What happened to GR's professionalism?

I was generally disappointed with GR's review of Left Behind: Eternal Forces and their response to the mail they received. I always liked GR because they were tough on games and wouldn't let hype or titles get in the way of their reviews. However when I read the review for Left Behind: Eternal Forces, it seemed like GR went out of their way to insult my religion. Of course that's going to make people upset, and you went out of your way again to make fun of them with responses that sounded pretty immature. It doesn't matter that the game sucked or that you guys are atheist, it doesn't even matter that Duke clearly has something against people that believe in religion. You guys are writers for a video game site, not some political newspaper that slanders ideals they don’t believe in. I’m not really pissed off, I’m just trying to figure out what happened to GR’s professionalism.
 
we gave up on professionalism years ago. we kept losing it in the couch cushions, and even when we found it, we never had the right batteries.

seriously though, we are not gamespot. we are not here to drone on about every aspect of a game in a monotone. we're here to entertain as well as enlighten, and i'm just doing my job. the left behind review, the zelda review, and especially the zelda vs jesus mailbag have all been immensely popular.

as i assume you are an offended christian, you should consider that the fan mail i'm getting for zelda vs jesus outnumbers the hate mail 100 to 1. and it's from people of all faiths who still have a sense of humor.

you should look for yours, it's probably under the couch cushions.

d
 
Two threads in here about the same thing, posted by people who've never posted on the boards before.
Two people who do not have senses of humour.

And for the record, I am Catholic, I go to church on Sundays, I believe in God, etc etc -- and I still found it hilarious.
As Duke said... lighten up. GR has always been about doing good truthful reviews, and making you laugh at the same time.
 
I just think it's funny how the matter of Duke's intelligence is dragged up over a few jokes about LUNATIC CHRISTIANS. How are they even relative?! Steven Hawkings certainly isn't very amusing! Well, he isn't very witty.

Still, I have uncovered the fact that Mystical Ninja 2's continue screen features satan naked hula hoop dancing to some fast japanese techno with odd asian women sounds playing, all the while pulling bodybuilder poses. I believe, intelligence relative to sense of humour, one japanese programmer working for konami is in fact the messiah reborn. You're going to burn for not rectifying goemons C-.
 
Personally, I like the idea of Christianity much more than Atheism, although not as much as Nihilism (Ve believe in nothing, Lebowski!). We aren't trying to change minds or convince people their god doesn't exist, we just like funny stuff, and the idea that there's an old man in space who has to show people his butt (if he showed them his face their heads would asplode) when delivering important messages is very, very funny.
 
"a few jokes about LUNATIC CHRISTIANS"

You wouldn't agree that there are "lunatic Christians?"
I could go on about the Branch Davidians and how they burned a house full of frickin' children because God "said so," but I'm not here to argue about religion or try to make you believe something else.

The fact is is that the people who made this game were OBVIOUSLY lunatics because they tried to push people their biased facts and then try to sell christian rock music and all that crap, after you had ALREADY bought the game. Its basically one giant interactive adware program, except this time the ad is for Christians, which of course makes EVERYTHING better.
 
Joe_Dodson said:
Personally, I like the idea of Christianity much more than Atheism, although not as much as Nihilism (Ve believe in nothing, Lebowski!). We aren't trying to change minds or convince people their god doesn't exist, we just like funny stuff, and the idea that there's an old man in space who has to show people his butt (if he showed them his face their heads would asplode) when delivering important messages is very, very funny.

There really is no system or doctrine behind atheism. It's just an absence of belief in gods. Technically, agnostics and nihilists are also atheists.
 
Anasynth said:
Joe_Dodson said:
Personally, I like the idea of Christianity much more than Atheism, although not as much as Nihilism (Ve believe in nothing, Lebowski!). We aren't trying to change minds or convince people their god doesn't exist, we just like funny stuff, and the idea that there's an old man in space who has to show people his butt (if he showed them his face their heads would asplode) when delivering important messages is very, very funny.

There really is no system or doctrine behind atheism. It's just an absence of belief in gods. Technically, agnostics and nihilists are also atheists.

There is a difference. Basically an atheist denies theism and the existance of god, while an agnostic just doesn't think there is enough proof for any religions, including atheism.

The terms vary though, but I think this basically is the modern usage. At least atheism doesn't simply mean the absence of belief in god.

Correct me if I presented it too simply. When it comes to philosphy, it's always too simple...
 
Haydi said:
There is a difference. Basically an atheist denies theism and the existance of god, while an agnostic just doesn't think there is enough proof for any religions, including atheism.

The terms vary though, but I think this basically is the modern usage. At least atheism doesn't simply mean the absence of belief in god.

Correct me if I presented it too simply. When it comes to philosphy, it's always too simple...

Let me first state that, personally, I don't accept today's modern usage of the terms. They're distorted from the original etymologies and therefore ignore logic. Accepted use is, in my eyes, accepted misuse. The result is a horde of attributions that people associate with the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" despite their fallaciousness, offensiveness, and/or misplacement. The deviation from the clear-cut definitions just makes a mess. So with that said, know that this argument comes from that personal standpoint.

Theism is defined as the belief in deities, and it's a binary concept. If you don't have belief in deities, then you have an absence of belief. Hence "atheism". That does not equate to a denial of their existence, although many atheists also choose that route. Dressed down to its simplest and core meaning, atheism is just having no belief in gods. In that sense, every person is either an atheist or a theist. People like to think there's some "reasonable" middle ground, but there isn't, and such a thought largely derives from a misunderstanding of the terms. You either believe or you don't.

Gnosis is an entirely separate entity from theism. There is nothing about it that specifically pertains to deities. Simply put, gnostics claim certainty whereas agnostics do not. In the context of theism, it's an attributive tag that defines the nature of the belief (or lack thereof).

Gnostic theists claim certainty that a god or gods exist.
Agnostic theists remain uncertain, yet still hold belief.
Gnostic atheists outright deny the existence of gods.
Agnostic atheists can accept the possibility of gods, but think that belief in them is unwarranted.

Now, people can stick to modern usage if they wish. But the accuracy of these terms, purely from an etymology aspect, is undebatable. And from a social standpoint, I vastly prefer them to the Theist-Agnostic-Atheist continuum. Agnosticism has somehow come to carry a softer edge than atheism. There are many people that want to play some kind of safe middle ground with the former when they honestly are a part of the latter. The reason as to why isn't rocket science. The godless have been persecuted heavily throughout time. And while nobody in western civilization is receiving state-sanctioned execution in this day and age for their theistic preferences, social prejudice is still entirely prevalent. It's no wonder people wish to steer clear of associating themselves with something carrying such heavily negative connotations, despite how unjust they are.

"Agnostics are just atheists without balls" - Stephen Colbert

:) No serious intent behind that last bit, by the way.
 
^I do like the four terms you gave more than the ones in common use and I agree that modern terms are broken at the moment... I hope the correct terms catch on.

Just that the way they're currently used would equal agnosticism with agnostic atheism, which I agree isn't entirely true... Just wanted to point out that there are more than one ways to not believe, if it would've been unclear.


The term atheism does have too much of an anti-believer stamp on it at the moment. Most people don't realize how wide a term it is (It even sort of contains Buddhism and other religions that don't have deities). I think it often gives people some sort of negative image, like atheism is an attitude problem...(Damn those religious people!!!)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,686
Messages
270,775
Members
97,723
Latest member
mncraftmod
Top