Pathological Video Games

[kingcomrade]

From your experience?

 

[Xi]

I don't think you can punish someone for thoughts. It's extremely invasive to check for and probably impossible to prove. On a personal level, I think policing thoughts would be morally wrong.

Crossing a privacy boundary like this would no doubt lead to a back lash of behavior, and I would only assume that some of it would be violent.

I was referring to organized religion. From my experience very few people actually believe in what their organized religion stands for and simply take away the good feelings they need about purpose and an afterlife. The problem is that they fund organizations who do stupid things like refuse modern medical treatment and try to stop other people from having access to it.

From "my experience" many religious organizations also run soup kitchens, provide shelters, offer counseling(family, work, etc), and promote helping others. I'm not sure what religion you're talking about. Seems like you're painting them all with the same brush.

Besides, religion can't always be the scapegoat either, as we've seen with 9/11, because not all Muslims act out like that. So you cannot just generalize that religious belief brought about a specific behavior because it is more likely that lifestyle, education, mental/physical health, and a slew of other things all amounted to a specific result like violence, or as you've put it "refusing modern medical treatment to stop other people from having it." This type of extremely odd behavior is more than just their religious belief in this case.

What do you mean by denying medical treatment anyway? As in denying abortion? Kind of hard to fault them on something like that anyway. Besides, your personal experience is almost never a good indicator of such generalizations, especially if you've directly had a bad experience. What about those who've had a good experience, or all the people who may have been helped?

 

[J1M]

I don't think you can punish someone for thoughts. It's extremely invasive to check for and probably impossible to prove. On a personal level, I think policing thoughts would be morally wrong.

Crossing a privacy boundary like this would no doubt lead to a back lash of behavior, and I would only assume that some of it would be violent.

I was referring to organized religion. From my experience very few people actually believe in what their organized religion stands for and simply take away the good feelings they need about purpose and an afterlife. The problem is that they fund organizations who do stupid things like refuse modern medical treatment and try to stop other people from having access to it.

From "my experience" many religious organizations also run soup kitchens, provide shelters, offer counseling(family, work, etc), and promote helping others. I'm not sure what religion you're talking about. Seems like you're painting them all with the same brush.

Besides, religion can't always be the scapegoat either, as we've seen with 9/11, because not all Muslims act out like that. So you cannot just generalize that religious belief brought about a specific behavior because it is more likely that lifestyle, education, mental/physical health, and a slew of other things all amounted to a specific result like violence, or as you've put it "refusing modern medical treatment to stop other people from having it." This type of extremely odd behavior is more than just their religious belief in this case.

What do you mean by denying medical treatment anyway? As in denying abortion? Kind of hard to fault them on something like that anyway. Besides, your personal experience is almost never a good indicator of such generalizations, especially if you've directly had a bad experience. What about those who've had a good experience, or all the people who may have been helped?

There is absolutely nothing that religion does with regards to charitable works that could not also be done via secular means. Furthermore, in terms of efficiency very little of the money that goes into the collection plate finds its way into the mouths of the needy.

Often the councilling provided by these organizations is focussed on a short term nature and fails to address the root of their need for help.

Is there a sound logical argument for the banning of stem cell research that does not invoke the mystical? I haven't heard one, especially given the number of embryos currently frozen and thrown away at fertility clinics. Another example related to this topic: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html A girl died because her parents refused to let doctors treat her and decided to pray harder instead.

Also, using your logic since there are poor people who aren't terrorists I guess poverty isn't at all responsible for terrorism. Same goes for health, education, etc. I would highly suggest you examine history a little more closely if you think religion has not been a consistent factor when it comes to persecuting people. Hell, it is still happening today with homosexuals. Maybe there is a good reason for treating homosexuals differently, all I know is the church certainly doesn't have one.

Oh, and the only reason I put "in my experience" in that post was because I didn't feel like digging up the quantifiable studies that show a direct correlation between countries with higher religiousity and higher incidence of social ills like teen pregnancy, STDs, homocide, etc. I don't have a direct link to it at the moment, but here is a news story discussing the study: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/corr ... 53994.html

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

At this point we should all think about this quote for a while...

"If God didn't exist, he'd have to be invented." - Voltaire.

Seriously, most people can't function in a moral way without a religion to tell them so. That's a huge problem and a benefit of religions.

 

[Xi]

There is absolutely nothing that religion does with regards to charitable works that could not also be done via secular means. Furthermore, in terms of efficiency very little of the money that goes into the collection plate finds its way into the mouths of the needy.

Just because these same things can be done by non-religious organizations doesn't mean we should forget about the numerous religiously based ones. If you want to talk about efficiency, lets talk about the salary of the CEO for Red Cross, or any ilk of it's type. Is paying these people half a millions dollars also an efficient means?

Often the councilling provided by these organizations is focussed on a short term nature and fails to address the root of their need for help.

Eh, ok.... I guess I will just take your word for it then eh? The strength of friends and people who are willing to help you in a time of need is powerful. Not all religious organizations rely solely on praying. Often times, they do much more. For example:

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/prayer ... selor.aspx

Professional Counselors -- These professional clinicians are qualified due to their education, experience, licensure and certification. In selecting a Christian counseling professional you should be aware of the different degrees and licenses that individuals may have. Unfortunately, each state has different licenses with different qualifications and thus there are few national norms. There are some fairly common terms that are used to describe different professionals, their degrees and their licensing.

They have many forms of counseling, including professional, of which you don't seem to think exist. So because these people are religious their services, even though they hold the same credentials, must not be as good?

Is there a sound logical argument for the banning of stem cell research that does not invoke the mystical? I haven't heard one, especially given the number of embryos currently frozen and thrown away at fertility clinics.

Well, I don't think it's just religious people who are against this. It's no different than abortion, not everyone who is against abortion is religious either. It's an ethical question and while the moral dilemma may be rooted in church teachings for some, in others it is merely a choice of will.

Another example related to this topic: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html A girl died because her parents refused to let doctors treat her and decided to pray harder instead.

Yes, that is stupid, but these type of scenarios are rare. But hey, let's vilify them all shall we?

Also, using your logic since there are poor people who aren't terrorists I guess poverty isn't at all responsible for terrorism. Same goes for health, education, etc. I would highly suggest you examine history a little more closely if you think religion has not been a consistent factor when it comes to persecuting people. Hell, it is still happening today with homosexuals. Maybe there is a good reason for treating homosexuals differently, all I know is the church certainly doesn't have one.

Huh? So are we talking about modern times, the time in which video games exist, or are we talking ancient Rome? You seem to be under the impression that things like war would not exist without religion. I guess this is why an atheist has never killed someone right?

Oh, and the only reason I put "in my experience" in that post was because I didn't feel like digging up the quantifiable studies that show a direct correlation between countries with higher religiousity and higher incidence of social ills like teen pregnancy, STDs, homocide, etc. I don't have a direct link to it at the moment, but here is a news story discussing the study: http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/corr ... 53994.html

I think we could agree that countries of which have low educational standards but high levels of religiosity could produce some pretty terrible outcomes. Not going to argue that, but can we blame religion or the culture in this scenario?

Obviously, there are some bad apples, but my point all along was that people do things for a host of reasons. Just like a video game doesn't produce violent behavior, religion does not produce a specific behavior. These things aren't necessarily the cause even if they can be shown to reinforce the behavior that leads to such things because for all the examples of "bad behavior" there will be many examples of "good behavior." Where do you draw the line with such generalizations?

 

[Xi]

I haven't played a shooter since Wolfenstein 3D back in 93, but I feel constant urges to murder and maim people. What should I do??

Act on your impulses and then ask yourself if it felt right.

 

[Elwro]

Then, behind the bars, write a bestselling book describing how games made you do that. The shortest way to success.

 

[Truth]

If Video Games Made Me Kill, Here's How They Did It.

 

[dagorkan]

That's interesting because recently a graduate student, after stopping his meds abruptely, went and shot up a school and then took his own life. I want to say it happened in South Carolina. He was also reading "Nietzsche" and the media attacked this source of material as part of the potential cause of the shooting.

This is no different than when people simplify such terrible issues as violence, like school shootings, into something like a video game. They fail to be reasonable in their assumptions and conclude that the video game must have "Caused" the behavior. Essentially, they let the culprit off the hook and place blame elsewhere. I think modern psychological research is showing more and more that people are more than what they did on a few afternoons time.

To me, it seems that video game usage is more likely to "cause" social anxiety or depression rather than outright violence. Connecting anxiety or depression to a behavior like violence would be a better route. Maybe these people are fed up with their lives and have been living through a constant struggle of anxious behavior while outside their homes and around people which then may lead to depression or reinforcement of playing video games, or increased usage.

Yes I think that's probably a more likely mechanism. Thanks for being able to understand nuanced arguments and not take everything to the extreme. Video games clearly do affect behavior and psychology, I can't see how anyone can deny that. I agree that they probably don't cause violence 'directly' but lead to mental disorder which in turn may lead to anti-social or violent behavior.

Point is that billions of kids are growing up playing mindless games, it would be idiotic not to wonder what if any effects there are.

 

[J1M]

Xi, your basic argument seems to be "yes J1M you are right, but it's not that bad" combined with "yeah religion does bad things, but other stuff does too, so why get rid of it?"

The problem with calling these religious people who do things that we view as reprehensible today "bad apples" is that they are all supported by scripture. You are so quick to blame every other possible cause, but refuse to look at this one. Biased much?

In short, your post is long but your arguments are weak.

 

[Xi]

Xi, your basic argument seems to be "yes J1M you are right, but it's not that bad" combined with "yeah religion does bad things, but other stuff does too, so why get rid of it?"

My point is that research has not indicated that religious belief, or video game usage, causes a specific violent behavior. So you're essentially saying that I should believe your psychobabble instead of empirical, peer reviewed science. Your personal experience, whatever that may be(Explain maybe?), is not indicative of anything conclusive. It's delusional to create generalizations about vast subjects and than pretend that you are correct because your own personal experience dictates this.

The problem with calling these religious people who do things that we view as reprehensible today "bad apples" is that they are all supported by scripture. You are so quick to blame every other possible cause, but refuse to look at this one. Biased much?

So we should just disregard evidence and alternative hypothesis because you believe that religion is the root of all evil? Again, atheists do these things too, which provides anecdotal evidence to shut down your "religion is the cause of all problems" argument. If I was being biased I would not even consider your argument, much like you have not considered mine(hypocrite much?), but I've at least agreed that religion and video games can reinforce specific behaviors in potential behavioral outbursts. Yet, evidence promotes that those most predisposed to act out are at the greatest risk. Essentially, any number of activities could cause these individuals to snap, video games and religion only being two potential reinforcers of such tendencies.

As an example of religion not being the only factor, why don't we see suicide bombers in the US? Could it be because of cultural differences, education, higher potential for success, mental physical health, higher quality of life, etc? Yet, you'll still argue that religion is the root cause of a suicide bomber.(See how religion only reinforces the behavior but isn't necessarily the cause?) So I think it shows how cultural differences, mixed with religious belief, will provide different results. This makes it difficult to point our finger at one specific cause, no?

In short, your post is long but your arguments are weak.

I forgot that "personal experience" makes for the superior argument by default. My bad. :wink:

--------------------------------

Video games clearly do affect behavior and psychology, I can't see how anyone can deny that. I agree that they probably don't cause violence 'directly' but lead to mental disorder which in turn may lead to anti-social or violent behavior.

Yeah, if there was causation between video game usage and say anxiety, then it becomes more interesting. When someone plays video games too much, and they consume all of that individuals time, it's hard to believe that there would be no side effect. If it was some type of anxiety, like social anxiety from spending a lot of time away from other people, it would be pretty easy to see how depression and other factors could lead this individual down a destructive path, or to say violence.

Depression at its worst leads to suicide, and this would be a definite risk factor if research could tie them together. It would link cause to Violence as suicide would be a form of self inflicted violence.(And how often do kids who shoot up schools also kill themselves too?) Plus, it just makes more sense that violent outbursts would come from someone suffering from some type of disorder to begin with. So if video games could be shown to cause anxiety and/or depression, it would just seem to heighten the risk in my eyes.

So it's not that I fully disagree with you because it does seem like extreme usage, like many things in life, can have side effects. It's just a matter of what those side effects are in terms of video game usage. I don't have access to my school library at the moment or I would see if anxiety and depression are factors of video game usage. A search on Google didn't bring up anything I thought was reliable. It seems like most current research focuses on aggression and violence.

 

[dagorkan]

What I think is quite clear (and the starting point of this thread, though it seems forgotten) is that there is a fundamental difference between the effects of on the one hand 1/ turn-based strategy games or point-and-click adventure games, vs on the other 2/ real-time blood'n'gore 'deathmatch' shooters (where you keep playing the same level over and over just trying to increase your relative score) or mindless MMORPGs. Games shouldn't all be lumped together but the wider public does do that because the MMOs and FPSes have come to dominate the market so much - from being two major genres adventure and RPG have become practically non-existent.

I would be comfortable agreeing with the parent groups and experts that FPSes are very likely bad for kids to play too much of whereas I would not have the same concerns about a kid playing Monkey Island or Civilization or some kind of Flight Sim. Of course too much time on the computer is bad (for health and social life) whatever you're doing on it (pirating music, browsing porn) but the latter type of game would seem less harmful since they require you to pause and think (you don't 'win' an adventure or strategy game by simply mashing all the buttons non-stop for several hours).

Instead of demonizing all video games and the kids who play them, why don't these groups encourage children to stop playing their shooters and move on to less harmful (maybe even beneficial) strategy games and RPGs?

 

[J1M]

Xi, your basic argument seems to be "yes J1M you are right, but it's not that bad" combined with "yeah religion does bad things, but other stuff does too, so why get rid of it?"

My point is that research has not indicated that religious belief, or video game usage, causes a specific violent behavior. So you're essentially saying that I should believe your psychobabble instead of empirical, peer reviewed science. Your personal experience, whatever that may be(Explain maybe?), is not indicative of anything conclusive. It's delusional to create generalizations about vast subjects and than pretend that you are correct because your own personal experience dictates this.

So, did you
a) Choose not to look into the creditable study I mentioned that shows a clear correlation between religiosity and social ills in first-world countries because it disagreed with your premise?
b) Forgot to mention the fatal flaw you found in their methodology?

You speak of psychobabble, but I am the only one who has provided anything resembling peer-reviewed research in our discussion.

The problem with calling these religious people who do things that we view as reprehensible today "bad apples" is that they are all supported by scripture. You are so quick to blame every other possible cause, but refuse to look at this one. Biased much?

So we should just disregard evidence and alternative hypothesis because you believe that religion is the root of all evil? Again, atheists do these things too, which provides anecdotal evidence to shut down your "religion is the cause of all problems" argument. If I was being biased I would not even consider your argument, much like you have not considered mine(hypocrite much?), but I've at least agreed that religion and video games can reinforce specific behaviors in potential behavioral outbursts. Yet, evidence promotes that those most predisposed to act out are at the greatest risk. Essentially, any number of activities could cause these individuals to snap, video games and religion only being two potential reinforcers of such tendencies.

As an example of religion not being the only factor, why don't we see suicide bombers in the US? Could it be because of cultural differences, education, higher potential for success, mental physical health, higher quality of life, etc? Yet, you'll still argue that religion is the root cause of a suicide bomber.(See how religion only reinforces the behavior but isn't necessarily the cause?) So I think it shows how cultural differences, mixed with religious belief, will provide different results. This makes it difficult to point our finger at one specific cause, no?

.

1) I never said anything about religion being the root of all evil. You are projecting here and trying to set up a straw man argument. If you want to preach don't pretend to be responding to me.
2) There probably hasn't been a proven causation, but there is certainly a strong correlation with regards to what I have talked about. You can't sweep religion's role in things like the Crusades, Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials under the rug when it comes to this topic by simply saying they happened a long time ago.
3) I never suggested banning religion would solve all of life's problems. I do, however, contend that it would result in long-term benefits and admit that there would be short-term upheaval.

If you have anything to say on the actual topic, feel free. I am not interested in engaging you in this black/white all-or-nothing good/evil diatribe. In fact, I would argue that your tendency to see this situation in those terms is in-fact another ill fostered by religion.

 

[Xi]

So, did you
a) Choose not to look into the creditable study I mentioned that shows a clear correlation between religiosity and social ills in first-world countries because it disagreed with your premise?
b) Forgot to mention the fatal flaw you found in their methodology?

You speak of psychobabble, but I am the only one who has provided anything resembling peer-reviewed research in our discussion.

Clear correlation eh? Ok let's check into that.

"intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data not to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".

Here is the entire article: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

2) There probably hasn't been a proven causation, but there is certainly a strong correlation with regards to what I have talked about. You can't sweep religion's role in things like the Crusades, Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials under the rug when it comes to this topic by simply saying they happened a long time ago.

The only strong correlation that I can find mentioned is from you, the article specifically says that it's basic. Which means it's by no means conclusive. More researched is required before any conclusions can be made, essentially. Besides, I thought this topic was about video game violence? Do you have anything to offer about this?

Your examples of religious belief in history is moot too. You want to believe that they were entirely fueled by religious motivation alone. Maybe religion was just the crux that people influenced and abused to get what they wanted? Also, i think great follow up research to the article you provided would be of the connection between religiosity, education, and societal health.

 

[J1M]

So, did you
a) Choose not to look into the creditable study I mentioned that shows a clear correlation between religiosity and social ills in first-world countries because it disagreed with your premise?
b) Forgot to mention the fatal flaw you found in their methodology?

You speak of psychobabble, but I am the only one who has provided anything resembling peer-reviewed research in our discussion.

Clear correlation eh? Ok let's check into that.

"intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data not to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health".

Here is the entire article: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

You don't even know the difference between correlation and causation? Wow. Go take a basic statistics course.

2) There probably hasn't been a proven causation, but there is certainly a strong correlation with regards to what I have talked about. You can't sweep religion's role in things like the Crusades, Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials under the rug when it comes to this topic by simply saying they happened a long time ago.

The only strong correlation that I can find mentioned is from you, the article specifically says that it's basic. Which means it's by no means conclusive. More researched is required before any conclusions can be made, essentially. Besides, I thought this topic was about video game violence? Do you have anything to offer about this?

Your examples of religious belief in history is moot too. You want to believe that they were entirely fueled by religious motivation alone. Maybe religion was just the crux that people influenced and abused to get what they wanted? Also, i think great follow up research to the article you provided would be of the connection between religiosity, education, and societal health.

WRONG!

Can you participate in a discussion with a real person? Or is creating straw men to argue against all you are capable of doing?

I never said anything about religion being the root of all evil.

 

[Xi]

You don't even know the difference between correlation and causation? Wow. Go take a basic statistics course.

I know that religion isn't the cause for these behaviors. Correlation between religiosity and societal health is what the article discusses, but it offers nothing conclusive to determine causation.(As it states) The correlation itself isn't entirely indicative that religion = bad either.(I figured you would understand this, but I guess not.)

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

You need to learn to read. This is what I've been saying the whole time. Since you're tossing around talk of fallacy, why don't you stop appealing to authority? I've examined your article and it explicitly states that it shows no causation between religiosity and societal health, only an inconclusive correlation.(One with high variability)

You're only providing a weak generalization about why you "think" religion is bad, just like people thought video games caused violence, and the research article you provided does not support your argument that religion = bad. The only real point of the article is that atheism, or lack of a religious belief, does not equate to bad societal health as many religious people believe. I guess the other point of the article is to promote further research by providing the correlation as a place someone else could continue this person's research. Obviously it needs to be narrowed as it can be misinterpreted pretty easily.

What is your point btw? You aren't even arguing a point anymore, or at least I'm not sure what it is because I've refuted everything you've said so far and your only rebuttal is that I'm "Wrong" or that I "need to take basic statistics." Even if I was good at statistics, the article offers no mathematical data to look at. It wouldn't help me to understand the article.

Who cares if games cause people to kill people? We have proof that religion causes people to kill people, so until that gets banned there is nothing to discuss. I, for one, would gladly give up videogames if religion was cleansed from humanity.

Proof eh? Ok. No....we have proof that you're an idiot.

 

[sportforredneck]

I never said anything about religion being the root of all evil.

Well then you should have since religion is the root of all evil. Along with nationalism.

 

[J1M]

You don't even know the difference between correlation and causation? Wow. Go take a basic statistics course.

I know that religion isn't the cause for these behaviors. Correlation between religiosity and societal health is what the article discusses, but it offers nothing conclusive to determine causation.(As it states) The correlation itself isn't entirely indicative that religion = bad either.(I figured you would understand this, but I guess not.)

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

You need to learn to read. This is what I've been saying the whole time. Since you're tossing around talk of fallacy, why don't you stop appealing to authority? I've examined your article and it explicitly states that it shows no causation between religiosity and societal health, only an inconclusive correlation.(One with high variability)

You're only providing a weak generalization about why you "think" religion is bad, just like people thought video games caused violence, and the research article you provided does not support your argument that religion = bad. The only real point of the article is that atheism, or lack of a religious belief, does not equate to bad societal health as many religious people believe. I guess the other point of the article is to promote further research by providing the correlation as a place someone else could continue this person's research. Obviously it needs to be narrowed as it can be misinterpreted pretty easily.

What is your point btw? You aren't even arguing a point anymore, or at least I'm not sure what it is because I've refuted everything you've said so far and your only rebuttal is that I'm "Wrong" or that I "need to take basic statistics." Even if I was good at statistics, the article offers no mathematical data to look at. It wouldn't help me to understand the article.

Who cares if games cause people to kill people? We have proof that religion causes people to kill people, so until that gets banned there is nothing to discuss. I, for one, would gladly give up videogames if religion was cleansed from humanity.

Proof eh? Ok. No....we have proof that you're an idiot.

You should have at least attempted to look up the difference between correlation and causation. Instead we have a fluff post based on a flawed idea of what this study says. If you ever do learn statistics you will be embarrassed to re-read this post.

I speak of generalities when it comes to the wrongs of religion because if you start to list them off most religious people stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss everything as if it was an isolated incident. Sort of like how you did when I mentioned crusades et all...

I'd love to hear about how the pedophile priest issue has nothing to do with the church that hid these men from the authorities and shuffled them from one town to the next over and over again.

 

[Thor Kaufman]

I never said anything about religion being the root of all evil.

Well then you should have since religion is the root of all evil. Along with nationalism.

Maybe man is the root of all evil, but also some good parts.
Religion is just an institution of power to keep the people in check.

You can say governments, corporations, religions are the root of evil but it's people who run them and it's all just about getting power hence pussy.

 

[Xi]

You should have at least attempted to look up the difference between correlation and causation. Instead we have a fluff post based on a flawed idea of what this study says. If you ever do learn statistics you will be embarrassed to re-read this post.

I speak of generalities when it comes to the wrongs of religion because if you start to list them off most religious people stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss everything as if it was an isolated incident. Sort of like how you did when I mentioned crusades et all...

I'd love to hear about how the pedophile priest issue has nothing to do with the church that hid these men from the authorities and shuffled them from one town to the next over and over again.

Ok, I'm done putting effort into this. You're just wrong on this matter. If you had even read your article you would understand that it does not support your own view. I'm not saying that religion is innocent, but I can say that it does not directly cause these issues like you seem to think.

It's no different than how people generalize that video games can cause violent behavior. This is a flawed view once you see the research. You're just generalizing that religion must cause certain behaviors too, but this is not the case.

 

[J1M]

You should have at least attempted to look up the difference between correlation and causation. Instead we have a fluff post based on a flawed idea of what this study says. If you ever do learn statistics you will be embarrassed to re-read this post.

I speak of generalities when it comes to the wrongs of religion because if you start to list them off most religious people stick their fingers in their ears and dismiss everything as if it was an isolated incident. Sort of like how you did when I mentioned crusades et all...

I'd love to hear about how the pedophile priest issue has nothing to do with the church that hid these men from the authorities and shuffled them from one town to the next over and over again.

Ok, I'm done putting effort into this. You're just wrong on this matter. If you had even read your article you would understand that it does not support your own view. I'm not saying that religion is innocent, but I can say that it does not directly cause these issues like you seem to think.

It's no different than how people generalize that video games can cause violent behavior. This is a flawed view once you see the research. You're just generalizing that religion must cause certain behaviors too, but this is not the case.

Obviously the study does not conclude causation. If you knew what that meant you'd understand why.

Great job ignoring concrete exampmle #4. You prove my points so consistently people are going to start thinking I am posting on both of these accounts.

 

[Xi]

Obviously the study does not conclude causation. If you knew what that meant you'd understand why.

You're the one generalizing that it does, not me. Maybe you need to check your definitions.

 

[J1M]

Obviously the study does not conclude causation. If you knew what that meant you'd understand why.

You're the one generalizing that it does, not me. Maybe you need to check your definitions.

lol, I never said that study shows causation, you are confusing me with your straw man again.

 

[Xi]

lol, I never said that study shows causation, you are confusing me with your straw man again.

You're just being delusional now, and you can't even remember what you typed before you provided your "bluff" article to support the fact that you said there was proof for religion "causing" violence, and I quote:

Who cares if games cause people to kill people? We have proof that religion causes people to kill people, so until that gets banned there is nothing to discuss. I, for one, would gladly give up videogames if religion was cleansed from humanity.

You sir, are a moron.

 

[Volourn]

Games don't cause people to become violent. That's absolutely nonsense. there's a reason muder has basicalkly existed since the first humans started to interact. Afterall, video games are relatively new to the world scene. Murder, and violence are not.
Theft, also, is along time human past time.

It's beyond silly to think otherwise. In EVERY CASE where peons tried to link a game to violence (ie. when a violent person had happened to play a agme) there was ALWAYS some other overriding factor be it drugs, alcohol, other eprosnal problems, etc.

It's the same crap they tried to push on D&D in the 80s. Absolutely lame.

If you don't agree with me I might get violent. It won't be the game I played though that makes me violent. It's just that I hate disagreeable jerkoffs.

R00fles!