The difficult thing for roleplayers compared to others is that we, if we have even a basic imagination, can come up with and play in a world with a vastly different religion than we believe in. I've seen devoutly faithful of several religions play happily in a world with god upon god upon god which interacted daily with their characters. I've seen atheists play characters who are so faithful it makes one wonder.
The thing is that people who don't roleplay just can't seem to understand the ones who do. I was once asked how I could read about or play games in worlds with such odd religions. My answer was simple. I imagine, for a while, that the world is that way, and I have a good time. There are people who really do take it too seriously. There are people who get so into character that they seem to forget themselves and become that character. This is just as unhealthy as any other mental abaration. It just gets noticed more, because normal people kill each other with guns, not swords and such, so when a nerd or gamer or whatever spazzes and offs someone with a sword, everyone spazzes right back. As for religious conviction in the real world, I don't blame people for sticking to their arguments. I prefer people to listen, but I find myself daily admiring the faith of people who believe sometimes directly in spite of the evidence they are given. It is easy to believe in something proven. It is hard to believe despite contrary evidence. It all is tied together though, because roleplay is the great equalizer. If people give it a chance, roleplay could end war. Why fight when you could roleplay your fight instead. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would think it's a better system. But screw the silly impractical stuff. Roleplay is great because it builds oneself. How better to explore an aspect of your personality than to put that aspect into a character, fill it out a little, and see what happens. I'm a lot more patient, because I play a patient character and find the virtue within myself. Happy Gaming. Signed: Dakotah Rickard On 6/19/12, Thomas Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dark, > > Yeah, let's not go there. Besides being completely off topic for the > list if we start down the road of debating religion and ethics we will > be here until doom's day discussing it. Like it or not everyone has an > an opinion, right or wrong, and its amazing how drastically different > those opinions can be in scope. Especially, when a lot of the opinions > aren't based on rational observation and good old logic and reasoning. > > For example, a year or two back a couple of Jehovah Witnesses knocked > on my door, and I let them in. They started in on their religious song > and dance, and happened to mention they were raising money on some > program to teach school age children about the Biblical Creation and > what a lie Evolution was. Unfortunately, for them they chose the wrong > guy to get into a debate with over Creationism vs Evolution. I'm a > pretty science oriented kind of guy, and I find the religious creation > stories rather dubious anyway. I've read a lot of the Creationism > arguments before, and they are scientifically weak, usually are based > on spurious information that is untrue, and try to defeat Evolution > by stating that creation is an all or nothing process. However, that's > beside the point here. > > I asked them if they honestly thought the universe was only 6,000 > years old. They told me that the bible says it is only 6,000 years > old, the earth was created in six days, etc. Well, I told them to > point me to the verse or verses that states how old the earth is. They > could not do that, because apparently its based on going throughout > the various genealogies given in Matthew, Luke, Genesis, etc and > coming up with some round about figure when the earth could have been > created, but nowhere does the bible actually say the actual age of the > earth and universe. What makes their argument even weaker if someone > studies the first chapter of Genesis the word translated as day in > English is misleading. In Hebrew the word could mean a day, a week, a > month, an eon depending on how you choose to interpret it.Point being > here that the bible doesn't actually say it was created in six literal > days, but that's just how Jews and Christians chose to interpret it > until science came along and proved that interpretation as impossible. > Since the word for day in Hebrew is so vague it may very well mean > millions and billions of years if a person is of a mind to interpret > it that way. Naturally, they didn't like the fact I could so readily > dismember their argument using the bible itself and we hadn't even > gotten to the scientific arguments. > > I asked them about radio carbon dating which places the beginning of > the universe at some 15 billion years ago, and they told me it was > junk science. They told me radio carbon dating is horribly inaccurate > which is only partly true. Radio carbon dating isn't good for pinning > down an exact date but usually can date something to the correct > century give or take a hundred years. That's good enough for what we > are talking about here, and is accurate enough for most archeological > dating of items let alone the beginning of the universe. > > Anyway, I then told them that the stars up in the sky are millions of > light years away and when they look at the stars at night the light > they see is already millions of years old. As you and I know the speed > of light is the great constant in the universe, figuring out the > distance of objects using light is easy to do, but they refused to > believe that. Instead they came up with some lame excuse that they had > to be a lot closer than astronomers claim and that the astronomers > simply are wrong. > > Bottom line, I gave them three good rational arguments that disproved > their theory, their beliefs, but they chose not to open their minds > and listen to the my side of the debate. Instead they wanted to > continue believing in their opinion right, wrong, or otherwise. This, > I think, is the problem with religion. Some people once they become > convinced of some truth, think they are right, regardless of what > compelling evidence might prove them wrong in the long run. As they > say, "a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion > still." Therefore arguing with such people is fruitless. > > Cheers! > > > On 6/18/12, dark <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Tom. >> >> well those sorts of christians are nuts, and I agree they give reasonable >> christians a bad name the same way extreme muslims give the entirity of >> islam a bad name (personally I don't like either group). >> >> When I was in colidge a friend of mine always used to introduce me to >> such >> people, because, as a philosopher I could always manage to tie them in >> knots. One of my favourite tactics was asking if mahatma Gandi had gone >> to >> hell for not being a christian, and when they admitted that he did saying >> "well okay then, ---- if hell is good enough for the greatest peace >> activist >> >> of the 20th century, it's good enough for me!" >> >> In fact I've often thought if indeed those people are right and only >> people >> >> with those sorts of views go to heaven, ---- I really wouldn't want to go >> to >> >> heaven! :D. >> >> It can however be extremely unpleasant when they decide to start a witch >> hunt. For example, my brother once had an awefull experience where he >> went >> to what he assumed to be a reasonable church. Outside, was a man >> collecting >> >> for the gay awareness charity. In the middle of the service the priest >> actually stopped and told the congrigation about "the sinfull thing going >> on >> >> outside the church" where upon after the service lots of people went >> across >> >> and gave the fellow at the gay rights stand a severely hard time, ---- >> and >> yet god is love! >> >> Sometimes I think that the worst instinct humans have is to band together >> in >> >> groups and say "everyone in our group is right" whether that's national, >> religious, racial, even disability based. But before this becomes a >> discourse on ethics I'lls top. >> >> Beware the grue! >> >> Dark. >> >> >> --- >> Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] >> If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to >> [email protected]. >> You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at >> http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. >> All messages are archived and can be searched and read at >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. >> If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the >> list, >> please send E-mail to [email protected]. >> > > --- > Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] > If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to > [email protected]. > You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at > http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. > All messages are archived and can be searched and read at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. > If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, > please send E-mail to [email protected]. > --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
