Slashdot Mirror

If one believes there is no God, no ultimate Accountability, no one who can judge them, then it becomes that much easier to believe that might makes right ..

So in other words, a Christian who is considering going on a bloody gunfire rampage eventually decides against it .. not because he knows the pain and suffering that he will cause the victims and their families, not because he knows that he will be punished (right here! on Earth!) by the authorities, not because he knows that he will destroy people's lives .. no, it's because he is scared that an all-powerful god will "get him" in the afterlife. Do you people have any idea how frightening this argument is?

Now if you want to subscribe to the notion that "all atheists are godless immoral scum that must be butchered in accordance with the Scriptures," then be my guest. I do feel it is my duty, however, to point out that the notion is bullshit.

And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?

It's interesting that JK is keen to lay the blame for the deaths of many people killed in the name of religion at its door, yet (as implied by his comment above) he is unwilling to lay at the door of atheism the far greater number of deaths for which it is responsible.

How is atheism responsible for deaths? If you do not accept God, you can make no claim that one moral framework is any better than another. Therefore,you are perfectly within your rights to develop philosophies such as those of Stalin, Mao and Hitler, because any moral philosophy is as good as anyother. Their killing was a natural progression from their Godlessness - a far stronger link than that between Christianity and those who distort its message to one of murder.

So let's have no more of this "religion is responsible for more bloodshed and cruelty..." nonsense, please.

Gerv

If you want to look at a genuinely violent game (and I'm speaking here for informational purposes, not as an advocate of the anti-gaming movement), take a good look at the Counter-Strike mod for Halflife. The pacing, the models, the setting, the guns, the way people die, is all designed to model reality more closely than just about any other game on the market.

Counter-Strike is, I believe, the most played game on the net right now. Should there not, by alarmist accounts, be a rash of shootings? Or, at the very least, a rash of enlistments in the Marines, and Seals, and other special ops type groups?

Warmcat is exactly right about the nature of our desire to play games. It *is* catharsis. While Rummy and Asshole and Egyptian Ratscrew can serve one part of my brain, and Nomic works for me much of the time, sometimes a video game is a better release for whatever stress I'm feeling.

These are games. No matter how realistic they may seem at first glance, they are nothing more than loose isomorphisms. I do not play Counter-Strike to feed my desire to kill; I play Counter-Strike to feed my desire to engage in a tense and engaging teamplay experience and (on a good day) excel (sp?). I yell at the screen in frustration when I bugger up, not to voice my bloodlust. It must be recognized that gamers, even passionate gamers, are as a whole, passionate about gaming and not passionate about the content. Most QuakeX players don't sit down thinking, "Must kill...must fire rocket launcher..." any more so than Pac-Man players sit down thinking, "Must destroy godless undead creatures..."

Dr Venter said the technology could lead to custom microbes that have myriad practical and commercial implications such as to clean up toxic messes or to create renewable energy by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

SOUNDS LIKE SLAVERY TO ME!!!!! YOU GODLESS HEATHEN!!!!!

That's all fine and dandy, but I think that this is going to be done no matter who thinks it's bad - and for that reason, it's important that the "free" (speech :) world do it before the "insert godless evil empire here" does it - Imagine a world where only Hitler discovered Nuclear Weapons? Or only Russia developed the Hydrogen bomb from it's atomic bomb research?

Nobody said jack about what I concider to be the most henious of all human inventions - Genetic Warfare - e.g., don't like -insert group opposed to your moral views here-? Well, here's a nasty little bug that kills them and not "us". There were several announcements in previous months that many nations possess this capability, namely Israel, and I'm sure that the USofA has some nasties as well. There's a biological warfare research facility around Ottawa, Canada, too. Er, I mean, biological warfare countermeasures, that's it.

My point is that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to do this. I have this gut feeling that it's going to be easier than a lot of people think. The big discussion isn't going to be if. It's going to be who, for what, and why. Is life really all that special? I think that it might just be more aptly described as a propertly of Carbon, a branch of organic chemistry. That's my "moral" view on the topic - we're not so special, and little that humanity has done would change this in my view. We still butcher and kill babies in the name of "insert diety here". Are those the actions of enlightened, noble, beings?

Technology doesn't respect Morals, either. Individuals need to use technology in an ethical manner, and I don't see how a species that has thermonuclear, biological, and chemical weapons locked n' loaded is in any position to argue morals.

Let's use this technology to improve the condition of those living on the planet - and try to direct it's development so we don't all suffer. Sticking our collective heads in the sand wouldn't be such a bright idea.

Kudos..

I don't mean to slam you, but this is a really narrow viewpoint. There are whole religions that are Godless (like Buddhism and Taoism, for instance), yet often these have stricter moral codes than Christianity.

Accountability is entirely personal. Certainly you have heard a Christian lie before. The Religion does not make the person moral. Though religions do usually teach moral codes, it is not their primary function. The primary function of a religion is spirituality. It is usually believed that higher spirituality cannot be achieved without morality. It is a stepping stone on the path.

Being moral does not make you spiritual. If you are not spiritual, you are not necessarily immoral.

Make sense?


--Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates.

mm... godless heathens... that brings back fond memories of school ;)

- Rei

Someone might use this information to create harm...

Here's an analogy... Automobiles are considered almost essential to quite a lot of people. I know I would have a very tough time living without one. At the same time, that same automobile subjects me and my family to many risks. Thousands of people are hurt and/or killed by them every year in this country. Does this mean we should not have automobiles?

...leave it up to the almighty.

Hit the nail on the head with that one. Were I a religious man, I would find the HGP offensive. It goes against god.

Fortunately, I'm a godless heathen. Information is not evil.

cheers,

Islam and Hinduism are certainly not godless religions. In fact, Islam's god is essentially the same god as the christian and jewish god. Jesus is a major prophet is Islam, just not the son of a god...
Anyway, all religion is bunk. What makes christianity any more valid than the Roman or Norse or Celtic pantheon?

AOL is like Nintendo. Right now, AOL is saying "Oh, how horrible. These violent games are harming our children. Oh, for shame... the horror, the horror." If their rating or banning of games leads people to jump ship from their accursed network in large numbers, the way Nintendo's censorship of the original Mortal Kombat (a shallow game, but sort of funny in a Pythonesque way, I thought at the time. Of course, I've only played it one/two times, tops...) caused people to jump ship to Sega, they will give the customers what they want. Hence, just as Mortal Kombat II was just as gruesome on Nintendo as it was on Sega, AOL won't let everybody quit them so they can play Half-Life over on Microsoft Network.
As to the sims issue: Just about any useful knowledge can be applied to war in some way. Sims are used by police and the military (my Dad participated in a sim which was overseen by some CIA types in case the sixties riots turned into a full scale revolution), which was run between two rooms using an intercom system, a map and a board with markers representing police, rioters and civilians. Of course, my Dad was a police captain in a large Northeastern city, so it may have been useful for him... he had to run the police all the time. (Though it was only a 2 day seminar... in CA of all places, at least he got a trip out of it). I may like sims (well, I like some though not many) but they aren't very useful to me because I have no troops :)
However, it must be said that all this stuff about games being "killing simulators" started because of a man Lt. Col. David Grossman, whose wacky ideas involve American soldiers being brainwashed into zombie killing machines by eeevil games like Doom, but its OK because the troops are controlled by their superior officers. (An idea I find insulting to the soldiers of the US armed forces, both in its lack of truthfulness and the malevolence of its content if such an absurd idea were true.) However, when the evil profiteers at id (or wherever, they like to pick on id in particular) release these games on civilian children, it turns them into mindless uncontrolled killing machines. Unfortunately, the ravings of this lunatic have been picked up with an uncritical eye by much of the press, but we need to consider the original source.
The article on sims? Typical of a myopic political point of view that probably doesn't understand that a true lover of sims might enjoy playing as Vietnam during the Vietnam war, not because of sympathy for the Viet Cong but for the intellectual exercise of winning a war with a presumably weaker force that was fighting on its own turf. I think most sim gamers are interested in both sides of a conflict from a tactical perspective, and leave Gung Ho jingoism for when they play FPS's like Duke Nukem 3D. If this is left out of sim games, then maybe it is to prevent an outcry from ignorant US journalists who will say, "Look, it's a game where you get to play as Nazi Germany. This is a pro-Nazi game!" (or, if you prefer "Oh look, you get to play as Vietnam, they're trying to brainwash our kids into being godless commies!"), rather than a reflection of the desires of either the sim makers or their customers. Of course, sim games had their origins on sandtables and tabletops, and required two players (or creative solitare rules) so in the original "Battle of the Bulge" type games, one player had to be the Nazi's and one the Allies. I would imagine that for online sims, the same thing would have to be true. Any online sim gamers with comments? (My experience of war sims is limited to games like Shining Force... I'm afraid ;)

Hey, dt, you've never actually seen XNOT, have you?

Just a thought.

I'm sure I'm being a little bit too sensitive here, but to me it seems that Mr. dtype is implying XNOT couldn't reliably host a tea party for grannies. How very unkind. VA's got what, a quarter of a billion dollars behind it, and dt has to stop to point out he's bigger than me? Bite me, you godless communist.

OK, I think I've got all that out of my system. I'll stop flaming now, I promise.

- Cameron Wellock, the profoundly irriated sysop at XNOT.

Disclaimer: The author of this post was not in a rational state of mind at the time this posting was made.

Fact is, China has never instigated hostilities with anyone in the entire 6000 years of its history that was not Chinese, or thought of as Chinese by China (here I'm thinking of Vietnam and Tibet).

All of these attempts to make China out to be a threat to Our Way Of Life are not only paranoid, they are completely asinine. China only cares about China. It concerns itself with the rest of the world only when the rest of the world gets in its hair.

What the hell is the Alt-Control-Delete button? Is that some strange euphimism for the big red button President Clinton has on his desk that he uses to nuke the Godless Ruskies? Is this a thinly veiled threat from the democrats who are planning to shutdown -r now the USA? My god, what could they be up to? Perhaps they plan on logging into America's root! Or maybe President Gore will fsck America and send all the homeless into concentration camps! The possibilites are horrifyingly endless!

"Is it an earthquake? Is it the Godless Ruskie Commies(TM)? No! It's the power plant!"

This story should not have resulted in the incarceration of the child. It should have resulted in a parent conference. The school should have asked the parent about knowledge of or signs of drug abuse.

One of the problems out there right now, though, is parents who go ballistic whenever a school official suggests that their little darlings are leass than perfect. My mother works in a high school and they had an incident where a ring of students was selling copies of upcoming tests for profit. When the parents of the children who bought and sold the tests were brought in, several of them threatened to sue the school if they damaged these kids chances of getting into ivy league schools.

Parents do not seem to see that an unearned degree doesn't do anyone any good. Cheating doesn't improve things for anybody in the long run.

This is a halloween horror story. But the horror is the inarticulate writing, the unimagintive substitution of gore for fear, and the fact that a 13-year-old is fully literate in the drug culture.

Something should have been done for this young man a long time ago. Someone should have rewarded his diligence and been disappointed in his laziness. Someone should have been proud of him.

I don't know the particulars here, but freedom is not a right of childhood. It is not and it shouldn't be. Parents and educators should have both a right and a obligation to constrain the behaviors of the young. The young should have the right to try and get away with everything they can. That's what the passage into adulthood is, the establishment of a unique identity that knows that society is bound to him and he to society. I don't mean blind, mindless obedience, I mean enlightened self-interest.

Nihilism and self-destruction seem to have replaced optomism and cooperation. I don't know why, but I do know two things that should NOT be done about it:

1) Children should not be treated as criminals because they have the irresponsibility of youth.

2) Children should not be allowed to run wild, doing whatever they please, saying whatever they please without regard to how it affects others.

The condescending and paranoid adult attitudes towards the young dovetail neatly with the arrogant, disrespectful, "serve me now" attitude that the young seem to display towards educators.

The combination is a formula for disaster.

A 13-year old doesn't know that he will die. He WILL die. When he dies, everything stops. If he loves, everything he loves will one day be lost. Time is short, life is so precious, and we are teaching our young to waste it by being callous, unfeeling, indifferent, nonchalant, self-centered, nihilistic, and bored. The worst thing a young person can be is passionate.

The sad thing to me is that I think it is the ones who deep in their hearts know that life is a magnificient, intoxicating, awesome thing, those who have shown their caring and vulnerable hearts cautiously and tentatively to others, who have had their deep feeling and thought mocked and belittled. They are the ones most harmed. They are the ones most likely to be unable to live with this world that seems not have a heart. They are the ones most harmed by the "paranoid adult" attitude that so rankles Katz and company.

The problem is that the adults can't tell the difference between those alienated children and the others who definitely do exist. Those whom we have made sociopaths. Those who take pleasure only in cruelty. Who have known only the tenderness of the blue flickering phosphor tube, those who have been held in human arms so rarely that they are scarecely aware of the absence. Those who cannot see others as feeling beings because they no longer are.

You see, they've learned that the only love they've had, that flickering phospohor tube, only wants to sell them something. It doesn't love them either.

We need to ask ourselves (those of us here old enough to be parents) what we are doing by bring a child into this world and raising them this way.

I'm going to quote from what I think may be one of the most important films of all time, a film made in the mid-1970's called Network. Watch it. Feel it. Make it a part of you.

"...because fewer than 8% of you people read books. Because fewer than 15% of you people read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what comes to you over this tube. Right now there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the Gospel. The Ultimate Revelation. This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers, this tube is the most awesome goddamned force in the whole godless world, and that's why woe is us...

"So, you listen to me! Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamned amusement park. A traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, jugglers, and football players! We're in the boredom killing business! So, if you want the truth, go to God. Go to your gurus. Go to yourselves because that's the only place you're ever gonna find any real truth. Man, you're never gonna get the truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We'll tell you that Kojak always gets the killer, and that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker's house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, just look at your watch, at then end of the hour, he's going to win. We'll tell you any shit you want to hear.

"But YOU people sit there, night after night, day after day; We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the lies we're spinning here. You're beginning to believe that television is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube. This is mass madness you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing, we are the illusion!

He proceeds to chant "Turn off your television sets, turn them off, turn them off and leave them off, turn them off!"

The screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky, had something important to say, I think...

I've rambled here. I haven't been exactly on point, but I'm concerned. I think our society is deeply sick and the problems of youth seem to me to point only at it getting worse. I don't think youth is to blame. Quite the reverse. We are for overcoddling, indulging, being fearful of the rebuke of parents, courts, lawyers. We don't hold children accountable when they're young and ready for moral learning, so we abuse them when they're adolescents and either (as I think most of them are) just awkward and searching for themselves, but basically just fine, or they are that tiny minority of true sociopaths, and its already too late for them. So we abuse the sensetive because we fear them, and we continue to let media and consumer culture raise our young because we are too busy making money to buy crap ourselves.

I don't know the way out.

I don't know what to do.

Read about the 'Pascal's wager' argument to find out why he was a christian. You might be surprised...

I'm not a Christian, or an atheist, but I think he's right. Atheism is believing that there is no god, agnosticism is believing that there might or might not be a god but you don't know.


Main Entry: atheism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Sorry, the preview button didn't work so I forgot it was all getting munged together.

IMHO one of the most provocative films in recent memory. And, IMHO, he is dead on.

What follows is my (take on) religion for today. Triangulated somewhere between between sober dissertation and bong-load revalation, psychic meditation and mental masturbation:

I encourage all to read Dr. Boyd's "spiritual warfare" article on the eternalwarriors page. (preferably before reading the rest of this. Although we come from vastly different theological viewpoints, it's a pretty damn well written paper. Just tell the boss you're researching a new market.) In the beginning he reveals the seemingly paradoxical nature of spiritual free agency in the bible - there is only "One God" with a capital 'G,' yet there are many references, in both testaments, to a large number of spiritual free agents - angels, demons, etc. Interpreted literally, THESE AGENTS HAVE FREE WILL and are therefore prone to the same error and moral ambiguity as the rest of us (he describes one biblical passage as God "reaming out" less-than-competent subordinates.) Dr. Boyd goes on to cast Christianity in a decidedly non-platonic light - that is, while God has a Plan, free agents are perfectly able to screw up his Plan (and there isn't necessarily some perfect world where his Plan went right, either.)

I found the description rather refreshing, because it is one of the few "Christian" theological viewpoints I've heard that addresses the polytheistic aspect of Christianity. It's really not that far from some traditions (e.g. parts of Eastern, Pagan, and Native American spirituality) which posit a whole sort of spiritual ecosystem. I guess it's actually closer to Catholic mysticism, since the context seems very bi-polar - you're either on "the side of" God or the Devil. Still, the picture painted by Dr. Boyd is of a big, dynamic, exciting spiritual world, in which, even if there is an absolute right and wrong, the participating free agents don't have all the data, and therefore can't always make the 'right' decision.

I think Dr. Boyd's paper offers a glimmer of hope, an intellectual avenue between Christians and non-Christians. After all, WHY did God create this diverse array of creatures with Free Will, if not to enjoy the DIVERSITY of their forms? This diversity can best be enjoyed if these entities help each other to reach their full potential, rather than using their energies to destroy (negate) each other. "Evil" in this sense can be defined as this destructive impulse, this Thanatos Drive.

In our multicultural society, we are exposed to countless ideas of what it is to be "good," "right," "just," "human," etc. Often these ideas contradict each other, so they "fight" for memonic supremacy. Our minds are a constant battleground of memes... and since memes can be transmitted from mind to mind, and can sometimes drastically alter our behavior (lead to epiphanies, crises, etc.) is it not perhaps fit to speak of them as "spiritual?" And it is obvious that some memes are destructive to the rest of the human personality (e.g. abuse, addiction, fascism - note that I don't necessarily include the more "primal" memes such as anger) Is it not fit to speak of them as "evil agents?" What practical difference does it make, whether the "daemon" that is prompting you to take a destructive action is external or internal (literally, memory-resident.) You still need to kill, or at least banish (re-nice?) it to take a more positive action.

I believe that our spirituality is, first and foremost, how we make the material world seem "real" to us, how we make ordinary events seem "meaniful" by referring to them from the point of view of something greater and more permanent. Modern knowledge of the universe points to many things that are greater and more permanent than ourselves (although it can not yet ascribe any of them consciousness, it certainly gives plenty of room for more powerful beings, with a universe billions of light-years across, more than 4 dimensions in this universe, and any number of ways in which "our" universe isn't necessarily the only one. Any number of cosmologies which permit true infinity are now at least viable.

Obviously, the notion of Spiritual Warfare can be interpreted in very destructive ways by narrowminded people. But isn't narrowmindedness one of the very memes / demons we must struggle against? "By their fruits you shall judge them," and I believe that it is blazoned across some part of our humanity, our soul, that narrowmindedness leads to destruction, death, evil, bad karma, whatever you wanna call it. Evil is the misery, the despair, the stifled dreams of THIS world. Good is our attempts to "slip the surly bonds of earth, and touch the face of God."

Modern technology is giving us the means to do just that - as well as the means to make the earth a living hell. Each of us must fight for control of our own lives and minds. There are many obstacles in the way, and many entities that don't necessarily want us to succeed. Whether they inhabit the dark recesses of our minds, the dark side of the moon, or some other "plane" of existence, THEY ARE REAL. Whether they were created by some supreme being and "fell from grace," or merely arose from the frustration of fallible people dealing with a harsh physical world, THEY ARE REAL. If we sit back and do nothing, they will eventually destroy us.

But if we wake up and smell the napalm, we might see that we can do a lot, individually as well as collectively. You all know what to do: stop complaining about your own problems and start doing something about them. Forget your machines: upgrade yourself. Strive to increase your bandwidth, spiritually, intellectually, socially, politically, physically, sexually (note that "financially" isn't in the list - once you start seeing money as an end rather than a mean you've pretty much given up.) Help others, love others, teach others, learn from others. Do all the other corny, warm-fuzzy things you know are right. Create islands of sanity in the midst of all this chaos. Create theories which simplify our complex lives, without sacrificing coherence with observed reality. Get in touch with your body, your mind, your neighbors, your neighborhood, YOUR universe. The more you do this, the more you will be in touch with the reality of the conflicts which surround us, and the more you will be able to take actions which are effective in shaping the future.

That's what spiritual warfare means. Be a soldier, even if you're a pacifist. Be a man, even if you're a woman. Be a woman, even if you're a man. Be all you can be, which is a lot more than most of us think. Have the foresight to realize that YOUR best path is not necessarily the one which gets the most immediate rewards. Follow many paths, listen to the voices of history.

I realize how corny all this shit sounds. But that's the whole POINT: statements of POWER and TRUTH are as old as the mountains, hence not copyrightable. Thus they get lost in the ones and zeroes of daily life. Their signal must be amplified if we are to remain WHOLE, COMPLETE, AUTONOMOUS free agents rather than merely being interchangeable hyper-efficient binary decision makers. Spirituality has traditionally served the purpose of reminding us who we are and what we're here for. This is the last thing that science seeks to do (quite literally - maybe if we "figure out" everything else we'll see the meaning of meaning too... but I wouldn't hold my breath) Corporate capitalism won't help - after all, if we're whole, complete people we have less needs to be filled by product. Government long ago abandoned any pretensions of spiritual leadership, and the political wing of the Religious Right is appealing to the lowest common denominator - fear rather than spirituality. Some would argue that a majority of mainstream religions have also followed this road.

So we NEED spirituality, but can we TRUST religion? Perhaps - if that religion has returned to its original purpose of supporting our struggles against the evils of this world. As Dr. Boyd said in his paper, all too often religious leaders have served to keep us passive.

What we really need is a system of dialogue between those of various traditions, FOCUSED on the application of spirituality to the problems of THIS world. There are a large number of AFFIRMATIVE ideals (e.g. respect for human life, belief in human dignity, respect and stewardship of the earth) which almost all traditions, from Anglicans to Zorastarians, pretty much hold in common. If there was a coalition that really embraced those ideals, it could be a strong force, politically as well as spiritual, providing a real alternative to the PROHIVITIVE, restrictions policies of the CC. It could defend reasonable people whom the CC has defined as "godless" because of their lack of adherence to some specific dogma. It could field candidates of its own, taking the REAL moral high ground and thereby revitalizing REAL spiritual dialogue in this country. It could encourage more compassionate, understanding foreign policy, restoring America's moral legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It might even lead to a government that Americans would be willing to trust again, finally making possible solutions to social problems we have all but given up on.

Phew! That's a rather long tirade. Congratulations to anyone who made it through (moderators, you DID read the whole thing before giving it an offtopic rating, didn't you?) Just so you know I wasn't totally wasting my time, part of this will probably make it into a term paper someday soon. So let me know how you felt (email roos@stanford.edu) I'm serious about all of this. There is a huge spiritual potential within us all that is ignored by most organized religions and totally negated by much of our capitalist media-orcracy. I only hope that that power is harnessed by responsible leaders, not cultish demagogues. Please e-mail any interesting links along these lines you might have... I might turn it into more than a term paper.

Oh, and as for the game: looks kinda low-budget, but I'd give it a shot if there's a demo. And yeah, that angel *does* kinda look like it's smokin' a big spliff...

and our Great Depression is our Lives. So says the protagonist of "Fight Club," IMHO one of the most provocative films in recent memory. And IMHO, he is dead on. What follows is my (take on) religion for today. Triangulated somewhere between between sober dissertation and bong-load revalation, psychic meditation and mental masturbation: I encourage all to read Dr. Boyd's "spiritual warfare" article on the eternalwarriors page. (preferably before reading the rest of this. Although we come from vastly different theological viewpoints, it's a pretty damn well written paper. Just tell the boss you're researching a new market.) In the beginning he reveals the seemingly paradoxical nature of spiritual free agency in the bible - there is only "One God" with a capital 'G,' yet there are many references, in both testaments, to a large number of spiritual free agents - angels, demons, etc. Interpreted literally, THESE AGENTS HAVE FREE WILL and are therefore prone to the same error and moral ambiguity as the rest of us (he describes one biblical passage as God "reaming out" less-than-competent subordinates.) Dr. Boyd goes on to cast Christianity in a decidedly non-platonic light - that is, while God has a Plan, free agents are perfectly able to screw up his Plan (and there isn't necessarily some perfect world where his Plan went right, either.) I found the description rather refreshing, because it is one of the few "Christian" theological viewpoints I've heard that addresses the polytheistic aspect of Christianity. It's really not that far from some traditions (e.g. parts of Eastern, Pagan, and Native American spirituality) which posit a whole sort of spiritual ecosystem. I guess it's actually closer to Catholic mysticism, since the context seems very bi-polar - you're either on "the side of" God or the Devil. Still, the picture painted by Dr. Boyd is of a big, dynamic, exciting spiritual world, in which, even if there is an absolute right and wrong, the participating free agents don't have all the data, and therefore can't always make the 'right' decision. I think Dr. Boyd's paper offers a glimmer of hope, an intellectual avenue between Christians and non-Christians. After all, WHY did God create this diverse array of creatures with Free Will, if not to enjoy the DIVERSITY of their forms? This diversity can best be enjoyed if these entities help each other to reach their full potential, rather than using their energies to destroy (negate) each other. "Evil" in this sense can be defined as this destructive impulse, this Thanatos Drive. In our multicultural society, we are exposed to countless ideas of what it is to be "good," "right," "just," "human," etc. Often these ideas contradict each other, so they "fight" for memonic supremacy. Our minds are a constant battleground of memes... and since memes can be transmitted from mind to mind, and can sometimes drastically alter our behavior (lead to epiphanies, crises, etc.) is it not perhaps fit to speak of them as "spiritual?" And it is obvious that some memes are destructive to the rest of the human personality (e.g. abuse, addiction, fascism - note that I don't necessarily include the more "primal" memes such as anger) Is it not fit to speak of them as "evil agents?" What practical difference does it make, whether the "daemon" that is prompting you to take a destructive action is external or internal (literally, memory-resident.) You still need to kill, or at least banish (re-nice?) it to take a more positive action. I believe that our spirituality is, first and foremost, how we make the material world seem "real" to us, how we make ordinary events seem "meaniful" by referring to them from the point of view of something greater and more permanent. Modern knowledge of the universe points to many things that are greater and more permanent than ourselves (although it can not yet ascribe any of them consciousness, it certainly gives plenty of room for more powerful beings, with a universe billions of light-years across, more than 4 dimensions in this universe, and any number of ways in which "our" universe isn't necessarily the only one. Any number of cosmologies which permit true infinity are now at least viable. Obviously, the notion of Spiritual Warfare can be interpreted in very destructive ways by narrowminded people. But isn't narrowmindedness one of the very memes / demons we must struggle against? "By their fruits you shall judge them," and I believe that it is blazoned across some part of our humanity, our soul, that narrowmindedness leads to destruction, death, evil, bad karma, whatever you wanna call it. Evil is the misery, the despair, the stifled dreams of THIS world. Good is our attempts to "slip the surly bonds of earth, and touch the face of God." Modern technology is giving us the means to do just that - as well as the means to make the earth a living hell. Each of us must fight for control of our own lives and minds. There are many obstacles in the way, and many entities that don't necessarily want us to succeed. Whether they inhabit the dark recesses of our minds, the dark side of the moon, or some other "plane" of existence, THEY ARE REAL. Whether they were created by some supreme being and "fell from grace," or merely arose from the frustration of fallible people dealing with a harsh physical world, THEY ARE REAL. If we sit back and do nothing, they will eventually destroy us. But if we wake up and smell the napalm, we might see that we can do a lot, individually as well as collectively. You all know what to do: stop complaining about your own problems and start doing something about them. Forget your machines: upgrade yourself. Strive to increase your bandwidth, spiritually, intellectually, socially, politically, physically, sexually (note that "financially" isn't in the list - once you start seeing money as an end rather than a mean you've pretty much given up.) Help others, love others, teach others, learn from others. Do all the other corny, warm-fuzzy things you know are right. Create islands of sanity in the midst of all this chaos. Create theories which simplify our complex lives, without sacrificing coherence with observed reality. Get in touch with your body, your mind, your neighbors, your neighborhood, YOUR universe. The more you do this, the more you will be in touch with the reality of the conflicts which surround us, and the more you will be able to take actions which are effective in shaping the future. That's what spiritual warfare means. Be a soldier, even if you're a pacifist. Be a man, even if you're a woman. Be a woman, even if you're a man. Be all you can be, which is a lot more than most of us think. Have the foresight to realize that YOUR best path is not necessarily the one which gets the most immediate rewards. Follow many paths, listen to the voices of history. I realize how corny all this shit sounds. But that's the whole POINT: statements of POWER and TRUTH are as old as the mountains, hence not copyrightable. Thus they get lost in the ones and zeroes of daily life. Their signal must be amplified if we are to remain WHOLE, COMPLETE, AUTONOMOUS free agents rather than merely being interchangeable hyper-efficient binary decision makers. Spirituality has traditionally served the purpose of reminding us who we are and what we're here for. This is the last thing that science seeks to do (quite literally - maybe if we "figure out" everything else we'll see the meaning of meaning too... but I wouldn't hold my breath) Corporate capitalism won't help - after all, if we're whole, complete people we have less needs to be filled by product. Government long ago abandoned any pretensions of spiritual leadership, and the political wing of the Religious Right is appealing to the lowest common denominator - fear rather than spirituality. Some would argue that a majority of mainstream religions have also followed this road. So we NEED spirituality, but can we TRUST religion? Perhaps - if that religion has returned to its original purpose of supporting our struggles against the evils of this world. As Dr. Boyd said in his paper, all too often religious leaders have served to keep us passive. What we really need is a system of dialogue between those of various traditions, FOCUSED on the application of spirituality to the problems of THIS world. There are a large number of AFFIRMATIVE ideals (e.g. respect for human life, belief in human dignity, respect and stewardship of the earth) which almost all traditions, from Anglicans to Zorastarians, pretty much hold in common. If there was a coalition that really embraced those ideals, it could be a strong force, politically as well as spiritual, providing a real alternative to the PROHIVITIVE, restrictions policies of the CC. It could defend reasonable people whom the CC has defined as "godless" because of their lack of adherence to some specific dogma. It could field candidates of its own, taking the REAL moral high ground and thereby revitalizing REAL spiritual dialogue in this country. It could encourage more compassionate, understanding foreign policy, restoring America's moral legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world. It might even lead to a government that Americans would be willing to trust again, finally making possible solutions to social problems we have all but given up on. Phew! That's a rather long tirade. Congratulations to anyone who made it through (moderators, you DID read the whole thing before giving it an offtopic rating, didn't you?) Just so you know I wasn't totally wasting my time, part of this will probably make it into a term paper someday soon. So let me know how you felt (email roos@stanford.edu) I'm serious about all of this. There is a huge spiritual potential within us all that is ignored by most organized religions and totally negated by much of our capitalist media-orcracy. I only hope that that power is harnessed by responsible leaders, not cultish demagogues. Please e-mail any interesting links along these lines you might have... I might turn it into more than a term paper. Oh, and as for the game: looks kinda low-budget, but I'd give it a shot if there's a demo. And yeah, that angel *does* kinda look like it's smokin' a big spliff...

Well, he almost had me going until he called The Simpsons an agent of Satan. Is it just me, or are video games the wrong medium to use to try to "save souls"? Personally, I play them to have fun, not to learn how to redeem myself in the Lord's eyes. I guess I just can't figure out how I'm going to learn how to morally redeem myself by blasting a bunch of demons. As much as we would all like to do that in real life, it's not a very practical lesson. If we are going to "straighten out" todays youths (since the youths and their godless constructs are always the reason for social degredation) maybe we shouldn't be promoting violence at all, even if it is "morally right" violence. I believe that there were a few crusades that sang the same tune. If you are looking to "redeem" your soul, read the Bible, help out in a soup kitchen, donate your time to helping others. Don't be "shown the light" from a video game. They're meant to be fun, and it's dangerous to try taking any message out of them.