 |
DarwinTalk.com
Evolution Debate and Public Discussion Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Let us take a glimpse on what is happening outside.
As we all know, computer/video games has been around for decades and has been commonly characterized by sex and violence, such as the Grand Theft Auto for example. Movies were the most influential medium of some of these violent games. And here are some good news for Christians - Christian developers now code for heavenly games. I have dreamed and prayed for this one, and now its become a reality.
Please check: Christians code Heavenly Games
and
God Games Seek Souls, Not Profit |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
skiddum
Pit Bull
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 374
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | Let us take a glimpse on what is happening outside. |
Currently 85 and sunny here in FL
Sure they don't...sure... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cubist
Pit Bull
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | Let us take a glimpse on what is happening outside.
As we all know, computer/video games has been around for decades and has been commonly characterized by sex and violence, such as the Grand Theft Auto for example. |
Yeah -- Pacman and Tetris are so sexy and so violent...
Not to deny the existence of GTA-ish games, of course; rather, I just wanted to point out that the sexy/violent stuff does not make up the entirety of videogames, and may not even be a majority of what's available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like Spyro... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cubist wrote: | | darwin_on_trial wrote: | Let us take a glimpse on what is happening outside.
As we all know, computer/video games has been around for decades and has been commonly characterized by sex and violence, such as the Grand Theft Auto for example. |
Yeah -- Pacman and Tetris are so sexy and so violent...
Not to deny the existence of GTA-ish games, of course; rather, I just wanted to point out that the sexy/violent stuff does not make up the entirety of videogames, and may not even be a majority of what's available. |
Consider the consequences of GTA:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8889445/
and its aftermath:
http://www.redassedbaboon.com/blog/?ct_id=341
However, I believed it is not right to blame the game but the gamer, therefore the court's decision is right. But I also believed that the player must have been influenced by that game somehow given that the similarity of the game's scenario and his theme of killing (shooting police officers and stealing cars). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Games don't kill people. People kill people. I have been following the works of the Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games (CAR-PGa) for some time now, and while computer games are not their main focus, the issues are essentially the same.
Games fuel a person's psyche. If a person is emotionally primed for sociopathy or suicide, it may just be a game that tips them over the edge. There has not been a single successful prosecution that explicitly tied roleplaying games to a crime. That is to say, games have not been the sole undoubted cause of any murder, or as far as we can tell, suicide. They can play a part in focusing an already-unhinged mind, but no crime has been committed exclusively and directly because of a game.
http://www.theescapist.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arthwollipot wrote: | Games don't kill people. People kill people. I have been following the works of the Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games (CAR-PGa) for some time now, and while computer games are not their main focus, the issues are essentially the same.
Games fuel a person's psyche. If a person is emotionally primed for sociopathy or suicide, it may just be a game that tips them over the edge. There has not been a single successful prosecution that explicitly tied roleplaying games to a crime. That is to say, games have not been the sole undoubted cause of any murder, or as far as we can tell, suicide. They can play a part in focusing an already-unhinged mind, but no crime has been committed exclusively and directly because of a game.
http://www.theescapist.com/ |
Oh how long I have not been here... Kumusta fellows... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Tadpole
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The jury quite correctly determined that GTA was not the cause of the defendant's violent actions. GTA may have acted as an outlet for his violent tendencies, and may have shaped his violent tendencies, but it did not cause them.
What is the relevance of a humour piece about stricter censorship of games, exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| politas wrote: |
The jury quite correctly determined that GTA was not the cause of the defendant's violent actions. GTA may have acted as an outlet for his violent tendencies, and may have shaped his violent tendencies, but it did not cause them.
What is the relevance of a humour piece about stricter censorship of games, exactly? |
A violent man has still good in his heart. It will turn violent again by some triggering forces such as violent games. Not necessarily the game is the main cause but it is due to his inherent violent character.
The relevance is the more the authorities censored violent contents in games, the more safety they can offer to the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Tadpole
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | politas wrote: |
What is the relevance of a humour piece about stricter censorship of games, exactly? |
The relevance is the more the authorities censored violent contents in games, the more safety they can offer to the public. |
I don't think you fully understand the word "relevance". What does violence in computer games have to do with evolution? What does censorship of violent games have to do with evolution? This thread is not discussing censorship and modern culture, but "Evolution and the Modern Culture". It is talking about how acceptance of the Theory of Evolution shapes society, for better or worse.
Are computer games reliant on evolution? Certainly not the type of games being discussed. There was a computer game that relied on evolution, years ago, called SimEarth (Wolli, I must get my copy back from you one day), but it was hardly the type of game that would engender violence, apart from the tearing-your-own-hair-out kind.
Much as I would love to debate the issue of censorship with you, it doesn't seem germane to this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| politas wrote: | | darwin_on_trial wrote: | | politas wrote: |
What is the relevance of a humour piece about stricter censorship of games, exactly? |
The relevance is the more the authorities censored violent contents in games, the more safety they can offer to the public. |
I don't think you fully understand the word "relevance". What does violence in computer games have to do with evolution? What does censorship of violent games have to do with evolution? This thread is not discussing censorship and modern culture, but "Evolution and the Modern Culture". It is talking about how acceptance of the Theory of Evolution shapes society, for better or worse.
Are computer games reliant on evolution? Certainly not the type of games being discussed. There was a computer game that relied on evolution, years ago, called SimEarth (Wolli, I must get my copy back from you one day), but it was hardly the type of game that would engender violence, apart from the tearing-your-own-hair-out kind.
Much as I would love to debate the issue of censorship with you, it doesn't seem germane to this forum. |
My apology. I actually don't get your question. My opinion is computer games don't rely on evolution, it will rely on what genre is up on the market. Evolution theory has influence the gaming market very well (character transforming with more skills as it evolve or the concept of "survival" of the fittest), but not necessarily that evolution is required to create a computer game.
Peace... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
politas
Tadpole
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | My apology. I actually don't get your question. My opinion is computer games don't rely on evolution, it will rely on what genre is up on the market. Evolution theory has influence the gaming market very well (character transforming with more skills as it evolve or the concept of "survival" of the fittest), but not necessarily that evolution is required to create a computer game. |
Characters transforming with more skills in Computer games is a great example of a common misrepresentation of evolution. Calling such change "evolution" is misleading, if perhaps inevitable.
The reason so many people make arguments against straw man versions of evolution is precisely due to frequent fictional depictions of "evolution" which are nothing of the sort. Anything involving individuals changing is not evolution. For that matter, individuals born radically different to the population around them is not an example of evolution. Evolution does not lead to "X-Men" style mutants. Evolution is barely noticable within a population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
darwin_on_trial
Show Poodle
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 262
Location: philippines
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| politas wrote: | | darwin_on_trial wrote: | | My apology. I actually don't get your question. My opinion is computer games don't rely on evolution, it will rely on what genre is up on the market. Evolution theory has influence the gaming market very well (character transforming with more skills as it evolve or the concept of "survival" of the fittest), but not necessarily that evolution is required to create a computer game. |
Characters transforming with more skills in Computer games is a great example of a common misrepresentation of evolution. Calling such change "evolution" is misleading, if perhaps inevitable.
The reason so many people make arguments against straw man versions of evolution is precisely due to frequent fictional depictions of "evolution" which are nothing of the sort. Anything involving individuals changing is not evolution. For that matter, individuals born radically different to the population around them is not an example of evolution. Evolution does not lead to "X-Men" style mutants. Evolution is barely noticable within a population. |
Ah no dispute. I stand corrected. Straw-man versions of evolution do exists you are correct. But i don't know where these straw-man versions comes from except from the faulty understanding of what really evolution is. In that case, evolutionists should teach the public, not Richard Dawkins' way of publishing books of debunking Christianity (obviously an ignorant of Christian theology, he must be a polymath or a theologian for doing so!). That is a "strawman's" version of Christianity. "Now" for the "moment" I don't have to go to the extreme for putting my faith in evolutionary model of reality and to the other extreme of debunking it (for I have no authority for doing so). What I don't like about evolutionists is most of their model of reality were founded upon methodological atheism of course.
Peace... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cubist
Pit Bull
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| darwin_on_trial wrote: | | What I don't like about evolutionists is most of their model of reality were founded upon methodological atheism of course. |
What in God's name is "methodological atheism"? If you meant to say "methodological naturalism", then that is what you should have said. Alas, you instead chose to commit the ignorant, if not downright dishonest, error of presuming the words "naturalism" and "atheism" to be interchangeable synonyms. They aren't. It's at least arguable that "philosophical naturalism" and "atheism" are synonymous, since philosophical naturalism is the position that "mundane nature is all that exists" -- but "methodological naturalism" is another matter entirely! Methodological naturalism is merely the common-sense position that mundane nature is all we puny, limited humans can actually work with in a meaningful way, regardless of what other things, beyond mundane nature, might also happen to exist. A philosophical naturalist actively denies the possibility of God's existence, but a methodological naturalist merely says, "God exists? Fine. How does the 'God hypothesis' help me solve this problem I'm interested in?", and if it just so happens that the 'God hypothesis' doesn't help him solve that problem, the methodological naturalist then ignores -- not denies, but merely ignores as being Not Helpful -- the 'God hypothesis' while he's trying to solve that problem. For instance, suppose a meteorologist is trying to make sense of last year's weather; how does the idea that "God exists" help him to understand what's going on with the rainfall in a given area? That meteorologist may well be -- probably is, if he lives in the US -- a devout Christian, but he doesn't worry about God when he's making a forecast, any more than your plumber worries about God when he's installing a replacement elbow-joint under your sink.
So your use of the phrase "methodological atheist" is confused and wrong, at best, or a deliberately deceptive act of bearing false witness, at worst. But let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that your use of the word "methodological" was an honest, ignorant error, and that what you really meant to say that "evolutionists" are just plain atheists, end of discussion. In that case: Exactly which "evolutionists" are you talking about when you make noise about how they're just plain atheists? I mean, are you talking about Charles Darwin, who (in Origin of Species) wrote that he feels this evolution stuff " accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator", or that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"? Is he the kind of "atheist" you mean?
Or how about Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, who wrote a recent book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief? Is he the kind of "atheist" you mean?
Or how about the late Theodosius Dobzhanski, Nobel Prize-winning biologist who famously wrote "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" in the same essay where he declared himself to be both an evolutionist (because he thought evolution is the best explanation for biological diversity) and a creationist (because as a devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church, he thought God used evolution to do His creating)? Is he the kind of "atheist" you mean?
Heck, even Dawkins himself is very clear that the 'God hypothesis' cannot be disproved -- Dawkins merely thinks the evidence makes 'God' preposterously unlikely, not impossible! Is he the kind of "atheist" you mean?
By "atheist", do you really mean "someone who doesn't believe in God"... or do you, instead, mean "someone who doesn't believe in my specific flavor of God"? If the latter, it is simply dishonest of you to use the word "atheist" to describe people who bloody well do believe in God.
Not as long as people like you keep on yammering (dishonestly or otherwise) about how evolution is strictly an atheist thing, there won't be... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
