Support NeoGAF

[TLZ]

And who created whoever created said spark?

See, you think you have the ultimate answer for everything but all you do is creating more questions.

The real answer is, we don't know for sure. We know the Universe exists but we can't make any sense of it or how it started.

Maybe some day we will answer that but until then, a magical man who came out of nowhere isn't a logical answer.

I'm going to be blunt here while staying respectful.

Oh he exists. If y'all want to believe all the amazing systems we live in/with that could not be created from scratch by man or any creation nor even cloned was done by sheer coincidence.... Everything in and around us working in harmony, all by coincidence.... You're either playing a fool and you know he exists but you simply reject him because you don't want that all-powerful authority over you, and you think it gives you a false sense of freedom, or you are just ignorant about the whole thing and need to research if you want to actually know.

And you don't need to look hard. You just look at yourself and how you were made. Everything about you. Flesh, bones, soul, organs, etc.

And if we don't know/have the answer to some things, it doesn't mean those things don't exist. Then science would've fallen apart straight away. It just means we don't have that knowledge yet.

 

[Icymanipulator]

Talk about living under a medieval rock

 

[K2D]

I think there's a lot of games I couldn't be bothered to play, but none of them are for morality reasons.

People of faith being unable to play games due to the subjects matters - bless your hearts. Be thankful you don't wade through the darkness of the world.

Experiencing games that deals in questionable morality is cathartic..! It's like opening the valve of a pressurized tank. Like washing and dressing a wound.

Religious people will do and has done more harm to people in the name of god and faith and "good" than people going on mass killing sprees in games will ever do.

 

[LegendOfKage]

This is a resetera thread

If it were, it would be about shaming the developers into changing their game, and not wanting anyone to be able to play a game if it doesn't represent your subjective moral values and worldview. This is not that. This is a thread about personal choice.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

2. I bought CP77 day one on GOG, played like 1 hour, until I realized there is an occult stuff there, in regard to Tarot. Dumped game and never booted again. Shame since it looked attractive!

Even though I've heard a lot of supposedly good things about Disco Elysium. I don't think I'll ever touch it. I've heard it's made by a bunch of hardcore Stanlists/Marxists, and honestly I've just no interest in exposing myself to any of their diatribe.

I’m curious - what do you think will happen to you if you play those games?

I mean, not wanting to play because you don’t like the subject matter is one thing. But you are explicitly casting this as a moral matter. However, in these games, there is no-one around to possibly suffer any moral consequences except yourselves. So… what consequences are you worried about?

It is perfectly possible to prove something doesn't exist. One common way to do so is by contradiction. You can prove for example that a set that contains all sets that are not a member of themselves doesn't exist.

Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Biblical Contradictions

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by “reasoning” that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of...

www.atheists.org

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

What are your favorite Bible contradictions? See how many of yours are in this list. Topics: sin, women at the tomb, belief, seeing God, and God's rules.

www.patheos.com

Etc…

 

[Skifi28]

My morality code only allows me to play Bible games.

 

[checkcola]

Back in the day, I had a friend who got a Sega Genesis and wasn't allowed to keep Altered Beast by his parents. That's the only time I remember someone not playing a game for 'moral reasons.'

If it looks good, I'm fine paying money for it, I will play a game. That's how I roll.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Biblical Contradictions

It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by “reasoning” that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of...

www.atheists.org

Top 20 Most Damning Bible Contradictions

What are your favorite Bible contradictions? See how many of yours are in this list. Topics: sin, women at the tomb, belief, seeing God, and God's rules.

www.patheos.com

Etc…

The afirmation was "God doesn't exist", not "The Bible has contradictions"

 

[Puscifer]

The afirmation was "God doesn't exist", not "The Bible has contradictions"

Orthdox Christian here

I can tell you that it's a decision you're making to choose to belive in the Bible and tenats, even the batshit crazy stuff like Ark. Every religion has a buy in and I feel like a lot of Christians aren't willing to admit that on a lot of levels that this is something we're willing to choose to believe in vs something that has physical proof, were CHOOSING to believe in God, his mercy, heaven, etc

Anywho, Christ is Risen (indeed he is risen)

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

The afirmation was "God doesn't exist", not "The Bible has contradictions"

Lol

 

[R6Rider]

never

 

[Guilty_AI]

Lol

Lmao. I'm an atheist (or agnostic/whatever, dont care) and i find hilarious how little thought modern atheists put into these questions.

Such a simple thing to ask "can you prove god doesn't exist" with a fairly simple answer and explanation (and no, its not you can't therefore god), yet no one so far has been able to give a minimaly reasonable answer.

I cant help but think people just become atheists/agnostics these days cause its trendy.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Lmao. I'm an atheist (or agnostic/whatever, dont care) and i find hilarious how little thought modern atheists put into these questions.

Such a simple thing to ask "can you prove god doesn't exist" with a fairly simple answer and explanation (and no, its not you can't therefore god), yet no one so far has been able to give a minimaly reasonable answer.

I cant help but think people just become atheists/agnostics these days cause its trendy.

Ah, I misunderstood.

Yeah, plenty of people don’t believe in religion after giving it zero thought, whic frankly is the way it should be. You shouldn’t have to justify not believing in a god any more than justifying not believing in astrology, or Zoroastrianism, or Russell’s teapot, or whatever. Of course, much respect for people who do feel inclined to out that thought in.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Ah, I misunderstood.

Yeah, plenty of people don’t believe in religion after giving it zero thought, whic frankly is the way it should be. You shouldn’t have to justify not believing in a god any more than justifying not believing in astrology, or Zoroastrianism, or Russell’s teapot, or whatever. Of course, much respect for people who do feel inclined to out that thought in.

If giving zero thoughts about our origins and the beyond is the way things should be, then we are truly doomed.

 

[Kindjal]

I can't play Monster Hunter because is a game where you kill animals for no valid reason.
It's strange because I have no problem to exerminate animals in RPG to craft materials.

You do it to return balance to the environment and to prevent further ecologic catastrophes. Also for the loot.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I do think some imaginary actions do have a limit on what can be deemed morally acceptable. I mentioned hatred which is designed aroung being a mass murderer who is killing innocents people for revenge. Or some japanese light novels which push the boundaries of pedophilia. I don't think "its imaginary" is the end all be all for what personal line is.

That's certainly true. Something that setup a situation that was really creepy would probably result in a refund request. Most mainstream games will try to create a scenario that tries to make the playable character not seem as bad. Even in the Hitman example most of the targets are always underhanded criminals in their own right, which stopped the game from getting a lot of push back. Though there was that one mission where the bride had you take out her groom and her father so she get a big inheritance. Probably some other problematic ones in there as well.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

If giving zero thoughts about our origins and the beyond is the way things should be, then we are truly doomed.

I didn’t say that. But have you considered, carefully and in detail? Christianity? Islamist? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Sikhism? Greek / Roman / Norse Pantheism? Zoroastrianism? Mormonism? Scientology? How about Physics models? Standard model? Strong theory? M-theory? How well do you understand them? Which do you accept, which do you reject?

Everyone has a jumping-off point for their attempts to understand the world aroind them. Some people just have other shit to focus on. Others dive way, way down the rabbit hole… only to see that there are no answers down there anyway. And everyone, EVERYONE, at some point decides to just trust what someone else says.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I didn’t say that. But have you considered, carefully and in detail? Christianity? Islamist? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Sikhism? Greek / Roman / Norse Pantheism? Zoroastrianism? Mormonism? Scientology? How about Physics models? Standard model? Strong theory? M-theory? How well do you understand them? Which do you accept, which do you reject?

Everyone has a jumping-off point for their attempts to understand the world aroind them. Some people just have other shit to focus on. Others dive way, way down the rabbit hole… only to see that there are no answers down there anyway. And everyone, EVERYONE, at some point decides to just trust what someone else says.

Thing is, i didn't ask for a dissertation on any one of these topics, just a mere, simple, logical question you can think about over a cup of coffee. "Can you prove god doesn't exist?"

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Thing is, i didn't ask for a dissertation on any one of these topics, just a mere, simple, logical question you can think about over a cup of coffee. "Can you prove god doesn't exist?"

Fair enough.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

After having a kid, I can't really stomach the binding of isaac any more. It was one of my favorites for a long time.

Thing is, i didn't ask for a dissertation on any one of these topics, just a mere, simple, logical question you can think about over a cup of coffee. "Can you prove god doesn't exist?"

Blessed post.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Such a simple thing to ask "can you prove god doesn't exist" with a fairly simple answer and explanation (and no, its not you can't therefore god), yet no one so far has been able to give a minimaly reasonable answer.

Thing is, i didn't ask for a dissertation on any one of these topics, just a mere, simple, logical question you can think about over a cup of coffee. "Can you prove god doesn't exist?"

And you can't prove leprechauns don't exist. Should we all go around praying that leprechauns will leave us a pot of gold?

The problem is your question gets us nowhere. Because it's the person asserting a (big) claim who needs to provide evidence in reality that is supportive of their claim. You asking a disbeliever, who frankly hasn't posited a big claim, or often any claim at all, to prove a negative... well that means nothing. For lack of a better word.

Regardless of all that, the easy answer to your question is no, I can't. No one can. And no one needs to, they aren't making a big claim. I never claimed to have evidence "god" doesn't exist, or that such a statement is reflective of reality. But believers do make a big claim, and they do so without evidence. Big difference there.

 

[Rockondevil]

I have no morals.

 

[Guilty_AI]

And you can't prove leprechauns don't exist. Should we all go around praying that leprechauns will leave us a pot of gold?

The problem is your question gets us nowhere. Because it's the person asserting a (big) claim who needs to provide evidence in reality that is supportive of their claim. You asking a disbeliever, who frankly hasn't posited a big claim, or often any claim at all, to prove a negative... well that means nothing. For lack of a better word.

Regardless of all that, the easy answer to your question is no, I can't. No one can. And no one needs to, they aren't making a big claim. I never claimed to have evidence "god" doesn't exist, or that such a statement is reflective of reality. But believers do make a big claim, and they do so without evidence. Big difference there.

You think saying "god doesn't exist" isn't a big claim? Its as big of a claim as saying "god exists", and whoever says them shares equal burden of proof as the other.

To put it another way, compare the affirmation "You can't prove god doesn't exists, therefore it exists" to "You can't prove god exists, therefore it doesn't exist". They're both equally ridiculous and logically flawed.

 

[EruditeHobo]

You think saying "god doesn't exist" isn't a big claim? Its as big of a claim as saying "god exists", and whoever says them shares equal burden of proof as the other.

People shouldn't say that. They should say "there's no evidence A god exists". Because there isn't. That's the true neutral position of the skeptical atheist worldview -- rejection of the supernatural concept based on complete lack of demonstrated evidence within reality.

To put it another way, compare the affirmation "You can't prove god doesn't exists, therefore it exists" to "You can't prove god exists, therefore it doesn't exist". They're both equally ridiculous and logically flawed.

They are both logically flawed, but not equally flawed. Because one ends with the non-logical acceptance of a proposition for which there is no evidence... and one doesn't. So the one that doesn't do that is more right, logically-speaking, even if both are "wrong".

Just like saying "2 + 2 = 40" is less wrong than saying "2 + 2 = 400".

 

[THE DUCK]

Many Gafers here

This is too funny, what are they going to do if Sony or Nintendo buys another large software company, never play them either? Do they employ this with everywhere they eat and buy electronics/phones too?
TV? Did they stop watching Star Wars when disney bought Lucasfilm or Monster Inc when they bought Pixar? How about Marvel movies, did they stop then?

 

[Guilty_AI]

People shouldn't say that. They should say "there's no evidence A god exists". Because there isn't. That's the true neutral position of skeptical atheist position -- rejection of the supernatural concept based on complete lack of demonstrated evidence within reality.

Unfortunately thats exactly what the original person i quoted said. Always follow the thread of answers.

They are both logically flawed... but not equally flawed. Because one ends with acceptance of a proposition for which there is no evidence, and one doesn't. So the one that doesn't is the "winner", logically-speaking, even if both are "wrong".

They're both equally wrong because both affirm a proposition for which there is no proof or evidence, based on the lack of proof of their counter-proposition.

Just like "2 + 2 = 40" is less wrong than "2 + 2 = 400".

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, you'd shave off a mathematician's lifespan if you said this anywhere near them.

Both expressions are false. Thats it.

 

[Days like these...]

Moonwalker because wacko was a pedo

 

[mosantos]

RapeLay - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[EruditeHobo]

Unfortunately thats exactly what the original person i quoted said. Always follow the thread of answers.

Then he was wrong. He should have said the other thing.

But your question was answered, and it's an incredibly easy one to answer. There's no need to attempt to prove a negative, those asserting the reality of the existence of "a god" have the burden of proof requiring evidence. Flipping things to say "well do you have proof god DOESN'T exist?" goes nowhere, and isn't responsive to the ACTUAL neutral logical/skeptical position... ie, one which suspends belief in the supernatural until being shown that evidence for the supernatural exists within our shared reality.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, you'd shave off a mathematician's lifespan if you said this anywhere near them.

Mathematically, maybe they are just both wrong... That's fine, I'm super bad at math, and am definitely not a mathematician! But we're not talking mathematical proofs here; two statements like the two I gave can both be wrong and still not be equally wrong.

That remains true. Not mathematically, but logically.

 

[MafiaMurderBag]

That JFK assassination game that literally consists of looking through a scope and firing at JFK once you have good aim was a real WTF when it came out. I couldn’t believe they made something like that. I played it, tho…

I would never ever not play a game because of moral reasons. And god doesn’t exist.

The whole AAA gaming industry is really morally foul, anyway. All aspects of it.

As the saying goes, of your gonna judge a recording artist on their morals, you may aswell burn your own record collection.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

I wonder, would OP play Doom and Diablo because you’re killing demons, or would OP avoid both games because there are demons in them?

I remember my aunt made a huge fuss about Diablo when I was talking for some reason about a game I was obsessed with. I suppose my mother didn't know it meant devil in Spanish, I remember saying "no, it's okay - you're killing the devil". That memory will always stick with me for some reason.

 

[acidagfc]

Super Mario.

He promotes shrooms.



Even the Transformers don't know.

Mario curbstomps innocent animals while tripping balls on shrooms and chases a girl who clearly wants to be left alone.

And they sell this game to kids! Why won't anyone think of the children?

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

I didn’t say that. But have you considered, carefully and in detail? Christianity? Islamist? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Sikhism? Greek / Roman / Norse Pantheism? Zoroastrianism? Mormonism? Scientology? How about Physics models? Standard model? Strong theory? M-theory? How well do you understand them? Which do you accept, which do you reject?

Everyone has a jumping-off point for their attempts to understand the world aroind them. Some people just have other shit to focus on. Others dive way, way down the rabbit hole… only to see that there are no answers down there anyway. And everyone, EVERYONE, at some point decides to just trust what someone else says.

This is what baffles me - countless religions have come and gone, what convinces people that X is it? Endless gods have been birthed and have died in the mind of man over the course of time, so too will those at present one day be bound to a history book. Don't get me wrong - more power to you if that's what you're in to, but it's not for me. Does it mean I have all the answers? No, I don't know that we ever will and if we "do" it's going to be a long time coming. Last sentence is so right.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Flipping things to say "well do you have proof god DOESN'T exist?" goes nowhere.

Oh it does go places, unsurprisingly the same ones asking for proof of god do.

Mathematically, maybe they are just both wrong... That's fine, I'm super bad at math, and am definitely not a mathematician! But we're not talking mathematical proofs here; two statements like the two I gave can both be wrong and still not be equally wrong.

That remains true. Not mathematically, but logically.

Problem is, not only you're assign completely random conditions for what makes something "more" or "less" wrong, you're also missing the point of the question.

It is very much a boolean question. Either god exists or it doesn't, much like how those math expression can only be either right or wrong. There is no in-between, nor both can they be true and false, right and wrong, at the same time.

 

[Ribi]

No man's sky
Sea of thieves
Destiny
Cod

 

[HazukiSensei]

Hatred was a weird one for me.

But then again I played the shit out of state of emergency...

So anyway im on my second playthrough of Hatred for the platinum and theres some shocking stuff here guys.

 

[midasmulligan]

That's a misunderstanding of the concept of a big bang. Science educators may allude to such a scenario for simplicity sake, but no cosmologist or astrophysicist believes the series of events you describe.

It is extremely complicated but essentially, the "big bang" is just an artifact of incomplete knowledge. When you take what we can currently observe, apply our known laws of physics and hit the rewind button, it gets to a point where the math breaks down into a singularity. Singularities are not physically real objects, but a mathematical construct. Anytime a physicist encounters a singularity, that tells them that there are variables that are missing.

The idea that this singularity is some sort of real state that the early universe was configured in was adopted by people who actually never understood physics, and by the Catholic church. You will find real science educators use the term "big bang", but it is a metaphor for the earliest state of the universe that we cannot probe with our current incomplete understanding or the laws of nature. There is a reason the holy grail of physics is a grand unifying theory. We know our current two governing rules of the large and small are incomplete (General Relativity/Quantum Field Theory), so why would we believe the obviously flawed outcome that is derived from pushing these two concepts to their absolute extreme?

And as always, the argument you present "who created that spark" is easily dismissed with the question "who created the creator". That viewpoint leads to the inevitable chicken or egg scenario which is unanswerable.

lol, what are you on about? Ok, so like it’s super complicated, but like trust me it’s true and like the Catholics made it up? This guy, and Gödel would like a word with you.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

You think saying "god doesn't exist" isn't a big claim? Its as big of a claim as saying "god exists",

No. It’s as big a claim as saying “leprechaun’s don’t exist” or “Russell’s teapot isn’t real” or “unicorns don’t exist” or… you get the point.

You said you were asking a casual conversational question, then act as if every statement is bound by the most rigorous strictures of formal deductive logic. Within that context, no, you cannot make the claim that leprechauns do not exist. A sole reliance on deductive logic, though, demands that one ignore the flaws inherent within that system. Tempting though that might be to first-year Philosophy students, you end up looking like a fool for trying to claim that, no, you can’t outright deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

This is what baffles me - countless religions have come and gone, what convinces people that X is it? Endless gods have been birthed and have died in the mind of man over the course of time, so too will those at present one day be bound to a history book. Don't get me wrong - more power to you if that's what you're in to, but it's not for me. Does it mean I have all the answers? No, I don't know that we ever will and if we "do" it's going to be a long time coming. Last sentence is so right.

Time and geography have birthed more believers than logic and revelation combined.

It is very much a boolean question. Either god exists or it doesn't

Sure, but you’re not evaluating the nature of the universe, you’re evaluating the claim itself. And a claim can be more or less likely to to be true.

“This particular god exists” requires more assumptions than “no particular god exists”.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Oh it does go places, unsurprisingly the same ones asking for proof of god do.

But I’m here talking to you, and none of it is relevant to me. So… how is it going anywhere?

I didn’t assert god doesn’t exist, and I answered the question. That’s the end of that question’s usefulness, no?

Problem is, not only you're assign completely random conditions for what makes something "more" or "less" wrong, you're also missing the point of the question.

There’s nothing random about it. It’s true intuitively, even about my two wrong math equations example: one of those math statements is clearly “more wrong”… it’s off by a whole extra factor of 10!

Is 1 + 1 = 3 equally “wrong” as 1 + 1 = 341,724?

Either god exists or it doesn't, much like how those math expression can only be either right or wrong. There is no in-between, nor both can they be true and false, right and wrong, at the same time.

No one claimed otherwise. Same is true of vampires, and leprechauns, and gods which are incompatible with the judeo-Christian god.

Still doesn’t have anything to do with MY question, as someone that doesn’t believe based on a skeptical worldview — where’s the evidence supporting the statement “god does exist”?

 

[Kakax11]

Nier Automata, i don't need to explain why

 

[dreamcastluvr]

I don't think I've ever completely avoided a game based on morals, but I would never knowingly pay full price for a game that's been censored/ or regressively altered from a previous version. I usually wait until censored games are heavily discounted and/ or when there is a mod available that adds the censored stuff back in.

 

[Ploopmonster832]

Surprised I don’t see the new Harry Potter game mentioned more

 

[midasmulligan]

But I’m here talking to you, and none of it is relevant to me. So… how is it going anywhere?

I didn’t assert god doesn’t exist, and I answered the question. That’s the end of that question’s usefulness, no?



There’s nothing random about it. It’s true intuitively, even about my two wrong math equations example: one of those math statements is clearly “more wrong”… it’s off by a whole extra factor of 10!

Is 1 + 1 = 3 equally “wrong” as 1 + 1 = 341,724?



No one claimed otherwise. Same is true of vampires, and leprechauns, and gods which are incompatible with the judeo-Christian god.

Still doesn’t have anything to do with MY question, as someone that doesn’t believe based on a skeptical worldview — where’s the evidence supporting the statement “god does exist”?

Here ya go

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, you'd shave off a mathematician's lifespan if you said this anywhere near them. Both expressions are false. Thats it.

Apologies for the string of posts, but there’s a whole litany of bullshit to wade through here.

No, 2+2=40 is not the same as 2+2=400, and no mathematician would claim it is. Or do you believe that no mathematician will ever present a numerical answer based on an approximation of pi, e or any other of the vast array of irrational numbers? Is pi = 3.14159265 just as wrong as pi = 74?

 

[Northeastmonk]

I don’t get offended. DOOM saved me from religious hell growing up. There’s stuff I won’t play like Hatred where it’s mindlessly killing people without a cause. Playing GTA and running people over has a consequence. I love GTA because it has everything a big city would have.

I grew up with a mother who thought everything with murder or blood was Satanic or Demonic. Yet she still gave me money from her purse to go play Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct. I enjoy fiction and I enjoy the darker side of fiction (at times). Silent Hill puts me in a better mood because it’s relaxing to enjoy that part of psychological horror inside a spooky town.

 

[Krathoon]

I don't play war games.
I don't like GTA as much since you play a criminal.

 

[Chronicle]

Apparently, some of the women featured in this game turned out to be underage.

No doubt an xclusive. Cmon ms 15 will get you 20

 

[Rentahamster]

It is perfectly possible to prove something doesn't exist. One common way to do so is by contradiction. You can prove for example that a set that contains all sets that are not a member of themselves doesn't exist.

Yes, in that specific example you gave, it is possible to prove that something doesn't exist. However, the point of the initial objection was to point out how the other guy was commiting a logical fallacy by unreasonably shifting the burden of proof. While your statement is technically correct, it is irrelevant to the context of the conversation revolving around the idea of trying to "prove God doesn't exist".

Proving Non-Existence

Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove...

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.

If you can’t, X exists.

Example #1:

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

 

[Krathoon]

There was a time in the XBox and Gamecube days were they got a little X rated with The Guy Game and BMX XXX.