The Atheist Video Game

This isn’t another really bad joke, is it? No spoof, no satire? If not, then this person is a raging, flaming, flying, screaming, ASSHOLE!

This is going to get into the mainstream press and I want the two atheist organizations of which I am a member to denounce and repudiate this publicly, loudly, unambiguously and immediately.

This game does not “give atheists a voice.” It gives theists another reason to hate and fear atheists. If anything, atheist haters will like this because it gives them more ammunition and credibility.

ASSHOLE!

Right. Because murdering a religious leader NEVER makes a martyr out of them…

I mean, I’ve played time-travel games where you pretend to go back and, among other things, kill — or prevent the killings of — assorted people, to make the time-line come out differently. (Chrononauts, anybody?) It’s not like I object to the very idea of a game like that. But to present the idea of stopping religion by killing its leaders as “speaking for atheists” … that’s some fucked-up shit right here.

I’m with Siamang and Richard. What a douche. This guy does not represent atheism. He does not speak for me.

That game sounds awful. I think I’m about as likely to buy it as I am to buy the Christian version – not at all.

I’m as against murder as everyone else here, but I’m finding it difficult to get angry about this. Even the normally eloquent Richard Wade can’t muster anything better than “asshole”? It’s not that big a deal.

I’ll just never get behind the idea that a piece of media is inappropriate by virtue of its content, as long as nobody is harmed in the process of production. I’ve enjoyed a few Tom Clancy games, but that doesn’t mean I support Clancy’s moronic might-makes-right nationalism. But if the game is fun, I play it. A game about killing religious figures is less likely than normal to be fun, since such a heavyhanded purpose could get in the way of focusing on making fun gameplay (see: Left Behind), but if it turned out to be some groundbreaking experience a la Portal, you can bet I’d play it. Doing so wouldn’t mean I support murdering people for ideological reasons, but I certainly wouldn’t let real-world moral scruples get in the way of what I do in a fake world.

alex is right. We go back in time and do what to Jesus? What could we do that Mel Gibson didn’t beat us to?!!

I mean, yeah, stupid, but stupider than other video games? I don’t know. Video games in general strike me as a waste of time.

That’s really stupid and unproductive, but on a lighter note it will make a lot of intolerant Christians and Muslims hate atheists even more. Good job! Thanks a lot for making life that much harder for all of us.

I would also point out that without Abraham, you’ve got no Muhammad either, since Muslims are people of the Book, along with Jews and Christians.

Finally if we kill Abraham and some Biblical dudes, maybe we would stop Abrahamic religions, but then we might see the ascendancy of Baal, or Mithra, or some other desert religion that would undoubtedly become equally despised by this kind of atheist.

Why do I get the feeling that there’s a corollary to Poe’s Law waiting to be formulated?

This bit interested me:

because he’s scared for his safety. (I wonder why…)

Saying “I wonder why” implied to me that he deserves to be frightened because of what he has done. Just because he is stupid doesn’t mean that he should live in fear of the people he has offended, and perhaps that is the point he is pushing – if he says the same as some religious people say (“kill people who disagree with me”), they don’t like it.

I mean, yeah, stupid, but stupider than other video games? I don’t know. Video games in general strike me as a waste of time.

Aren’t all hobbies supposed to be wastes of time? When I hear people say stuff like that, it’s seems judgmental, like they never do anything just for fun.

The last few levels are sitting around with Jesus serving him tea and biscuits and waiting for him to die of old age.

In the words of one of the great philosophers of the 20th century: “It’s better to burn out, yeah, than fade awayyyyy.”

What about the old Zen saying “If you meet the Buddha, you must kill the Buddha”?

It’s like he’s giving religion exactly what it wants!

I vote for Happy Nat’s game. SAVE JESUS BEFORE HE SAVES YOU!

I like tea, you said:

I’m as against murder as everyone else here, but I’m finding it difficult to get angry about this. Even the normally eloquent Richard Wade can’t muster anything better than “asshole”? It’s not that big a deal.

Aw c’mon. Cut me some slack. It’s hard for me to be eloquent when I’m livid. There’s more to me than well turned phrases. I have blood in my veins like anybody else. Believe me, compared to how I feel, “asshole” is generous, gentle and kind. But now that I’ve had time to take many deep, slow breaths I’ll try to eloquently persuade you that this is a reprehensible thing that will cause us problems and could cause you, I like tea, problems. It will be a big deal if trouble comes your way.

First of all, any question of whether the game itself is stupid is completely missing the point. The game is a published product that will have the following description attached to it: “It’s a game that has kids go back in time to kill Abraham and the authors of the Bible and then cut Muhammad’s head off to stop Christianity and Islam.” This will be repeated millions of times and anyone who has ever played the telephone game knows that the tale grows in the telling. Soon it will be described as, “Its a game that has kids kill Jesus and the Apostles and oh yeah Muhammad too so atheism will take over the world.” That is a quick little sound byte that takes only half a breath to utter and is ripe with possibilities for more elaborating and embellishing. For some people it will go all the way to “Atheists want to kill us.”

The damage is not done by the game, it’s done by the sound byte. Another scary, ugly and stupid idea will be attached to the word “atheists.” If instead of the game the author had written an inflammatory book, the book could be argued over, its strengths and weaknesses discussed and it would rise or fall on the merits or flaws of its arguments. Even if only 100 copies of the game are ever sold, that mental picture of evil, ruthless, murderous atheists indoctrinating children to be like the Thuggees of Kali will multiply and circle the globe. Like an urban legend it will live on for decades after the game is no more.

Atheists are becoming more assertive. We are emerging from our fear and isolation, gaining confidence and becoming more vocal in the social and political square. That is already creating a counter movement, a resistance. We are going to have more and more confrontations with theists who will want to protect their social and political hegemony. Whenever those confrontations are centered around rational argument we will have the advantage. When those confrontations are rooted in fearful, hateful rumors and prejudicial myths, people are going to get hurt. We already see nonreligious political candidates losing elections, social shunning, job discrimination, the kind of abuse that the Smallkowski family faced and all the way to violence. That is probably going to get worse before it gets better.

I’m not saying that this game all by itself will wreak all this havoc. I’m saying we don’t need any more crap stuck on our public image than we already have. I’m not saying that we should cower or tiptoe around, or not keep asserting ourselves. I’m saying that our assertive process should have the dignity, rationality and decency that we want in the final outcome of that process. Our method must live up to the qualities of our goal, not descend into the same kind of abuse and hatred that we decry in theism. Idiots say “we will give as we get.” Wise people know that we will get as we give. Religion is slowly diminishing and atheism is gaining but we will be the minority for at least two more centuries. Religious people are well trained at believing what they hear and repeating it. They keep ugly, scary myths about their competitors going for centuries, despite how ludicrous and unfounded they are.

So to conclude, I will coolly, calmly and eloquently repeat my assertion that this person is an ASSHOLE!

Really, aren’t most games pretty much atheist games? Like Halo. There’s no mention of God, and you control your own actions.

Isn’t there a sect of Reptoids in Halo 2 who turn their back on their religion?

No, I really don’t think it’ll cause me any problems. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’ll be forgotten in a month or so.

I hope you’re right, but I doubt it will be forgotten so soon. I think we’ll hear it on Fox News by the end of this week and for years to come from the the likes of Dinesh D’Souza.

I guarantee you it’s not going to result in any mob violence against atheists,

I was very clear in saying that probably won’t happen, but my point is about not needing any more problems with the public’s already lousy perception of us. It’s the cumulative effect of things like this that I’m talking about. If, as an atheist you think that you are not right now negatively affected by the public’s beliefs about atheists, then you are not paying attention.

and anybody who’s dumb enough to judge atheists as a group based on the actions of one probably isn’t going to make an intelligent judgment about it in any event.

Exactly. I’m not worried about people who make intelligent judgments, I’m concerned about those who make stupid judgments. We have a never ending supply of those.

I like tea,
First, thank you for the back-and-forth on this with me, I’m enjoying it. I see your point about the intolerant, irrational and reactionary theists in the world being the “assholes” at whom you are angry, while the author of the game should be able to create what he wants without fear of reprisal. You’re arguing from a view of the way things ought to be, which has it’s validity, and I agree in principle, while I’m arguing from a view of the way things actually are right now. I tend to view the religionists surrounding us as part of the landscape, a feature that at least for now we’re stuck with and have to cope with in realistic, pragmatic terms. Two analogies come up for me:

1. We’re hiking quietly through a narrow mountain valley with heavy snow layers on either side. It’s an avalanche waiting to happen. This guy, the author of the game suddenly decides that he wants to practice his opera singing at the top of his lungs. While one might argue that he has a right to express himself artistically, I’m going to be tempted to pick up a log and crown him with it.

2. We’re making our way through a jungle populated by dangerous natives. We’re in delicate negotiations with them for safe passage, when suddenly this same asshole decides he wants to loudly mock and threaten them, and says that he speaks for us. Yes, he’s got his freedom of speech but once again, the log solution comes to mind.

I know my analogies are not perfect, but bear with me.

Just to be clear, I’m not advocating censorship. Any call for the game to be censored I would be against from my principled side, and on my pragmatic side I know it would probably backfire and make the game more popular.

The point is that he is not going to hurt himself, but he could end up hurting others. He will remain safe in his anonymity while other atheists for whom he incorrectly claims to be speaking will be thwarted in their efforts to negotiate better working relationships with theists. That is why he qualifies very well as an asshole. If and when the poop hits the propeller in the media, all we can do is to have our various organizations and spokespersons denounce and repudiate the game and its implications. We’re limited to damage control that will probably not be very effective.
Hopefully you will be right and the whole thing will just quietly pass by.

Maybe it’s because I’m young and pretty inexperienced, but I feel that if we don’t act like we’re living in an ideal world, we’ll never get any closer to it. Fundies are losing legitimacy (or so I’d like to think) these days, so maybe pissing them off won’t be quite the “avalanche” you describe.

Although young and inexperienced you can still be on the right track, and I’m beginning to be convinced that you are. Acting as if we are living in that ideal world might get us closer to its realization, and I am willing to give your optimism a try. My caution has come from disappointment and bruises, but perhaps my pace is a little too slow and we need to move forward boldly anyway. I am inspired and encouraged by the idealism and optimism of the young. It wasn’t so long ago that I had it too, and maybe I still do.

Somewhere there is a balance between patience and effort. Too much effort without enough patience can be destructive recklessness while too much patience without enough effort can be stagnation.