Announcement

**Cyclotron** · February 26, 2003, 16:13

The sense of a "theory" in the scientific sense is indeed different than the colloquial use of the word theory.

I accept the fact that science is essentially never certain, because it's impossible to guarantee that no evidence will ever be found, no situation ever discovered that will negate the theory. However, a theory is something that exists in the mainstream of science; as I said, a theory is "accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena." The key word there is "accepted." That is, not infallible, and certainly not guaranteed to always be true, but in the present accepted to be the explanation for a set of phenomena.

My arguments were in response to the typical creationist comment that the theory of evolution is "just a theory," as if a scientific theory was just somebody's idea thrown out there that is no more valid than anything else. In a true scientific sense, however, a theory is more valid than anything else, because if valid evidence was found to counter it, it would no longer be a theory. Since creation "science" is undoubtedly unscientific, without real proof, it cannot seriously claim to be as valid as an established theory such as evolution.

Nevertheless, I got too extensive, I think. There's a lot to talk about it, and it's a shame it is OT here. Maybe we should consider a transfering...?

That's the paradox... you can't post OT in the on-topic forums, but the OT forums turn invariably into flame wars, spam, or inanity. Oh well...

**Traelin** · February 26, 2003, 16:42

Originally posted by Trifna
Traelin:

Personnally I do not really see a chasm between the theory of evolution and theology, Christianity: it may come from animal, but animal is animal and human is human. From a certain moment it wasn't animal to me. Where? I believe that from the moment it is able to chose between good and bad, and not only between "it hurts" and "I like it" it is capable of moral decisions thus responsible of what it does.

Trifna,

I agree with your point about the above-mentioned scientific theories and religion (well, at least with the one I know best, Christianity). As I said before, I feel math is the language of God. And math is ultimately the foundation for science, which is an extension or application of math. Although one has to be careful when dissecting certain scientific beliefs, because it is somewhat common to find biases in the data sets, the experiment conductors, etc. That's where it gets tricky.

Once I've conducted my own analysis of the theory/scientific experiment/whatever, as well as looked at the group of people who have contributed to it, is when I form my opinion. IMHO it's very difficult for me not to accept the Big Bang Theory, especially with the recent evidence posted in the Washington Post and scientific journals about 2-3 months ago. The same is true for Evolution. I mean if people like Einstein can accept certain theories and still maintain his religious beliefs, then that shows us something.

However, my personal belief is that humans have souls. Part of the soul is the conscience, which -- among many other things -- allows us to make morally correct decisions. That is what separates us from animals. No matter how intelligent animals may appear to be, they will never have the ability to go to Heaven or have morals. They can do some really cool things, but morality cannot be involved without a soul.

So that leads to my belief that animals and humans did indeed evolve (and continue to do so), but humans did NOT come from animals. Just my $.02, and my own personal belief.

**Traelin** · February 26, 2003, 16:49

Re: Evolution violence and rpg

Originally posted by Ripley1001
Violence within games. It appears that people on the forum are not concerned. Admittedly not if you are 13 years old ploughing your way through GTA III`s interesting scenario`s. For the rest of us, being run down by heroic joyrider types is not the ideal way to end a day. Anyone still believe there is no connection between games, films etc and the real world?

But is that the game's fault for "corrupting" a child, or is it the fault of the neglectful parent? In life we are tempted by many things that are "questionable" in nature. But an object cannot corrupt or kill on its own. It must have a human being who is able to wield it and use it for nefarious purposes. IMO I should not be penalized because of the lack of proper parenting for some "latch-key" kid, for lack of a better term. Punish the offender, not the inanimate object and certainly not me.

**Ripley1001** · February 26, 2003, 19:09

Re: Inanimate objects and Iraq

Originally posted by Traelin

Punish the offender, not the inanimate object and certainly not me.

I certainly see your point but I take issue with you on the bit about inanimate objects

Computer games are not inanimate objects. I have played Operation Flashpoint and come to the rapid conclusion that I will never willingly take part in a modern war. To be shot and killed by some idiot on my side or by an enemy I can`t see takes away any possible attractions that combat may ever have had. Others may react differently, but we are deluded if we think they do not have an effect, positive or negative or both.

My point is that media has an impact, games are powerfull because they are immersive and engage the mind in a way that television struggles to compete with.

How many people who play CIV3 are at the moment in favour of military action in Iraq. Has CIV3 contributed to this viewpoint. I would say, it inevitably has some impact. I would guess that playing CIV3 would for a number of reasons put CIV3 players in the pro war camp. If my guess is correct, then does CIV 3 make people more willing to settle international disputes through war. Does this make CIV3 more dangerous than the small-time stuff like GTA3.

I am actually pro some action in Iraq, now, but note the contradictions. I would`nt go there and fight myself. Is this the CIV3 in me talking?

**pedrojedi** · February 26, 2003, 21:17

Computer games are not inanimate objects.

Yes, they are. I tried talking to it for 5 minutes, didn't work at all. Not one sign of language or expression.

Computer games are not inanimate objects. I have played Operation Flashpoint and come to the rapid conclusion that I will never willingly take part in a modern war. To be shot and killed by some idiot on my side or by an enemy I can`t see takes away any possible attractions that combat may ever have had. Others may react differently, but we are deluded if we think they do not have an effect, positive or negative or both.

Well, you probably thought the same way before playing the game. Some people have a tendency to "bend" to certain media or propaganda, and usually are influenced by its information. Some time ago a friend of mine complained about "how US cinema is so lame, because all its movies are not based on stories, but on trailers or advertising". The movie in question was Spiderman. He went to the cinema to watch the movie in the end, but thoroughly explained and complained that "advertising made him go there, because all the curiosity he got when saw it."

Well, I had a simple answer: it is the advertising companies' work to "convince" people to go there and watch the movie. They showed it to him. He decided to go, based on the "advertising's arguments". The main point here is that it was NOT the publisher's fault that he went to see the movie. He made the decision. He payd the ticket. No guns pointed at his head.

It's the computer games industry "job" to make a game interesting and addicting. Through field research, it was concluded that most people who like gaming likes war games, shooting, sports...

If the person chooses to pick a gun and start shooting at people in the street, most probably it wasn't the games' fault because this person, in the first place, suffers of a lack of moral and intellect distinction between basic "right or wrong" things, things that are not supposed to be taught by a game, but by his parents and family, alongside society as a whole. So, he was "sick" before gaming, and the game was, at most, just a last "trigger", an excuse he accepted to let his feelings go. So strong as, for example, breaking up a relationship or losing a job. So, if there must be more control on gaming, maybe we should have more control over relationships and work relations.

I think, of course, that some games push the line a little further to what is "good gaming". A simulator about Delta Force is OK, but that other game (forgot its name) where the player is supposed to go out on streets and beat the c**p out of passersbies, like a gang or something, is just bad gaming.

I have the strong conviction that people have a bad tendecy to try finding outside somewhere things to blame about kids being so ourageous or serial killing. Most case reports show that the families of such kids, or the kids themselves, had some prior bad problems that affected them. But, of course, to look inside is very difficult.

**Ripley1001** · February 26, 2003, 22:12

Originally posted by Master Zen
I still don't understand why Christians refuse to accept the theory of evolution.

I would like to attempt an answer to this question.

Evolution is an interesting doctrine. It offers credibility and respectability to essentially self-interested activity. Survival of the fittest was embraced by the later Victorians in Industrial Britain. The poverty of the workers was explained by the "Survival of the Fittest" . I am rich you are poor because I am better than you. Superior even. The British Empire had at its heart a belief that the English race were superior, Evolution came along at the right time and met the needs of an Imperial nation. Nazi Germany were enthusiastic evolutionists. I am always suspicious of science which tells us what we want to hear.

Even today we are all the time seeing variations on a similar theme. Globalisation is a harsh master, but again, competition between nations and individuals is the working out of our implicit acceptance that the fittest will survive and take all. Greed is good, it is survival of the fittest.

So when I look at my TV screen and see fellow humans scratching around in the dirt I am re-assurred somewhere deep inside that this is a nateral phenomenon, a working out of nateral laws and I am not responsible.

What about value systems - well, evolution produced those systems to ensure the continuation of the human race. Value systems are evolutionary mechanisms to achieve certain evolutionary aims. We may dress them up with Gods etc but essentially it is just a trick to ensure procreation. We are after all just animals, we should not be surprised if we act ...like animals.

The message is clear, look after yourself and survive, the weak will die out or something.

Anyone yet figure out why some organised religions, and Christians in particular have a problem with evolution.

Evolution teaches progression and self improvement. Anyone who has played CIV3 or reads at all may have noticed zero improvement except in technology.

Without evolution we are lost, our economic system is based on competitive evolutionary principles and the freedom and wealth that technology has provided can now be harnessed in the security that we owe no-one anything not God, not even our fellow race members. The rest of life on earth can also take a running jump because they are simply being squeezed out of existence by a more successful organism.

The actual technical aspects of evolution as presented by our evolutionary experts are essentially; there is no God how else could we have got here. The evidence and theory changes regularly and is almost impossible to follow because of the great "complexity of the argument". You cannot hit a moving target. True or not we need it, proved or un-proved it underpins our whole consumer led value system.

To undermine evolution, attacks our self belief and our confidence. Without evolution we have to look at obligations maybe to a creator who may expect a little more from us than we want to give right now.

**Cyclotron** · February 26, 2003, 22:32

To be technical, that's Social Darwinism, not evolution. I wouldn't want to give anyone the impression that Darwin came up with or supported such nonsense.

**Ripley1001** · February 26, 2003, 22:37

Pedrojedi,
games TV and films contain ideas and concepts, they are not passive objects. In the UK there are strict laws on racial statements and some on pornography to protect children. Most people accept these laws because these "triggers" are thought to incite dangerous behaviour. That seems reasonable to me, these laws would also apply to the games industry, which again seems reasonable. Whoever is blamed for someones bad behaviour I think we both agree the individual is responsible.

**pedrojedi** · February 26, 2003, 23:41

games TV and films contain ideas and concepts, they are not passive objects. In the UK there are strict laws on racial statements and some on pornography to protect children. Most people accept these laws because these "triggers" are thought to incite dangerous behaviour. That seems reasonable to me, these laws would also apply to the games industry, which again seems reasonable. Whoever is blamed for someones bad behaviour I think we both agree the individual is responsible.

More important than games, films and TV are the concepts parents have. Those are the first ones everyone "assimilates" and the lasting ones for all life. Society plays its role on educational development of children and teenagers later on life, when the child goes to school, or to the local church, or maybe to a parents' friends meeting.

The media has an significant role to the formation of a child, but not near as important as parents' role.

Almost every western country has a body of law concerning about material shown on TV and films, with rates and stuff. It's made basically because the media is supposed to preserve the family values and society's morals and ethics. I think it does it pretty well. Today's families, however...

I'm not defending some kind of "liberate all now" campaign, but I think it's kinda of a hypocrisy people asking the government to have more control over society's rights and priviledges, while they cannot educate their own families and children.

It's like a parent saying to a school teacher that the disrespect (or violence) his son did to a fellow classmate is not the parent's fault, but school's fault, for not educating the child. I know this because I've heard this kind of idiotic statement.

In the end, we agree. The person should be blamed. But society should ask a little more about itself.

**pedrojedi** · February 26, 2003, 23:44

To be technical, that's Social Darwinism, not evolution. I wouldn't want to give anyone the impression that Darwin came up with or supported such nonsense.

Of course, if anyone said he did it so, his late bony corpse would surely turn and shake with revolt in its grave!!

**Master Zen** · February 27, 2003, 01:19

Re: Re: Inanimate objects and Iraq

Originally posted by Ripley1001

How many people who play CIV3 are at the moment in favour of military action in Iraq. Has CIV3 contributed to this viewpoint. I would say, it inevitably has some impact. I would guess that playing CIV3 would for a number of reasons put CIV3 players in the pro war camp. If my guess is correct, then does CIV 3 make people more willing to settle international disputes through war. Does this make CIV3 more dangerous than the small-time stuff like GTA3.

I am actually pro some action in Iraq, now, but note the contradictions. I would`nt go there and fight myself. Is this the CIV3 in me talking?

Well, it's a shame that you've gotten an negative effect out of Civ3. Unlike the previous games, conquest in Civ3 usually leaves a path of destruction and devastation. Just look at a city of 20 turned to 6 after being bombed by bombers and artillery.

**Master Zen** · February 27, 2003, 01:23

Originally posted by pedrojedi

If the person chooses to pick a gun and start shooting at people in the street, most probably it wasn't the games' fault because this person, in the first place, suffers of a lack of moral and intellect distinction between basic "right or wrong" things, things that are not supposed to be taught by a game, but by his parents and family, alongside society as a whole. So, he was "sick" before gaming, and the game was, at most, just a last "trigger", an excuse he accepted to let his feelings go. So strong as, for example, breaking up a relationship or losing a job. So, if there must be more control on gaming, maybe we should have more control over relationships and work relations.

couldn't have put it better myself. People like the Columbine shooters were screwed up waaay before they played Doom and listened to Marylin Manson. That these games might serve as triggers is probably, yet these people are just using an excuse, if it weren't the game, they'd find another trigger to do their wrongdoings.

**Master Zen** · February 27, 2003, 01:33

Originally posted by Ripley1001

Without evolution we are lost, our economic system is based on competitive evolutionary principles and the freedom and wealth that technology has provided can now be harnessed in the security that we owe no-one anything not God, not even our fellow race members. The rest of life on earth can also take a running jump because they are simply being squeezed out of existence by a more successful organism.

Then your countries shoudn't complain when they lose jobs in the thousands to sweatshop workers in Malaysia, when China eventually becomes the #1 economic powerhouse etc. It's evolution baby...

I think that mankind will only truly advance when the mentality that "I am naturally better than you" is forgotten and remember that like it or not, all 7 billion of us are equal and that no one has any right to dominate another, whether it be politically, militarily or economically. Unfortunately current events show that we still have the same mentality we had in 4,000 BC. Where's the evolution in that?

**Cyclotron** · February 27, 2003, 01:41

Originally posted by pedrojedi

Of course, if anyone said he did it so, his late bony corpse would surely turn and shake with revolt in its grave!!

He probably would have been horrified. It's a very unscientific interpretation of his theory.

**Traelin** · February 27, 2003, 02:41

Originally posted by Ripley1001
Pedrojedi,
games TV and films contain ideas and concepts, they are not passive objects. In the UK there are strict laws on racial statements and some on pornography to protect children. Most people accept these laws because these "triggers" are thought to incite dangerous behaviour. That seems reasonable to me, these laws would also apply to the games industry, which again seems reasonable. Whoever is blamed for someones bad behaviour I think we both agree the individual is responsible.

Ripley1001,

I disagree with your assessment of games, TV, etc. They are indeed objects that human beings can choose to use for good or for evil. It is the parents' job to ensure that the child is reared well and understands right from wrong. I guess I would be described as a social libertarian, I don't know. I've always had problems with people talking about monitoring the Internet, yanking games from store shelves, or things of that nature.

To be honest, the same type of things occurring in my country right now scare me a bit. I value my liberty highly, and I have serious problems with anyone who would use the umbrella of "security" to hamper those liberties. I understand there's a fine line between liberty and security, but our Founding Fathers addressed liberty time and time and time again. I think it was Ben Franklin who once said, "Those who are willing to give up liberty for a bit of security deserve neither liberty nor security." Don't quote me on that though, it could have been Patrick Henry who said that (it's been awhile since I read any Revolutionary history besides Jeffersonian politicking).

Again, just my opinion.

Announcement

"Civilization III is a Role Playing Game"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment