Civ 4 Music With Lyrics. Yes.

By Kieron Gillen on September 26th, 2010 at 12:25 pm.

Ghandi!

Quite a few people have pointed us at this, and I suspect most of ‘em got it from Kotaku, so let’s give ‘em a link. Brentalfloss adds his own lyrics to the always atmospheric Baba Yetu theme tune from Civ 4. Watch below!

Also, it’s apparently properly endorsed by the original composer Christopher Tin, who you can buy his music from here.

I may start re-playing Civ4 actually, to sort of cement myself in the position of elderly luddite of RPS.

__________________

« | »

, .

135 Comments »

  1. Jesus says:

    Baba Yetu already has lyrics.

    • CMaster says:

      That’s what I was thinking.
      This is funny, but inevitably a lot of the lyrics feel pretty forced.

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      I just looked up the original lyrics and it’s just a load of religious trash.

      http://mwanasimba.online.fr/E_songs_baba_yetu.htm

      I prefer the new version. :D

    • TCM says:

      It’s the Lord’s Prayer in Swahili.

      Calling it religious trash is, at best, insensitive.

    • Grandstone says:

      @Kurt Lennon

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtoNHnR_WhE&feature=fvst

      What a load of religious trash.

    • Vinraith says:

      @TCM

      Calling it religious trash is, at best, insensitive.

      Personally I’d call it “painfully ignorant,” and that’s speaking as an atheist. Why many non-religious folks feel the need to toss the cultural baby out with the dogmatic bathwater is beyond me.

    • Grandstone says:

      Having thought it over, my response to Kurt Lennon was intemperate and silly besides. His problem was with the lyrics, not the music. It’s common to like a piece of music without even noticing the words.

      Sorry, Kurt. I should have posted this instead, so as not to confuse the issue:

      http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/sonnet10.php

    • Tei says:

      A big part of the art is religious, because is a good motive for some people, and because the religious power accumulate wealth, so is the one that can paid artist. You can see religious art as the marketing of the religious bodies. A cathedral is somewhat like the skyscrapper of a corporation, a phisical demostration of power.

      My problem with that is originality. If you visit a museum, like El Prado (Madrid) is somewhat boring because you see 1 billion of times jesus on the cross, so gets boring. On the other part, you can get some pop enjoyment from it: you see the same theme recreated by different artist, so the artist personal style gets obvious. Is like… If you managed to get Heavy (from TF2) get painted by all the artist of the world over 2000 years, it will be really interesting to analize the artistic styles.

      Calling it “trash” is insensitive. You could have said “Cultural Humus”.

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      @Vinraith

      “Why many non-religious folks feel the need to toss the cultural baby out with the dogmatic bathwater is beyond me.”

      Ha. Good way of putting it. You win an explanation..

      It’s for the same reason that I stopped singing nursery rhymes at a young age. There’s no magic for me in hearing people sing/write about the sheer, joyous wonder of something that isn’t real. The only reaction I can muster is something close to “awww… they think it’s real… how cute”.

      Luckily there are a great many amazing and beautiful things that invoke feelings of amazement and have that all important factor (well, important to some people) of actually existing.

    • Psychopomp says:

      So, what you’re saying is that our ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe is somehow inferior to your equally ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe?

      http://myfacewhen.com/i/472.gif

    • Tei says:

      The religion notion is inferior, IMHO, because is irrational. Theres not profs of such explanation of the universe. Also, there’s the visible historical creation of the idea of gods, and all the religions. All the religions we have nowdays are newer than 4000 years. All are resent, with a start similar to the Scientology, are creations from humans as a way to gather powers from other gullible people.
      The reason people embrace religion, is lack of maturity, so the people that is strongly religious, seems infantil to me. Accept it, we will die, and will be forever, is too much to accept for most people, so use religion to hide from this very simple fact of life. Infantil, cowards, choice your words. Atheism is a more valiant and realist acceptation of the world, we dont hide false creations like gods and suchlike nonsense.

    • TCM says:

      I’m a fundamentalist Christian — and arguing religion on the internet will go nowhere forever.

      Suffice to say it’s impossible to find complete and absolute proof of anything — God, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. People will believe different things, based on their upbringing, their sensabilities, etc. It is impossible to convince anyone about anything regarding one’s beliefs — or lack thereof — unless you know each other, and are discussing things face to face.

      It’s perhaps a bit annoying to be labelled as infantile or cowardly, but I have entirely too much love for the raw awesome that is Tei to bother arguing!

    • Tei says:

      TCM, you have me on a too high standard.

    • Vinraith says:

      There’s no magic for me in hearing people sing/write about the sheer, joyous wonder of something that isn’t real.

      That rather narrows one’s cultural landscape, I’d imagine. As to “people believing it’s real,” people believed Greek mythology was real but that doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the stories and art that are a product of it, indeed the level of cultural impact as a result of said belief makes those cultural elements that much more interesting and engaging. Regardless of whether a person believes in the Christian God, one can hardly dismiss the art, music, and literature of hundreds of years. This is a phenomenon that’s had impact on western society at every possible level. I mean, how many books, movies, and even games that have absolutely nothing to do with god still use the bible as a source of allegory, symbolism, or reference?

    • DrGonzo says:

      I agree. I don’t think Jesus was the son of god, but that doesn’t mean the Bible doesn’t have any valid or decent stories in it.

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      @Psychopomp

      “So, what you’re saying is that our ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe is somehow inferior to your equally ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe?”

      Yes. Because while your belief, my belief and in fact any belief may be “ultimately unverifiable”, your belief is based entirely in guesswork, superstition and fantasy and mine is based entirely in observable reality.

      Your argument is like saying “Why don’t you want to eat that rotten apple? It’s food. isn’t it? An apple is an apple!”

      All beliefs are not equally valid just because they’re all “ultimately unverifiable”.

      I can respect anyone’s RIGHT to believe whatever they want to believe, but I can’t respect grown adults when they claim to believe blatantly obvious archaic, outmoded religious trash. :)

    • Chris D says:

      Kurt

      If you’re saying that you won’t believe in anything that can’t be scientifically proven then far enough. If you’re saying that anything that can’t be scientifically proven can’t exist then that’s another matter and, I’ll note, that it’s also a statement that can’t be proven scientifically.

      It seems to me that many of the things we value most , for example friendship, love, compassion,art, music, and even fun can’t be proved to exist objectively but can only be experienced subjectively and you’re going to be missing out an a hell of a lot if you choose not to believe in them.

      Science is great for a lot of things but it has its limits. The question is then if you experience something from outside those limits do you deny it’s existence or do you use another set of tools to try to understand it?

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      And @Vinraith

      Sure, I can appreciate certain creative efforts that wouldn’t have happened without supernatural beliefs as well as their impact on the development of society, but I don’t get emotionally swept away by them, hence “there’s no magic for me”.

      Baba Yetu is a good example. I liked it as the main Civ IV theme. It fits the mood of the game perfectly, but I doubt any of the musicians involved in the performance were thinking about the glory of any given deity when they recorded it.

    • omicron says:

      The Greek pantheon is “blatantly obvious, outmoded religion.” It isn’t trash, though.

      Christianity, on the other hand… I’d request that you refrain from insulting what I believe – I don’t go around calling you all idiots just because you believe in spontaneous M-theory generation or somesuch, and to see people like yourself lambasting Christianity in particular and religion in general every single day on the internet is not particularly amusing.

      Seriously – the stereotype is of the insensitive, always-proselytizing “bible thumper,” but what I see are insensitive, proselytizing atheists! Respect ain’t unilateral, y’know.

    • Fabian! says:

      “…spontaneous M-theory generation or somesuch…”

      Awww, for fuck’s sake…!

    • omicron says:

      @Fabian:
      By which I am referring to Stephen Hawking’s most recent attempt to explain the point right before the “big bang.” I consider all theories concerning the creation of the universe through scientific principles highly illogical, and referenced M-theory as a catchall example.

    • Vinraith says:

      @omicron

      the stereotype is of the insensitive, always-proselytizing “bible thumper,” but what I see are insensitive, proselytizing atheists! Respect ain’t unilateral, y’know.

      There are plenty of both on the internet, I think you’ll find. What percentage of each you get is largely a product of the website in question. Games don’t draw a particularly religious demographic so the comment section on a PC gaming site is statistically far more likely to turn up vocal or evangelical atheists than vocal or evangelical Christians.

    • Deuteronomy says:

      I’m an agnostic secular humanist-ish type . . . but I find atheists on the whole to be insufferable little pricks.

    • malkav11 says:

      @Chris D
      If you’re saying that you won’t believe in anything that can’t be scientifically proven then far enough. If you’re saying that anything that can’t be scientifically proven can’t exist then that’s another matter and, I’ll note, that it’s also a statement that can’t be proven scientifically.

      If one has no evidence something exists, why would one behave as though it does? As for whether or not science can address something…I would simply say, science has limits, yes, but those limits expand when our tools and methods of observation and experimentation improve. Just because we do not currently know why something is the way it is, that is no reason to give up and assign it a supernatural explanation.


      It seems to me that many of the things we value most , for example friendship, love, compassion,art, music, and even fun can’t be proved to exist objectively but can only be experienced subjectively and you’re going to be missing out an a hell of a lot if you choose not to believe in them.

      A couple of things: firstly, you or I can have experiences that we cannot share with other people. This doesn’t necessarily mean those experiences don’t exist, only that they cannot be externally verified. But even then, our understanding of how the human body works is improving all the time, and it’s already possible to interpret physiological responses as an indicator of emotions, moods and other mental states that a person may be experiencing. Soon, maybe we’ll be able to locate that elusive thing we call “fun” as a chemically coded message passed through our brains. heck, maybe they already have – I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to neurochemistry journals. Secondly, there’s a place for abstract concepts in a rationalist world. Hell, as far as I’m concerned, math, that fundamental underpinning of a lot of scientific effort, is purely abstract. I just personally don’t happen to feel that the abstract concepts people have worshipped as divine over the years have the necessary internal consistency to stand up to scrutiny, nor do they serve a useful purpose in my life.

    • TCM says:

      THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

    • jackshandy says:

      “There’s no magic for me in hearing people sing/write about the sheer, joyous wonder of something that isn’t real.”

      Good lord, really? You can’t mean to apply this to fiction as well, right? Some of my favourite songs are about the sheer jouyous wonder of things that aren’t real.

      Saying there’s no magic in things that aren’t real is also an… interesting choice of words.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      To state the obvious: everyone’s being quite polite. Keep it that way. Very pleased I haven’t had to delete any posts from this thread, yet.

      KG

    • Frye says:

      quote: “Soon, maybe we’ll be able to locate that elusive thing we call “fun” as a chemically coded message passed through our brains. heck, maybe they already have – I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to neurochemistry journals.”

      Philosophers are way ahead of you. You’re describing nihilism. The ultimate goal of reason. Even loving your next of kin can be explained by Darwinian purposes. (It helps the species as a whole when parents protect their kids instinctively) Nietsche et al. A great deal of these philosophers have gone quite literally insane, ruining everything that could ever become valuable to them with reason. Some argue that anyone not facing up to this is a hypocrite. I, for one, prefer to dream on and fool myself. And allow religious people the same privilege. Either let your brain rule and face up to nihilism or let your heart rule and close an eye to the truth. Religious or not.

    • Harlander says:

      Philosophers are way ahead of you. You’re describing nihilism. The ultimate goal of reason.

      I’ve never understood the idea that understanding the mechanisms behind something somehow removes the value from that thing, as if stuff can only be worth anything if it’s a mystery.

      Knowing that a rainbow is the result of refraction within water droplets suspended in air doesn’t stop me from going “Ooo, pretty”; knowing that consciousness is a gestalt illusion emergent from the interaction of my neurons as a result of uncomrehended evolutionary pressures (or whatever :p ) won’t keep me from being conscious.

    • Frye says:

      Couldn’t agree more. Knowing how a flower works only enhances its beauty. But most people stop rationalising somewhere, even those with a rational mindset. Those that don’t are facing a grey murky pit where nothing matters. Nothing is beautiful or worthy of love, because those are mechanisms designed for survival.

    • Harlander says:

      Those that don’t are facing a grey murky pit where nothing matters. Nothing is beautiful or worthy of love, because those are mechanisms designed for survival.

      At this point I’ve gone from not agreeing with what I thought you were saying to not understanding what you’re saying.

    • Tyler says:

      @Kieron – Really? If I weren’t stunned senseless with disbelief, my faith in humanity and maybe even the internet might be restored.

    • Josh W says:

      @malkav11

      I agree with you totally on reason, and on using science where possible, the problem is that dealing with God is basically a social science; unlike the methods we use to deal with rocks or organs, dealing with minds requires us to consider the effect of our objectives. For example, every study of prayer I have ever seen focuses on “generic prayer”. If prayer is actually the intervention of a specific person who has vast control over the universe, likes to be specifically asked, and to get a bit of credit for it, then any study focusing on “asking someone” with the focus on the activity not the target will not get much cooperation from him.

      In other words we need to overcome the problem of combining reflexivity with double blind testing or we won’t be able to prove things conclusively about God one way or another, apart from a certain class of things that can be implied from “the laws of nature” and their levels of persistence. If you want to picky, I’m not just talking about a monotheistic God, but all kinds of questions involving things with minds and more access to information than humans.

      If we solve that problem, my current experience suggests that we will find a God who exists but is willing to keep out of people’s way if they don’t want to know him, judging by the disparity of my own experience and others (which seems to go beyond what is currently considered psychological/perceptual differences, ie would be normally considered subjective). Whether him getting out of people’s way is a good thing or not is another question!

      Also for me the very idea of rationality is based on the idea of a “mindlike universe” ie things in the universe are compatible with thought, and without a God of some kind to justify that compatibility, I would expect human reason to stutter out and become ineffective some distance outside the niche we evolved to understand. In other words, my belief in God justifies my belief in science, but my belief in science does not yet justify my belief in God.

      Anyway, I think your on the right track, and I agree about there being too many closed minded religious people too.

    • Harlander says:

      things in the universe are compatible with thought, and without a God of some kind to justify that compatibility, I would expect human reason to stutter out and become ineffective some distance outside the niche we evolved to understand

      This is the point in the discussion where you have to go “Oh, fair enough” ;)

      I don’t personally think that complexity requires justification, but it seems like a reasonable enough position to take as far as I can tell – or to put it another way, oh, fair enough.

    • malkav11 says:

      @Frye
      Couldn’t agree more. Knowing how a flower works only enhances its beauty. But most people stop rationalising somewhere, even those with a rational mindset. Those that don’t are facing a grey murky pit where nothing matters. Nothing is beautiful or worthy of love, because those are mechanisms designed for survival.

      Does anything matter, intrinsically and unavoidably? I don’t think so. Does this render the cosmos a barren joyless void in which I may as well kill myself? Nope. If things are not inherently purposeful or meaningful, this frees one to (insofar as one can master one’s own biological processes) assign meaning, create purpose. I think that’s very fulfilling indeed.

    • malkav11 says:

      Also, FWIW I do agree that even the most doggedly rational person is going to have irrational impulses, patterns of thought, and so on. Biologically unavoidable, at least at present.

    • acha11 says:

      @TCM

      I’m a fundamentalist Christian — and arguing religion on the internet will go nowhere forever.

      “Go nowhere”? Not really, no. My beliefs about religion have changed as a direct result of arguing religion on the internet.

  2. sirdorius says:

    Thank god the pedobear religion doesn’t exist. Oh wait

  3. airtekh says:

    I liked it. And now I have an overwhelming urge to dig out Civ and play it.

    Must … resist.

  4. Tei says:

    Well… Civ is a bit like that type of music that start calm, and as progress gets faster and more powerfull, and give you goosebumps, somewhat like the Baba Yet theme.

    But the game… I have not buy the game yet, because I am not a warmonger. Civ was a warmongers game from the start. I can understand that. Ghandi has nuclear weapons, the Germans adopts the jew religion, hahaa… I can laught at that. Theres a game, that dont exist, and I call “Sim Civi”, I think this is the real game that give us all goosebumps, and not Civi. Or maybe is Civi?, I dont know, nostalgia factor, “ben there, nuked that”, and everything is powerfull. But is not that, I think, Is making history, a game about making history. Thats the real reason of the goosebumps.

    About the video of the article: I dont like the part that pokes fun and stereotype nerds, is derivative and recycled from cheap movies. Everything else is good :-D

    • Clovis says:

      The goofy nerd jokes were followed up by some very strange mouse movements. Does anyone actually do that?

    • Joseph says:

      Yeah someone should make an ACCURATE simulator of geopolitics, where there isnt any war. :p

    • Tei says:

      @Joseph

      I don’t buy the Civi idea that every civilization mission is to conquer the world, and if not is conquering the world, failed.

      Current superpower is USA. And this country is not tryiing to expand his territory. So clearly theres a different way to do it.

    • Harlander says:

      @Tei

      Obviously America is going for the cultural victory

    • Shrewsbury says:

      Except, it’s possible to complete at least one game of any Civ without starting or participating in a war.

    • Consumatopia says:

      Yeah! I’d love a civ game where the internal politics and culture of your nation meant something deeper than tech trees and stat bonuses. For example, if my civilization becomes a “democracy”, then I should have to win elections. And losing an election doesn’t mean Game Over, it means what it means in real life–looking for political allies and trying to win the next election. In fact, you shouldn’t even need to run the government to “rule”–if you run a central bank, the richest corporation, the most influential newspaper, the most beloved religion, or even if you’re the most esteemed academic, then you could have a lot of influence over the direction the world takes. Hey, you can play as Napoleon or Caesar, but I want to play as Rockefeller or Soros.

      Sure, you can theoretically win civ games without war. But in Civilization, there’s no irony in the question “how many divisions does the Pope have?” The real Vatican has no divisions, no weapons labs, and not even a hex’s worth of territory. But it also commands more than a billion followers and has a major influence on social policies across the world. It’s not that Civilization is obsessed with war, it’s that it’s obsessed with territory–Civ power is in completely spatial terms. Kinds of power that cross borders, as well as social conflict and competition within borders, are almost entirely ignored.

      So you can take a skinny character named “Gandhi” and nuke “England”, but you can’t play a Satyagraha scenario to win independence from a colonial power through boycotts, strikes and civil disobedience.

      The spatial obsession means that the game doesn’t even do a good job of representing modern wars. You can play “America” and conquer “Babylon”, but don’t expect your counter-insurgency campaign to be any deeper than garrisoning a spear thrower in “Baghdad”.

    • Harlander says:

      @Consumatopia

      That does sound pretty sweet. So what are you waiting for? Come on, chop-chop, it’s not gonna develop itself ;)

    • fabamatic says:

      You should play Victoria 2!, it has deep political elements that determine the way you rule your nation, and you can also play the game without having to go to war.

    • Reapy says:

      I should totally post this as fred wesker, but I believe paradox has a bunch of games you are looking for.

  5. Boldoran says:

    I have to say Baba Yetu blows the socks off the new Civ V main theme.

    • The Hammer says:

      I don’t intend to buy the game, because Quinns’ assertion that it takes a lot of addictive hours from you without giving anything substantial back killed the interest I had, but I did pop along to Youtube to hear the track, and YOU ARE SO RIGHT.

      Sorry, Firaxis. Maybe 6?

    • Oak says:

      Do you mean this?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5A7hwjYXFw

      Because it’s great, and so is the rest of the score in general. No need to play favorites!

    • ScubaMonster says:

      Civ 5 is a strange creature. It’s not terrible. But I definitely can’t say it’s an improvement by any means. I’ve been logging a lot of hours so there is some fun to be had. But the whole time I’m playing I’m talking to my friends about all the stuff we dislike about it. Computer AI is just dumb as a post. Including your workers. In 4, you could keep your workers on automate and they’d do a fairly good job. This time? You’re pretty much killing yourself by letting them automate. All of my workers were focusing on one single town and seemed to be spending an abnormal amount of time there while my other towns would be completely neglected. Even if I built a worker in those neglected towns they’d start running over to where the others were working. It took them forever to even start building roads to connect my towns. It was completely ridiculous and I will never automate them again. Also, you have to micromanage your cities a lot, focusing almost entirely on gold production. As you start expanding you ALWAYS lose way too much gold. So basically, connect every town with a road for trade network (not a big deal), build a ton of trading post improvements, and I go in and set your citizen allocation to focus on gold income. Even then, you can still sometimes start being in the red for income. I don’t get it. There are a lot of other glaring omissions as well but I’m not going to go into a huge essay.

    • DrGonzo says:

      My biggest problem with workers is that when automated they won’t bother building transport until last. You can’t set them to be automated in any specific way like before, for example automated transport. And manually laying down roads is pretty horrific. They will work for maybe a tile then ask me what I told them to do again.

    • Nick says:

      Every time I played Civ V is made me want to play Civ 4. Or Civ 2.

      Or Batman.

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      The best part of the Children of Men score was the Jarvis song on the end of the credits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB6qvvO_Oo4&feature=related

      Otherwise, from videogames, it’s entirely different, but I really like the Magnet track from Dreamfall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf1lmTEHv6Y

    • Oak says:

      And manually laying down roads is pretty horrific. They will work for maybe a tile then ask me what I told them to do again.

      Just use the “route to” command?

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      Gah. Reply fail. That was supposed to be in the thread below about the best music in games, obviously.

    • Psychopomp says:

      The new combat model is a huge improvement, and the racial bonuses are nice.

      Want Civ V combat in Civ IV please.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      @Psychopomp: Well if the Civ V editor is as great as they say, we might see someone make that! lol

    • DrGonzo says:

      After playing Civ 5 I can’t go back to number 4. The combat is such a big improvement in 5. I agree I would love Civ 4 with the combat of Civ 5.

  6. Tei says:

    *cough* sorry.

    I hereby declare a Golden Age of 30 posts.

  7. Lack_26 says:

    I believe the correct lyrics are ‘Ee aye Yeti, Yeti spaghetti’

  8. Bhazor says:

    This is also totally worth a watch. It’s the live version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u_EWzmvI8E. Those soloists can certainly bash out a tune or two,

    For those who don’t know Baba Yetu is the lord’s prayer sung in Swahili which I always think was a great choice given that religion was such a key part of Civ IV.

  9. Sporknight says:

    @Boldoran:
    I have to say, Baba Yetu blows the socks off of pretty much any piece of game music. That’s a challenge, RPS! Prove me wrong!

    Also, slightly related – Sid Meier was at MAGFest last year, and played a cover of “Hotel California” called “Hotel Civilization”. Sadly, the video’s been removed…

  10. Valient says:

    Montezuma is a duchebag, this i know

  11. Fwiffo says:

    While it sags into ‘insert generic geek culture reference here’ territory in the middle, the punchline is gold.

  12. Arathain says:

    That was a good laugh.

  13. casualhero says:

    Regarding your alt text: Gandhi*

    It’s nice to spell his name correctly. If it had been Hidler, well, I wouldn’t have said anything.

  14. Profligate says:

    Heh. Pedobear was wearing a mitre.

  15. Zamn says:

    @Psychopomp:

    Just because something isn’t 100% certain doesn’t make it a 50/50 call. So yeah, one not 100% verified belief can be superior to another.

  16. Darren says:

    So…umm….yea, the new lyrics are funny as hell. Good vid, thanks for linking it guys.
    Yea…video games……a web site about video games……fancy that. Yea….video games. PC games even. A web site that is all about PC gaming. Games…….The PC.

  17. MadTinkerer says:

    Okay, look: Atheism is a religion. It bugs me when people try to say it’s better than religion, because that’s nonsense. It is a religion.

    Now before you go “But I’m rational! Religion is irrational! Therefore I do not believe in it!” or some other bogus strawman nonsense, let’s look at the definition of religion:

    re·li·gion
       /rɪˈlɪdʒən/
    –noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2.
    a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

    So basically what I’m saying is if you are an atheist what you believe about God is that he/she/it does not exist. That is your religion. So don’t act like religion, as in the second definition, is the opposite of what you are saying you believe, because what you believe falls under the first definition. You have a religion, period.

    Thank you.

    • MadTinkerer says:

      And of course the reply function fails, but it was worth a shot.

    • Andreas says:

      You’re arguing with a different set of terms. It rather makes the entire argument moot.

      Fine, all religions aren’t ridiculous. Religions that involve believing in a supreme being that created the universe are ridiculous.

    • DrGonzo says:

      The definition of Atheism is simply that one does not believe in god. I think you need to understand what Atheism is before you start calling it a religion.

      An Atheist CAN be religious, for example Buddhist can be Atheists. However, being an Atheist does not mean you are religious.

  18. rhontos says:

    That is one definition of religion, yes, but I don’t think bringing up definitions this way to prove a point is very effective. In any case, a quick search for more definitions would show a majority of them excluding atheism as a religion. Specifically, most would say that religion is chiefly about believing in the existence of god(s) and worshiping them, which atheism is not about.

    I would also argue that unlike religions, atheism by itself does not have a set of morals or rituals that come with it. There are some morals associated with it, sure, but I don’t see them as being as much of a part of atheism as religious morals are to their respective religions.

    • rhontos says:

      Ugh, it seems I don’t know how the reply function is supposed to work. This was supposed to be a reply to Mad Tinkerer.

    • perilisk says:

      “Specifically, most would say that religion is chiefly about believing in the existence of god(s) and worshiping them, which atheism is not about. ”

      What about Confucianism or Daoism? There’s already a word for the belief in gods — theism.

    • DrGonzo says:

      I’ll say what I said before. Atheism can be part of a religious belief, but it is not in itself a religion.

    • rhontos says:

      “What about Confucianism or Daoism? There’s already a word for the belief in gods — theism.”

      I was just paraphrasing the definitions I saw online, and I would agree with you that there are problems with these definitions. I was using them to counteract MadTinkerer’s attempt to classify atheism as a religion by using a definition.

  19. Matzerath says:

    Satan has some kickin’ tunes, too.

  20. Fabian! says:

    *Sigh* So we’re discussing religion on the great and wondrous Internet, eh? I generally make a point of staying out of these things, but for once, I’m going to get stuck in, and stuck in good. Long, rambling and only vaguely coherent post follows. You’re bloody well warned.

    *Ahem!*

    • Fabian! says:

      I’m going to have to side with Kurt Lennon and Tei, here. When I clicked on the YouTube link to the song, I literally got goosebumps. It was just that powerful and incredibly beautiful – in fact, I had actually just Ctrl+C’d the composer’s name from this site, and was about to do a Google search to see if he had a website or something that I could buy the song from, like with Command & Conquer’s Frank Klepacki.

      Then an unintentional glance at the YouTube comments informed me that they were singing the Lord’s Prayer – and any incentive I might have had to go and buy the song instantly dropped. I am incredibly sensitive towards Christian stuff in general, and have very little tolerance towards it as a whole.

      Note that when I say “Christian stuff”, I am in actuality thinking of religion as a whole – it’s just that, in this day and age, the word “Religion” tends to be synonymous with “Christianity” for many of us Westerners. And when I think “Christianity”, I think about a system of belief that I consider non-rational, grounded in fables and blind trust – and possibly most importantly – by its very nature tends to either collide with, or overtly oppose the work of progress, science and genuine knowledge (or, failing that), well-grounded theories on how the world –actually– works.

      Also, there’s always that age-old argument that will always be with us and likely never be solved, about whether religion as a whole has caused more good than bad; and whether the good it has caused is enough to “make up for” all the horrible, destructive and repressive insanity it has either directly wrought, or helped justify – and still does, to this day. For everyone who points out how their belief in God causes them personal fulfillment, happiness, a genuine feeling that their lives have meaning and the belief that we are all watched over by a kind, loving, fatherly figure; there’s always one or two who are quick to point out crusades/jihads, ignorance, sexual shame and sexual repression, Inquisitions, witch-burning, Stephenie Meyer, persecution, misogyny, indoctrination, homophobia, xenophobia, and any other forms of closed-mindedness and/or hatred I may have forgotten to add.

      The fact is; the Bible seems to have about an even ratio of productive, ideal values – “Love thy neighbor”, “Thou shalt not kill”, “Be charitable”, “Do unto others etc.”, and horrible, insane, evil stuff – “Don’t masturbate, be gay or have non-marital sex, be ashamed of your own body, do your utmost to try and convert others to our particular way of thinking, non-believers are worth less than us, don’t eat shellfish, for some reason…”

      Actually; I think the whole set of ideas about preaching to “heathens” and converting non-believers is what actually gets to me. If living your life after the Christian/Muslim/Scientologist ruleset gives your life meaning and makes sense to you, I’m not going to stop you. If this means you’re a happier person than I am, then who am I to judge? But if you go out and try to make sure we teach our high-school students that Intelligent Design is to be considered just as valid and realistically accurate as Evolution, that we fund government programs using half-truths, lies and scare tactics to try and intimidate, shame and frighten said students into putting on “purity rings”, instead of teaching them how to have a safe, healthy and wonderful sex-life; if you drift outside abortion-clinics and hurl abuse at those who walk by, or show up in big rallies or parades, waving “God Hates Fags”-signs – then I think it is a tragedy not only that people like you exist; but that you continue to exist in 2010.

      Like with many other things, religion is a tool. It can be twisted, turned and manipulated to justify or support horrible things as well as noble, good and productive things. And like any tool, what function it has on its surroundings is solely dependent on who wields it. I can use my hammer to fix your tool shed, but I can also use it to bash your skull in. I think that’s my main grief with religion – it’s not, by itself, inherently bad or good, and only really does what we allow it to do. So what are we left with, at its most basic level? A system of unfounded tales, fables and often scientifically and logically preposterous stories that not only causes ignorance, but almost subconsciously seeks to maintain it.

      We pretty much spent our early existence in caves and around campfires, seeking answers to exactly how the hell world around us works.
      -“What is thunder?”
      -“Well, uhh, that’s the great god Thor, brother of Odin, high lord of the Aesir in Valhalla, who rides on his golden chariot and pounds away at the clouds with Mjolnir, his immense hammer.”
      -“What must we do to ensure a good harvest next year?”
      -“Make sure to sacrifice a lamb to Blaaaaaaargh, the god of fertility and harvest. If it turns out bad, then it is because we’ve angered him.”
      -“How was the world created? Where do we come from?”
      -“Well, it’s this guy called “God” who squeezed Earth out in a little less than a week. At first we had this awesome garden, but then a talking snake told us to disobey the guy, so he kicked us out and forced us to live in this dump.”
      That people cowered in the darkness, going through their arbitrary rituals, chanting and praying to their idols, fetishes and totems, made sense at the time. We had little or no incentive to know anything about the mystical, dangerous and fantastic world we were messing about in – so we did the next best thing, and invented our own answers. That people still persist doing this in 2010 – in even the most developed, enlightened parts of the world, and often in the face of overwhelming evidence and common sense, is quite frankly disturbing.

      Sometimes, I’m not sure if I have too little faith in the human race, or too much.

    • Fabian! says:

      …*Phew.*

    • TCM says:

      While it is somewhat against what I’ve been saying in the thread, I’d like to note something — considering the political climate any given era, and the nature of humanity in general, if atrocities were not rationalized and justified by religion, they would be rationalized and justified by something else.

      Humans are capable of doing terrible, terrible things to each other, and blocking out the realities of the world — religion does nothing to add or detract from that, it merely provides a convenient excuse for the committers, and a convenient scapegoat for the protesters. Anything in any religious text can be twisted to justify one’s actions as surely as, say, the Constitution of the US, or the words of Socrates, or anything. One’s beliefs do not suddenly cause one to commit crimes against his fellow man — one’s nature does, and he uses his beliefs as a rationalization for his behavior.

    • Fabian! says:

      “if atrocities were not rationalized and justified by religion, they would be rationalized and justified by something else.

      Humans are capable of doing terrible, terrible things to each other, and blocking out the realities of the world — religion does nothing to add or detract from that, it merely provides a convenient excuse for the committers, and a convenient scapegoat for the protesters. Anything in any religious text can be twisted to justify one’s actions as surely as, say, the Constitution of the US, or the words of Socrates, or anything. One’s beliefs do not suddenly cause one to commit crimes against his fellow man — one’s nature does, and he uses his beliefs as a rationalization for his behavior.”

      …Yes. That was kind of my point.

    • TCM says:

      Yet you rail against religion in general, as if it were a source for such evil — if anything, to you, it should be perceived as a harmless collection of stories.

      By your reasoning, you should also oppose government, lack of government, art, anti-art, intellectualism, rationalism, anti-intellectualism, piracy, DRM, digital distribution, retail channels, consumption, astheticism, capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism…you should oppose everything that has ever been used to justify an atrocity, or breach of basic human rights. (And yes, some of those are obviously more serious than others)

      It makes no sense to single out a potential justification for atrocities as something you are “sensitive to” or “specifically against”, unless it runs deeper than that.

    • malkav11 says:

      I go back and forth on this particular subject. I personally feel that the world would be better off if people were accustomed to thinking and behaving rationally, something which many forms of religious belief tend to act against, regardless of any particular prejudices or evils they may instill. But of course, I’m not religious and I can hardly claim to be driven purely by rational thinking at all times. And it is unquestionable that there are a great many ills out there in the world that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, or are at worst exacerbated, at best mitigated by it. But it does seem to me to spawn certain unique problems. For example, while one need not be remotely religious to have anti-gay sentiment, I cannot think that in this day and age there could be any sort of public debate over whether it’s okay for two people of the same gender to marry without religious resistance to the idea.

    • Fabian! says:

      “Yet you rail against religion in general, as if it were a source for such evil — if anything, to you, it should be perceived as a harmless collection of stories.

      By your reasoning, you should also oppose government, lack of government, art, anti-art, intellectualism, rationalism, anti-intellectualism, piracy, DRM, digital distribution, retail channels, consumption, astheticism, capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism…you should oppose everything that has ever been used to justify an atrocity, or breach of basic human rights. (And yes, some of those are obviously more serious than others)

      It makes no sense to single out a potential justification for atrocities as something you are “sensitive to” or “specifically against”, unless it runs deeper than that.”

      If you think Christianity – or, indeed, any religion, for that matter, – is something I would possibly even consider calling “a harmless collection of stories”, then you haven’t read my post very clearly.

      What I said – and let’s make this very, very clear – is that religion can be squeezed and distorted to manipulate people into doing your bidding – and itself can’t easily be classified as either good or bad. It’s a tool, like all the things you listed up.

      …However – and here’s the point – religion is based around subscribing to a series of stories that is known to have a fun habit of jumping wildly between the hilariously unrealistic and the downright insane. And the reason I consider that more than “a harmless collection of stories”, is that it IS NOT HARMLESS. In fact, it works like hell. It causes a huge number of people to turn towards fantasy, superstition and myth rather than actual facts – or at least the closest thing we have to actual facts – That a huge part of the US is convinced that the world was created six-thousand years ago, thinks Evolution means that cats are created from rocks, and goes to churches and bows down to idols, chanting prayers to their worshiped deity like stone-age tribesmen – in the 21st century – *that* upsets me.

  21. Vinraith says:

    Baba Yetu is a good example. I liked it as the main Civ IV theme. It fits the mood of the game perfectly, but I doubt any of the musicians involved in the performance were thinking about the glory of any given deity when they recorded it.

    I’m glad you’re able to appreciate it, from your earlier posts it sounded like you weren’t. I suppose my point would be this: It’s a beautiful piece of music that fits the mood of the game perfectly and which I enjoy listening to, and that’s true regardless of what the performers were or weren’t thinking when they recorded it.

    • Vinraith says:

      Hmm, reloaded after I hit the “reply” button, so that was my bad. That was @Kurt, of course.

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      Yeah I can see how it sounded that way.

      Religion gives me the creeps (I have a massive aversion to obvious lies, especially when the populace at large seems convinced they’re true) but I can definitely agree that the search for spiritual answers has provided us with a lot of amazing creative accomplishments.

  22. TCM says:

    *sigh*

    No matter how well you present your beliefs, or construct arguements against other people’s, IT DOES NOTHING ON THE INTERNET.

    It is a waste of everyone’s time to try and debate lofty concepts on a forum where everyone will go away thinking they are right, regardless. You will not convince anyone of your point of view. I have seen far, far, far too many religion debates in my time, and I know not to bother with them anymore, there is never a constructive result.

    Why bother with the stress?

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      “Why bother with the stress?”

      Because the human need for self expression far outweighs the human need to create and worship non-existent deities.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Kurt

      Actually, those are kind of the same need, which is exactly why this kind of discussion invariably devolves into a screaming match.

    • nil says:

      That’s like asking “why beat prostitutes to death with baseball bats?”
      For the lulz, of course.

    • TCM says:

      “Because the human need for self expression far outweighs the human need to create and worship non-existent deities.”

      I am quite sure I am capable of self-expression and thinking for myself, despite being a fundamentalist Christian — I’ve mentioned that several times, right? The silent majority of us get a bit of unfair treatment in the public eye. Don’t perceive the radicals as the extent of religion.

      And it’s quite unfair to claim that a set of beliefs which are incapable of being proven, or disproven, as a lie — I could decry evolution, or any given theory of science that has not been proven by direct observation as a lie, by that logic. I don’t, because it can’t be disproven by the capabilities I have.

    • TCM says:

      (also because if I were to prove or disprove any given theory of science, or set of religious beliefs, it’d be a huge headache dealing with interviews, criticism, blatent denial of reality, blind acceptance without challenge, etc. — I have no desire to even attempt justifying my beliefs for anyone for similar reasons, they work for me, and that’s that.)

    • Kurt Lennon says:

      “I could decry evolution, or any given theory of science that has not been proven by direct observation as a lie, by that logic.”

      But evolution has been proven by direct observation. Seems you didn’t get the memo, but I doubt you’d be interested in reading it even if you did.

      Also, this isn’t about “science”. I arrived at the conclusion that gods are make believe by basic common sense. It’s pretty sad that people have to justify their beliefs in an obviously non-existent being by saying “well you can’t prove he ISN’T real, so he might be!”

      The same argument could be made that a purple cat lives on a planet revolving around Alpha Centauri, and the only reason anyone would be comfortable declaring they believed in such a being would be if several million other people would back them up.

      You have the religious beliefs you do is because you were indoctrinated into them and you’re too scared to question them. I’m not saying this as an attack, although I appreciate that when people are confronted with the realization that their worldview is utterly absurd they tend to get defensive.

    • TCM says:

      I’ve yet to see direct observation confirm evolution — there is the fossil record yes, but not direct human observation of evolution in action, which is impossible given the timescale we have been tracking such things, and the timescale evolution takes to occur. DIRECT observation. I’d be interested in reading your memo, since I’ve yet to see anything in my own research confirming evolution has been directly observed.

      I never denied the possibility evolution was true, nor do I deny that there are a number of things that lend it credibility. Your rush to condemn me for things I did not say is flabbergasting. In many ways, it reminds me of the radicals within my own faith, who would just as quickly condemn me as taking your side for my prior statements.

      I have, in fact, confronted and questioned my beliefs — I was strongly encouraged to do so, and I believe it has made me a better person in the end. Beyond that, it actually served to strengthen my convictions in the end — it’d be foolish to call my belief unshakable, no belief is, however I have personally chosen my viewpoints out of what I consider a rational look at the benefits of everything I have ever seen in my life, and everything I have ever read. To accuse me of being indoctrinated and scared to question my beliefs based on posts on the internet is, at best, ad hominem.

      I don’t need to justify my beliefs, to you, or anyone else — isn’t that what I just said? What I stated was not a justification, merely a statement intended to aid my position in the context of debate — which I regret entering in the first place, really.

      I have been calm, nonconfrontational, and rational, in my statements. You have been provoking, and arguementative in yours. I question who is in denial.

    • TCM says:

      (Evolution’s a bit of a bad example either way, given it is entirely compatible with religion — my beliefs aren’t affected whether it’s true or not.)

    • Vinraith says:

      @TCM

      Evolution of microbiological organisms (bacteria, protozoa, amoeba etc) is easily and regularly observed, indeed modern antibiotic medications would not exist (and would not be necessary) were the time scales for evolution of these organisms so lengthy as to defy direct observation.

    • TCM says:

      @Vin

      Not what I was referring to — I foolishly made the assumption that nobody could argue with something so obvious, and mistook what my opponent was referring to. Of course microbiological evolution occurs, that’s basic in biology, it’d be stupid to think anything else.

    • Vinraith says:

      Oh, we’re going to do the whole “cells in small organisms follow different rules than cells that comprise large organisms” thing? You’re right, this really is pointless.

    • TCM says:

      I don’t have an arguement regarding evolution.

      It was a bad example, because I have absolute no debate against it — nor do I necessarily accept it. And regardless, it wouldn’t matter.

      It was a bad example, picked spur of the moment grasping for a controversial scientific theory — my belief set does not reject it, or really care about it in any way whatseover — it’s not relevant to me.

      (but yes, it is completely pointless)

    • TCM says:

      [i really should have gone with my first instinct and said string theory or something]

      [barring that, i should have gone with my other instinct and not responded GOSHDARNIT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ASLEEP TWO HOURS AGO]

    • TCM says:

      Though I don’t need to justify my faith, I must justify my arguements, because they are terrible!

      TCM Thought Process, throughout today, in rough chronological order:

      “Don’t get involved. You know what happens. If you post once, you will feel compelled to check the discussion all day…okay, I will just warn them about these sorts of debates.”

      “THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.”

      “Claiming people with faith are incapable of self-expression? Nonsense.”

      “Calling God an obvious lie? Think of something commonly accepted as rational fact, but not directly observed…String theory? No, not commonly enough accepted…I know evolution, despite the fact I stopped researching or caring about whether or not it’s true when I evaluated my beliefs four years ago!”

      “Okay, the important point was the direct observation bit, don’t get involved with specifi–”

      “This was a terrible idea.”

      “I need sleep.”

      “CANNOT SLEEP UNTIL I JUSTIFY POOR ARGUEMENTS”

      and now you know how these things go

    • Jamison Dance says:

      I am an scientist (bioinformaticist) at a religious university. I am also very religious. I have no conflict between pursuing knowledge through the scientific method and religious faith. Science and faith do not have to be opposed to each other; they can be orthogonal or even complimentary.

    • Tei says:

      Observation: You don’t seems to apply the scientist method ( like profs for accept something ) to the things that reallly mather to you.

  23. Caiman says:

    Erm TCM, there is plenty of direct evidence of short-term evolution. Evolution can happen over the space of a generation or two, and for those life-forms with very short life-spans evolution can happen extremely quickly in relative terms. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers out there showing that short-term evolution has been observed well within a human lifetime – I would suggest a bit more research on your part.

    The fact that you have not personally been swayed by your limited research doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not something is true. This is a very common mistake made by those who put belief over all other considerations.

  24. Tei says:

    I was tryiing to post the “return to Hiigara” with the genocide version. It dont make sense to play the song on the launch, but I failed to get a better youtube video.

  25. c-Row says:

    Maybe it should have been called “What if Civilization 4 had lyrics I actually care about” instead.

  26. jalf says:

    What a wonderfully silly discussion.

    Nearly all art is about something that doesn’t exist. Does it matter?
    If it’s a nice song, then it’s a nice song, whether it’s about a deity that never existed or a completely factual song about what you did yesterday afternoon.
    I personally don’t care for the “cultural” value of the Lord’s prayer, but I like the song.
    I like a lot of songs that have religious meanings or lyrics. Sometimes I even like the lyrics.

    The Greek pantheon is “blatantly obvious, outmoded religion.” It isn’t trash, though.

    Christianity, on the other hand… I’d request that you refrain from insulting what I believe – I don’t go around calling you all idiots just because you believe in spontaneous M-theory generation or somesuch, and to see people like yourself lambasting Christianity in particular and religion in general every single day on the internet is not particularly amusing.

    waitwhat? So you’re saying i’ts ok to call other religions “blatantly obvious, outmoded religions”, but not yours?

    Now *that* is hypocrisy. Insensitive “bible thumper”?
    Like you said, “Respect ain’t unilateral, y’know.” It comes to those who are worth respecting. And that goes for beliefs too.
    For Christians, on the whole, I respect them as human beings and persons, and I respect their freedom to believe what they like, but I don’t have to respect the particular set of nonsense that they choose to believe. Just because you’re a human being who deserves as much respect as any other human being doesn’t mean the Christian God deserves any respect whatsoever.

    Christianity is every bit as outmoded as the Greek mythology. You can believe in it if you like, but it’s still outmoded.

    So, what you’re saying is that our ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe is somehow inferior to your equally ultimately unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe?

    Well, yes. If one unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe has been proven wrong dozens of times, and requires you to “reinterpret” and/or willfully ignore 50% of the one source that describes it, and the other actually fits everything we know about the universe and has stood up to decades of scrutiny by the brightest people on the planet, then yes, the latter is superior.

    If you’re saying that you won’t believe in anything that can’t be scientifically proven then far enough. If you’re saying that anything that can’t be scientifically proven can’t exist then that’s another matter and, I’ll note, that it’s also a statement that can’t be proven scientifically.

    How do you prove a statement scientifically? What does that even mean? It always bugs me how people try to use “prove [X] scientifically” as some kind of get-out-fo-jail-free card. It is nonsense. Virtually none of what we know about the universe is “scientifically proven.

    We haven’t proven that the Earth orbits the Sun, or even that the sun comes up every morning. We haven’t proven that an apple will fall to the ground when I drop it (much less the speed at which it will happen). We haven’t even proven that the sky is blue! And yet we know those things to be true.

    In the same vein, we haven’t “proven” the nonexistence of God, but we know that he doesn’t exist as he is described in the Bible. Anyone who pretends otherwise are kidding themselves, and might as well believe in Santa. We know he didn’t create the world or life on it (at least not in the way described in the Bible), and we know he never flooded it. Of course, people who *really* want to believe find a way. They say “that’s not meant to be taken literally”, and “that’s just a story to explain the *idea*”, and so on. And yes, when you take away all the bits that contradict the things we know, then you’re left with a God who could theoretically exist. Of course, a cynic like me would say “yeah, but if you’re basing your belief on a book that you already know can’t be taken for fact in so many cases, what makes you think the rest of is holds any value?”, but hey, if you want to believe in it, go ahead.

    But don’t pretend that your “non-proven” belief is as good as all the “non-proven” facts we have about our world.

    Have you ever heard of Russel’s Teapot?

    Suppose that somewhere out past Mars, a small teapot is orbiting the Sun.
    It is far too small for our best telescopes to detect, so we can’t prove or disprove the hypothesis. So is it as good as every other unverifiable belief on the nature of the universe?
    Of course it isn’t. We have no indication that it exists, no reason to believe it exists.
    And the exact same thing is true for the Christian god. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim, not on the rest of us.

    It seems to me that many of the things we value most , for example friendship, love, compassion,art, music, and even fun can’t be proved to exist objectively but can only be experienced subjectively and you’re going to be missing out an a hell of a lot if you choose not to believe in them.

    The fundamental difference is that I don’t *need* to believe in fun to experience it. It just happens.
    I’m not sure what you mean I’m supposed to be missing out on by not believing in God. But I do know that I get to experience a lot of things not available to people who choose to ignore everything we know about the world in order to believe in their invisible friend.

    Science is great for a lot of things but it has its limits. The question is then if you experience something from outside those limits do you deny it’s existence or do you use another set of tools to try to understand it?

    No, the scientific method doesn’t have its limits. And there are no other meaningful tools. If you experience something, then you should try to find out what you experienced. And you have basically two ways of doing this:

    - using scientific tools (asking questions, guessing, and trying to *verify* those guesses, basically trying to *learn*), or
    - deciding on what you’d *prefer* it to be, and say “I believe that’s what it was.

    I tend to think the first approach is better.
    And the funny thing is, it works on *everything*. it works on fun (i can ask questions about it and examine it and test it (if someone tells me the same joke twice, is it still funny? Is the joke funny if it is at my expense?) It doesn’t have to be provable.

    People have ths wrong idea about science that it’s about proving things. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It isn’t. It is about falsifying things. It’s not about saying “this is true”, but rather “this is **not** true”.

    Science doesn’t tell us that Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct, just that Newton’s theories were wrong. We know this because they don’t fit our observations.
    It doesn’t tell us specifically that Darwin’s theory of evolution is true. So far, the theory fits every fact, has stood up to insane amounts of scrutiny and testing, so it is *probably* true, but it’s not “proven”, and it never will be.
    On the other hand, science has shown very clearly that the competing ideas are wrong. God didn’t snap his fingers and create life in its current form. Intelligent design isn’t true. Science is about trying to show that things are not true. Sometimes, we fail, and when we *keep* failing, we eventually accept that “ok, this theory is the best we’ve got, let’s assume it’s true for now”.

    Sometimes, we succeed in falsifying a hypothesis, and then we can throw that idea on the thrash pile and move on.
    The Biblical God (by which I mean the god described in the Bible, with all the bits about creating the world, smiting people, flooding the world and so on) and not your wishy-washy “I’ll ignore everything that’s inconvenient” derivative) was thrown on the thrash pile hundreds of years ago, and since then, he has been disproven countless times. He doesn’t exist.

  27. Consumatopia says:

    @fabamatic, @Reapy, looks interesting. The Victoria 2 demo crashes in tutorial on my primitive computer, but, yeah, I definitely need to check those guys out more.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>