Most criticism of religion in Spore is from "militant atheists", claims Wright

As a simulation of evolution from single-cell organism to space-faring civilisation, Will Wright feared his latest creation, Spore, would draw criticism from religious groups. But so far, the game's creator has revealed, the portrayal of religion in the game has only drawn the ire of angry non-believers.

Wright told Eurogamer: "I think our bigger fear was that we didn't want to offend any religious people; but looking at the discussion that unfolded from this thing, what we had was a good, sizeable group of players that we might call militant atheists, and the rest of the players seemed very tolerant, including all of the religious players."

[Jamzz]

So what problem do "Militant Atheists" have with spore? This article never mentions what exactly "Militant Atheists" have a problem with. My guess is that they might have a problem with the scientific accuracy of how evolution is portrayed in the game. However, I find it hard to believe that an Atheist of any stripe would have a problem with religion being a part of an intelligent beings evolution to enlightenment. JMHO.

[Leathersoup]

I don't know how militant these atheists are. The issue at hand is that the game says the characters evolve but they don't really. As you are designing them from the ground up the game would be better suited to being called an "intelligent design" simulator.

[iamtehpwn]

You determine everything about them, and their evolutions are chosen by you, you also decide what they do, and ideally the religions the creatures come up with is describe to you, the force that created them, and gives to them, and recognize you as their God.

And of course, just like Real life, we all have different interpretations of what that force is, and if it exists.

[techwizz]

These people are stupid. Yes it may be more of an "intelligent design" simulator because you are calling the shots, but if everything were automated wouldn't that make Spore not, well, a game?

[poeo]

i hate the word "atheist" with a passion, it really doesnt mean anything if you think about it. why is there even a word for NOT being something? it's illogical. i dont believe in ghosts either, should i be called an "aghostist" or something? i also dont play tennis, label me for that too why dont you.

seriously, it's a stupid term, and even offensive to some extent to many of us who dont subcribe to religions. it's not like i actively pursue non-believing in something, it's just a default position for me.

/rant

[iamtehpwn]

It's used to described a demographic that is commonly stated, and of course, you have to name, a large demographic. Of course, with Ghosts, there are only people who believe, and those who don't, but with Religious beliefs there are several different categories.

And then of course, "Non-religious" falls into a different Category than Atheist or Agnostic.

[Leathersoup]

Of course the people you term to be atheist or non-religious would rather be called sane, normal, or rational.

[Xi]

I too am an atheist, and anti-religious, and proudly so. But we require a term to describe our lack of a belief much like much like disestablishmentarianism requires antidisestablishmentarianism.. .

You can have a position without it's negation, otherwise it's no longer a position and just a fact.

Either way, we should all buy spore and prove to people everywhere that rational humans are much better at being gods then we are at making them.

[iamtehpwn]

I am a Nondenominational Christian, I don't go to Church because I believe it's a scam (and attempt to hide the truth), I am also very Liberal and open minded. I'm also very curious toward the theory of evolution and many other things.

[v1c1ous]

however, through my years on the interbutt, i have noticed that 95% it's a very vocal minority of atheist posters that always start trouble in ANY religion based topic.

if you are a frequent user of digg.com, you would quickly notice how anything with a hint of religion turns into a massive flamewar.

[bunbun777]

That there are no absolutes and there are no voids, at least mathematically speaking... So for people to self identify a belief system in any way that effects their mind will and emotions, well that is either a philosophy, religion, or practice. A habit of belief if you will. And that, regardless of what you think it is, or if it relates to powers greater than your own, is what makes us human. I love the fact and am so happy about the relative value of all human beings, only in that it is equally relative solely based on that we are born. Yay!

[Panthers]

Then dont consider yourself an atheist. I dont. I feel that atheists believe in not believing. Just like a church would want to "save" you, an atheist would want to make you an atheist. They want to prove a point or something. Like they are smarter than religious people. Who cares.

I feel that people should just believe what they want and not bother anyone else with their beliefs.

[BISHOP-BRASIL]

But there is people that not only are non-believer but that also try to prove that believing is pure bullsh*t. Like mister Dawkings and Dennett.

The problem is naming an atheist everybody else that don't believe in superior forcer, or god, or religion, whatever... I know how bad it sucks, I'm called atheist many times.

I'm biologist, for sure I'm more inclined to the scientific/evolutionist point of view, but I really don't give a crap, there is many things we don't explain and, for me, that is just what they are: "things we don't comprehend". Where or not you want to give it some meaning or not, it's up to you. But I'm totally open to new theories, if you can prove or logically sustain it. And not getting prove-less bullsh*t, from either side.

Technically, this makes me an agnostic, maybe a skeptic, not an atheist.

[vlazed]

Sounds to me like someone is doing a "preemptive strike" in damage control. Sorry Sir irony is not becoming.

Poeo I agree with you completely. I wouldn't get to riled up about it though, because most people are neither logical or intelligent. Just look at these forums.

[name]

A militant athiest would just be the athiest version of a religious extremist. Someone who doesn't believe in a God, but is intolerant of those who do believe in one. I'm personally practice idontknowism and I envy those who can develop a stance on either side of the fence. Because I honestly have no f'ng clue.

[v1c1ous]

you're "playing it safe" and nothing wrong with that :D

[Jamzz]

Well, I've never met a militant atheist in that case. Most Atheists I know don't care one wit what others believe, they only wish to not have religious trappings pushed onto them. Some Christians take this as an attack on their beliefs, and they might be. But I don't see any Atheists trying to keep people from believing whatever they want. Atheists, generally, respect an individuals right to believe. But show the belief itself, little respect as it usually doesn't mesh with logic and reality. I mean, how do you show respect to something that seems ridiculous to you? Really. Peace!

[Leathersoup]

Exactly.

If someone believes they're Napoleon people aren't expected to respect them. We throw them in the nuthouse.

[zagibu]

@name: Agnosticism is actually the only stance that makes sense. It's really impossible to know if a creator exists. Of course, many religious claims are easily disproven, such as omnipotence, Noah's ark, or the biblical timescale. But the more metaphysical claims about the soul and life after death, etc. are not possible to disprove.
A whole lot of atheists are actually agnostics, but they have never heard the proper term. And those who know the term and still call themselves atheists are indeed usually intolerant against religious beliefs, because they think religion is responsible for some really bad things, and they want to stop it.
I would call myself an agnostic. I tolerate religious people, some of them are even among my best friends. But yeah, sometimes I am a bit offended by their arrogance. They see me as someone who has not yet learnt the truth.

[adalwolfe]

@zagibu yeah i think you have it there, most people don't know what agnostic means. I've always considered myself an agnostic theist, in that i believe in karma and a benelovent spirit.. namely because i find people that do good in this world tend to live much more fulfilling lives then those that don't or are self absorbed. But i don't believe in any particular religion since i do not think a human being (or even a human organization) could understand the purpose of a god let alone how it should be worshipped..

Atheisism doesnt' make any sense to me, i find it funny how most atheists claim that their belief is that of sanity or reason or being "normal".. but if you actually think out that belief to its conclusion (that we are all just organisms and there is no other world, no consequence for your actions) then there really is no reason to live at all, at least not like we do (working everyday, watching movies, partying).. Why follow any law? why care if you die? why care if others are killed? Why care for your children? you/they are just bugs, blades of grass.. There is no point to you or anyone that is close to you. Its a dead end thought pattern that leads to nothing other the chaos/instability and depression, the exact opposite of the sanity that they claim.. and coincidentally hell on earth..

I find the older I get the more sense these religions make.. not so much scientifically (like moses parting the red sea) but just in principal, our society needs religion.. it needs a central base of morals to progress. The foundation of religion is needed to transform a society from barbarism to rational thought.. which is why religion has been around since as far back as we have recorded society. and why it should be in this game :P

[iamtehpwn]

You make perfect sense, and I feel the same way, bubbles+

[incogneato]

atheism is now a trend that little kids follow. this is evident by merely looking around on the internet. the funniest thing is their hypocrisy. for example: they preach about how much they hate preaching, among other things.

cant wait till this fad is over. theyre more obnoxious and arrogant than religious people.

[iamtehpwn]

+bubbles

[OblivionMon]

Science still needs to catch up with God and likely they will never have their perfect evidence but looking at amazing evidence like Near Death Experiences and just the logicality of a God existing makes Atheism more of some faulty cry of men who want to be God than a legitimate position with lots of thought.

[Dream Machine]

Near Death Experiences - http://www.csicop.org/si/20...

Omnipotency is a logical fallacy (make a rock so heavy he can't lift it etc). The only God/s that can exist are ones that DON'T have limitless power and they'd be nothing like anything man, in our arrogance have dreamt up in our own image.

[zagibu]

There is no "logicality of a God". Maybe you meant creator. But an omnipotent God as described in the holy books is indeed a logical fallacy. A creator of earthly life, on the other hand, is a possibility.
Also, the popular statement you constantly hear from believers, that not-believing is just another belief, is wrong. Believing means you accept a conceptual system as truth, that has no manifestation in the real world. Not-believing simply means you don't do that, you only accept things as truth that you can evaluate with your senses, and that can be disproven at any time.

So in short: Atheism can be disproven, should a God reveal himself. But no matter how much we know about the world, belief in a God can never be disproven, because you can not prove that something doesn't exist. The two positions are not equal. Atheism is not a belief.