If you’re ever bored, here’s the game for you to play.
Via The Atheist Experience, Left Behind: Eternal Forces (based on the bestselling novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins) has been released and the reviews are in.
Don’t mock Left Behind: Eternal Forces because it’s a Christian game. Mock it because it’s a very bad game
…
Nobody has enough faith to endure a game with such a hokey story, terrible mission design, serious problems with the interface and graphics, and loads of crippling bugs.
You are in control of the gospel singers and missionaries, and you must defeat the secularists, devils, and rock stars. By defeat, they mean you must convert them by “raising their spirit level.”
(Did anyone see The Simpsons when Bart played the Christian video game? When he thought he defeated a bad guy, Rod Flanders told him, “No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.”)
The game gets even better (from a what-the-hell-is-this? point of view). Gender and race roles are laid bare:
Only males can become priestlike disciples and handyman builders, whereas only women can become nurses. Female units are actually designated as such and given ridiculous titles like “Friend Woman” and “Medic Woman,” a sexual distinction that unsurprisingly isn’t extended to their male counterparts. Finally, the game isn’t politically correct when it comes to race, either, because a fair number of the bad guys bear Arab and African names.
A couple other gems from the review:
One major annoyance with all of this is that units steadily lose spirit unless they’re bolstered with regular prayer.
and
…it’s more than a little bizarre that you can sign on with the Antichrist in multiplayer battles.
…
It’s… hard to imagine Christians appreciating a game where you can join the forces of Satan, even if only in multiplayer.
If that wasn’t enough, in between levels the game “teaches” you about Evolution and the Bible, while trying to get you to buy (for real) Christian music.
It’s available on PC which means it’s probably downloadable online if you look for it.
The Atheist is the name of a play opening in New York City. The story is about a guy named Augustine, who is “a man on a mission to become famous even if it kills him.”
What does the title have to do with anything? It’s kind of inspirational, really. According to one review:
Augustine tells us that he “knew from a young age I was going to be famous. More famous than anybody I ever knew. But I didn’t come into my own — understand my talent, that is — until after I lost my faith in God.” Once the Almighty was out of the picture, Augustine believed there were no rules, no boundaries, no consequences except those that were man-made.
A lot of religious people take this type of thinking out of context. For them, no rules and no boundaries is the equivalent of saying atheists can kill, rape, be otherwise evil, you get the picture.
But the quotation above is more the idea we’re going for. The idea that we created the type of world we live in, we evolved into conscious thinking creatures after billions of years, we have the ability to change the lives of those around us for the better– those are the types of ideas you realize when God leaves the picture. They’re powerful, incredible, awe-inspiring.
Of course, religious people can attribute many of these qualities to God, but when you realize we can do it (we have done it) without divine intervention, it gives you an even stronger sense of power over your own life.
In any case, the show’s getting some good reviews. And it’s always nice to see the word “atheist” used in a positive way. Anyone planning on seeing the show?
Daley Plaza in Chicago has played host for the past 10 years to “Christkindlmarket,” a festival that has German roots. It’s less a Christian festival and more a place to sell goods, provide entertainment, and help the tourism industry (for some reason, Chicago isn’t the hottest destination during the winter…). It brings in more than 1,000,000 visitors a year. The vendors all pay taxes to the city, unlike any churches. This is a holiday festival, not a festival to celebrate Christ.
Now, The Nativity Story, a movie that is specifically Christian in nature, is being dropped as a sponsor because city officials fear it would offend non-Christians.
As if Muslim people were totally fine with the whole “Christ-Child-Market” festival in the first place. That’s beyond the point, though.
I’m not strongly in favor of the decision, but I understand why it was made.
If the studio wanted to pay for the publicity, the same privilege must then be extended to other groups that want to use the festival as a promotional tool. If South Park wanted to advertise DVDs of its Christmas episodes, they would be allowed to. Unfortunately, Christians would probably get upset about this because some of these episodes blaspheme Jesus.
So the city has a blanket policy to not allow sponsors that would be divisive to one group or another. Chicago wants to bring people together and the festival lets this happen. People are not going there to glorify Jesus. They’re going to eat pastries and drink beer. The movie is specifically about Jesus, so the blanket policy says no to sponsorship.
This article from FoxNews has the obligatory quotation from a Christian spokesman, who informs us that he knows how to spell:
“The last time I checked, the first six letters of Christmas still spell out Christ,” said Paul Braoudakis, spokesman for the Barrington, Ill.-based Willow Creek Association, a group of more than 11,000 churches of various denominations. “It’s tantamount to celebrating Lincoln’s birthday without talking about Abraham Lincoln.”
No. Lincoln’s birthday is a government holiday. Christmas is a private religious holiday that should not be sponsored by government. Christkindlmarket is a public festival to make money for the city. (And the last six letters of Christkindlmarket still spell out market.) If Mr. Braoudakis was really concerned about Christ, then he should be more upset that Santa, who is nowhere in the Bible, will make an appearance in Chicago in the name of Christmas.
There is an actual nativity scene downtown, as well as “representations from other faiths”– but these are all put up by private groups, and they all have a right to do this. As long as the city stays out of it and does not sponsor any particular religion or prohibit a group from putting up a display.
The point is that government should not be endorsing one religion over another. In this case, they’re not. And that’s a good thing for everyone.
I said I’m not strongly in favor of the decision. My hesitation comes from the fact that New Line Cinema isn’t a Christian movie studio. It’s not like its other movies (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, anyone?) were Christlike in nature. The company is trying to make the most out of the people coming to Chicago for the festival. It’s just telling a story that happens to come from the Bible. No skin off my back.
Had the city just let the studio advertise the movie, very few people, if any, would’ve noticed. Or been offended.
But again, they have a blanket policy. This decision might seem petty, but in the long run, that policy will do more good than harm.
The focus is on stories dealing with the pastors and Christian leaders who are the ones most often seen in the media. It also has every link you’ll ever need to get to Christian Right websites, see a tally of the largest megachurches, and read the Wikipedia links to the leaders that author Robert Lanham talks about.
Some excerpts from the book are also on the site. Here is the particularly amusing James Dobson chapter.
I’m trying to think through some of my newfound beliefs and am pondering some of the “hows” and “whys” behind the Christian story of how God revealed himself to man. Sometimes I think it makes a lot of sense, other times it seems implausible.
That’s from Jennifer. She used to be an atheist. Now, she’s on the way to becoming a Catholic. Before the rips on Catholicism begin, and people start saying, “It’s implausible,” let’s get this straight: That’s not the point.
The point is this question she poses to readers:
… pretend that you’re God for a minute. You created everything in the
universe, including humans. You love humans, you want them to know you and your guidelines for how they should live, and you also want them to have free will.
Given these parameters, how do you go about revealing yourself and your plan to them?
Would Christians have answers different from the biblical story?
What would atheists answer even if it is just a hypothetical?
I’m watching The Bachelor (don’t ask). The bachelor (a prince) has two girls left to choose from. He introduced them to his parents. During some one-on-one time, the mom decided to read each girls’ palms…
At this point, the correct reaction should be, “I don’t want your family’s genes.” And then the girl should leave the show.
Instead, each girl became very excited. Not fake/I’m-on-the-Bachelor-so-I-must-play-it-cool excitement. It was real excitement. As in, “This is incredible!” excitement.
The mom’s conclusion after all this? She couldn’t decide which girl her son should choose. Shocking. And both girls’ are pisces, too. I mean, what can you possibly base your decision on if not their palms and birthdate?!
No wonder this stuff rots your brain.
I’m hoping the son is at least embarrassed by all this.
A few days ago, I wrote about the re-issuing of the Creationist pamphlet on a local church’s website. A person who attends the church had contacted me about some upcoming sermons they are having. I told her that I was disappointed that Parkview Christian Church had decided to put up the pamphlet even after they said they would remove it due to the massive errors.
Well, now I received a brief email response from Pastor Tim. He says (referring to me):
You can tell him I took out the parts in question.
That’s it.
No, Pastor Tim. No you did not. There are still loads of errors. Scientists are still quoted out of context. Basic science information is misconstrued. Pharyngula readers wrote about many of these problems here.
If any of you care about this, please call them, point out the errors, and urge them to remove it. Don’t be mean. Just ask to speak with someone who is in charge of this and list the mistakes. I’m not sure what else I can do at this point.
Their number is 708-478-7477 and the email address the church lists on its website is contact@parkviewchurch.com. I’m not yet giving the pastor’s email.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, responded to Richard Dawkins’ overall anti-religious attitude at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference. Tyson is quite articulate himself. Watch him:
(By the way, many of the Beyond Belief sessions are available to download and watch on your iPod.)
I started to agree with Tyson that Dawkins would do well to be more of the educator and less of the bulldog. I mean, part of being a teacher is understanding where your students are coming from, reaching them where they are, and taking them along the way to proper understanding.
Evolution isn’t an easy concept. I’ve read tons of books on the subject and I would still have a hard time explaining many of the intricacies to a stranger on the street.
So, of course, we who believe in the scientific method need to do a better job of explaining evolution to those who are blinded by faith.
But, like I said, I only started to agree… Then I changed my mind.
Having heard many people attack Dawkins for being so against the idea of religion, and having also read most of his major works, I do think he explains himself very well. However, his books aren’t intended for people who know nothing about science. You have to have some background in science before you can get the most out of his books. The people who are doing the attacking are generally people who have very little scientific understanding in the first place.
So I can understand Dawkins’ frustration and why he lashes out against religion. Some of the blame on Dawkins not being an educator is misplaced. I think it’d be a waste of his time to try and explain the basics of evolution to those who don’t understand it. That’s what high school teachers are for. I’d rather see him explaining evolution more in-depth to those of us who can and do understand the evolutionary process, which is why The Ancestor’s Tale is my favorite Dawkins’ book. It goes into elaborate detail about how evolution works, details I never read about anywhere else since much of the popular evolution literature deals with the mere basics.
I don’t want to see Dawkins dumb himself down. Sometimes, I feel like we missed out on his full potential because he stopped writing about hard-core evolution research (as he did in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype) in order to explain evolution “basics” (I use that term loosely), and now he has shifted to writing about religion and how it stands in the way of scientific progress. What other works might he have produced if evolution was properly understood and he didn’t have to reinvent the wheel for those who don’t understand it each time?
Again, like Tyson says, Dawkins might be more effective in explaining his theories if he was sensitive to religious people. But we need people like him to do more to advance Evolutionary Biology understanding for the rest of us. He shouldn’t have to worry about those who don’t get it. I do believe it’s only a matter of time before evolution is a given, and even if Dawkins isn’t around when that happens, his writing will be. And even if it’s not appreciated now, it will be later.
So I’m starting to care less about how Dawkins comes across. You just have to accept him as he is. He’s like the John Kerry of the atheist world. You want to root for him if you’re on his side, but sometimes, he just says things that create easy bait for the opposition. When you get down to real substance, though, I believe Dawkins has it.
Either way, I would like to see Neil DeGrasse Tyson get a little more exposure. If you’ve seen him on The Colbert Report, you know he does a marvelous job of explaining his positions no matter who his audience is. He’s the type of spokesperson that would get positive attention from a much wider audience.
Through my work in groups like the Secular Student Alliance, I’ve been able to meet many of the leaders in the atheist community. So far, I haven’t met as many Christian leaders, but perhaps that’ll happen more when the book is released next spring. I’m hoping to put some interviews with these leaders up on the website in the near future. Similarly, I’d like to put up interviews with younger people who may or may not have made up their minds about religion.
That’s where you come in.
What questions would you like to see everyone (religious and not religious) answer?
Are there specific questions I should ask the atheists? Christians? Younger people? Older people?
If you’re in high school or younger, and you’d be willing to be interviewed, please let me know. If you’re a Christian leader, same thing.
Please donate any amount you'd like to the Secular Student Alliance by using the PayPal link below. The SSA appreciates your thoughts. (But not your prayers.)
.
