there is the slight extra bit where 'religions' abdicate an entire group of people from responsibility for their actions"

    "I'm not sure that ability is unique to religeon. I'm sure there are countless historical examples of situations where groups of people have found themselves acting in a way contrary to their own values because they have found themselves in a situation or group which was able to "hijack their senses". "

    I meant 'religions' in the loosest possible sense of meaning any dogmatic belief.

    I would love to believe that atheists are immune from persecuting people for their religious beliefs. But then I'd have to stick my fingers in my ears whenever anyone mentioned Stalin, the Khmer Rouge and Mao - and possibly others.

    But I would guess that, by definition, religion is the only one that offers redemption and reward. Not that that would make a whole lot of difference if you're the one being persecuted. "Look - before you carry on with the machete ... are you chopping out my innards because you believe in some deity that approves of your actions - or is it for the greater good in a socio-political sense".

    I think the Catholic position is that abstinence (their medieval doctrine) is less likely to cause aids than f'king with a condom (the common sense doctrine).


    "Blind faith is no badge of honour but something the secular humanist world is gradually weeding out as civilisation develops."
    Which sounds to me like a statement based on blind faith if I've ever heard one.

  • knocker #172 5 years ago

    "scientists work on theories, and many would argue to the death on one theory versus another. 'Science' is not a unified field of people all logically working towards the same thing, it is a disparate group all working on their own theories towards their own conclusions. Methods of gathering evidence in all fields vary wildly and affect the evidence itself in nearly all cases."

    But there is a scientific method largely agreed with. There will always be cases where scientists have lied, misled and cheated - but part of this idealised scientific method is that they have to show their working. They will get found out. And yup, it's a theory - but a theory has to be supported by available evidence. And has to be testable, reproducible, edible, flammable etc. Got bored there - cos nobody is really reading this are they.

    "Oh and as an orangeist or whatever, the whole point is that no one really has to prove it. If thats what you want to believe then go right ahead."
    But the issue is when people who believe *insist* on other people believing the same.

    I think this specific case (remember that?) was about people asking for respect for their religion. Which is fine by me. As long as they respect my right to enjoy beer, bacon sarnies and pictures of lady's bits. Preferably all at the same time.

  • afghan_jones #173 5 years ago

    @knocker

    take something like climate change. there are scientists who tihnk it is happening and ones who think it isnt. both have some interesting arguments and some compelling evidence but they dont agree despite both sides showing their workings.

    Also, if you cut your bacon sandwich in a certain way and turn it on its side, it kind of looks like a lady's part. (which covers off two of your desiresand leaves the other hand free for beers.)

  • kangarootoo #174 5 years ago

    @mcmothercruncher

    Well without hard reference to back up our anecdote I think we might have to agree to disagree on the exposure of aetheists to the detail of other relgions.

    Its a massive oversimplification to suggest that all religious people inherit their beliefs from their families. Most of them waver in their faith throughout their lives, but at least the discussion is taking place.

    I've honestly met many aetheists who were the result of a "loss of faith" scenario. The majority of them have never believed in any deities (myself included, which is my loss in many ways).

    This hardly sounds like what you describe as,

    "I've yet to meet an atheist who hasn't thoroughly thought through the religion question before coming to their (rational) conclusion".

    In all seriousness, what does "thought through" really mean in that context. No doubt plenty of aetheists have discussed religion (its what they love most), but I suspect that discussion is very rarely in a spirit of exploration. For more likely in my eyes is that discussion took the form of a debunking mission, finding various ways to explain "the obvious" to those who had yet to discover it.

    I suppose all I have is personal experience and anecdote, but every aetheist I have met who claim to have explored religion and found it empty, when questioned turned out to have barely any understanding of what is involved other than "I don't believe in myths and monsters".

    The definition of God is a discussion in its own, and a very interesting one. Aetheists just seem to very quickly agree on one definition of God, i.e. the one that best suits their agenda of debunking and mocking.


    "What it can explain it does via peer reviewed evidence and when it can't it'll either acknowledge it's making assumptions and be able to show the reasoning behind them or hold its hands up"

    Oh please. Its not just about honesty and best intent you know. People who believe in God aren't purposely setting out to fool anyone, hard as it is to grasp, they really DO believe. When people believed the world was flat, they didn't believe it was that way because they were on some mission to decieve everyone (perhaps later, nearer the change of opinion). They truly believed it was flat and had no way of knowing otherwise.

    To say that science either says "its like this" or "we don't know" is to assume that scientists was always be equipped to know the difference. That is simply not the case. You just accept that sometimes science says "its like this", then in fact the truth is they lack the pure ability (whether through fact or skill) to actually realise that is not the case and that the true answer would be "we don't know".

    As for my metaphor, I'm not too modest to say there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. What you returned with was an entirely different metaphor. Perhaps there was some grey area in my application of the metaphor and the conclusions I drew from that, but that will always be the case. A metaphor is not a statement of fact, it is simply an attempt to clarify an issue that may otherwise be less clear. once the point being made is understood, discussion can continue along with all the difference of opinion that would result in any event.


    "Bottom line- if I, against all logic and without a shred of evidence, insist that there is an orange at the centre of the earth then the onus is on me, the orangigiousperson, to proove that that is the case not the other way around."

    But seriously, says who? We can all of us start coming out with stuff like that like we have defined a new universal law, but it means nothing really.

    Is the onus on the christian to prove God exists, or on the aethesist to prove He doesn't? You may say the answer to that is obvious, but I would respond by saying it appears that way to you because your belief system tells you so (and if you were a Christian, the answer would be equally obvious, but the exact opposite).


    @knocker

    Science is a politic much like any other. Scientists disagree about stuff ALL the time. They even disagree about the methods by which science is conducted. What even defines a scientist? It seems like a name any of us can use to describe ourselves, but we all think differently. I agree that its reaonable to say that a theory has to be supported by available evidence, but as I mentioned earlier you cannot have a theory without an initial assumption however simple and apparently clear that assumption must be.

    When it comes to religion it seems that the very most fundamental assumptions are at conflict, that every theory on either side is based on some assumptions that differ at their core. On that basis science in unable to defend itself any more than any religeon.

    There is nothing so powerful as asking "What if?". What if our eyes lie to us? What if our most basic perception of the universe is flawed? What is the most fundamental laws of physics do not behave as we believe them to?


    Lets take that laws of physics path for a second as its one that always interests me; and it will also help me make a point.

    Gravity and magnetism. We can predict their behaviour and as a result we can achieve incredible things, but no one can truly explain why they work the way they do. Actually there are 4 basic forces described in physics but two of them sound a little more weird so we don't have to worry about them too much. The 4 forces are gravity, electro magnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Anway, all 4 act in a way we can observe, predict and utilise but we have NO idea why they occur. And by "we" I mean you won't find a physicist on the planet that knows why they work.

    So there we have some basic building blocks absolutely fundamental to pretty much every scientific theory we posess.... and we have no idea why they occur. NONE. If that doesn't give any aetheist at least cause for the tiniest desire to embrace the "what if the entire universe doesn't work the way I believe it does" question, I honestly don't know what will.
    Edited by 2 at 03/08/07 @ 17:16

  • kangarootoo #175 5 years ago

    Jesus, that was a long post. Sorry about that.

  • knocker #176 5 years ago

    That's ok ! Worth reading ... the alternative is over simplification.

    And thanks to you and Afghan-thing for taking the time ... would repond but the talk of beer, bacon and birds has left me concentrating on more important things than physics and god and other stuff out of my control.

  • Les #177 5 years ago

    "In any case, atheism is based on faith as much as any religion really. Lack of proof for argument 'A' does not necessarily make argument 'B' true if you get what I mean."

    I don't agree. Requiring proof in order to accept a certain hypothesis is different from accepting said hypothesis without any proof. In fact, the moment the existence of a god was proven, there could be no more faith.

    "Science' is not a unified field of people all logically working towards the same thing, it is a disparate group all working on their own theories towards their own conclusions."

    Yes, but unlike religion, science uses hard evidence (when available) and logic to prove a hypothesis. This means it can be validated by others. That's not the case with religion. Religion avoids any hard evidence because it can't exist with proof.

  • Les #178 5 years ago

    "what is more important, being right in the 'true universal understanding' sense or being happy?"

    But can you really be happy without having the 'true universal understanding'? Maybe you only imagine you are happy...

  • Les #179 5 years ago

    "So there we have some basic building blocks absolutely fundamental to pretty much every scientific theory we posess.... and we have no idea why they occur. NONE. If that doesn't give any aetheist at least cause for the tiniest desire to embrace the "what if the entire universe doesn't work the way I believe it does" question, I honestly don't know what will."

    But that's the thing: an atheist (or someone not believing) doesn't 'believe'. And he/she accepts the fact that he/she doesn't understand everything.

    A religious person thinks "God" is the final answer to everything, a non-religious person "I don't know". I think the latter is the most honest.

  • mcmothercruncher #180 5 years ago

    @ knocker
    ""Blind faith is no badge of honour but something the secular humanist world is gradually weeding out as civilisation develops.""
    "Which sounds to me like a statement based on blind faith if I've ever heard one."

    Not faith required at all- falling church attendance in the Western world and the increasing lack of automatic reverence to the clergy are two pieces of supporting evidence for a start.

    Pointing the finger at Stalin and declaring him (correctly) an atheist makes no point I can see. Atheism automatically offers no special guarantee of good behaviour, people are people and can be vain and selfish whilst on either side of the divide. I won't point out the horrors done in the name of religion, it's pointless and gets you no closer to the central question of whether God exists or not.


    @afghan_jones
    I agree with you about science- multiple people working in different directions on conflicting theories. But you're just talking about process there. Crucially, once consensus is reached, proof is then present via repeatable experiments. All most atheists need in order to reassess their position is proof that solid for the existence of God.

    @Kangarootoo
    You're firing multiple points at me, it's albeit impossible to keep up! You've a different experience of atheists you've met. I have to take your word on that, I can't prove or disprove your assertion either way. It doesn't then invalidate my general take on the atheists I've met, of course.

    "Is the onus on the christian to prove God exists, or on the aethesist to prove He doesn't?"
    Bottom line (I love bottom lines) it is YOUR theory, the onus is on YOU to prove he exists.

  • evild_edd #181 5 years ago

    I love religious banter - clearly an awesome way of offending loads of people - genius!!! \o/

    For the record - the question of wehter or not God exists is separate to whether you have to believe in a religion. Would God favour one religion over another/ Would (s)he really want people to spend their lives, time, and money, following the word of others rather than seeking their own answers and discoveries?

    Let's face it, all religion (Christian, Muslim, Jewish... whatever) is about saying I am better than that person over there because I believe this and they don't. It's about subverting the minds of others and reducing/removing free will of its believers. It often focuses on keeping women in their place (even Buddism, the most chilled religion, does this) and treating as second class citizens. There are no positives to religion.

    No problem with people having "faith", but I do dislike all forms of religion. The World would be a far better place without it!

  • kangarootoo #182 5 years ago

    @Les

    "Maybe you only imagine you are happy"

    I honestly don't see the difference.

    "an atheist (or someone not believing) doesn't 'believe'."

    Of course they "believe". Everything comes down to belief ion the end. We created science to explain the way the world worlks, we created the entirel concept of "proof", and we "believe" that these things are correct, or right, or have substance of however you want to describe it.

    @mcmothercruncher

    "it is YOUR theory, the onus is on YOU to prove he exists."

    I'm not even sure what that means. I have one theory, you have another (for the purposes of discussion that is, in fact we believe in the same thing). The aetheist's standpoint is as much a theory as any other, and so it can be subjkect to scrutiny and defense in the same way. Again, I think the fact you are a staunch aetheist is making you view aetheism as somehow different from belief, as somehow not being a theory of its own. They are simply both theories.

    @evild_edd

    "There are no positives to religion"

    Thats simply not true. Plenty of references have already been given in this thread.

    "The World would be a far better place without it!"

    As I mentioned a few times previously, I think religion is just a flag. Someone wanting to control others can always find a flag, whether it be religion or anything else. I personally think that if religion didn't exist, the world would actually still be very similar indeed to the way it is right now. I think people would simply operate under different banners.


    I figure this thread is likely to die now as its dropped off the front page. But for anyone still reading, its been interesting and fun and after a while some intelligent discussion bored the trolls into leaving. Lets do it again sometime :)
    Edited by 1 at 04/08/07 @ 13:59