Thursdays with Seth #11: Piss Christ: The Game (and other stuff, too!)

WELCOME!

To the 11th installmant of Thursdays with Seth! This week, I will show you some badass indie games, and of course, I'll find an argument made by a religious person on the interwebs and then deconstruct it. Why? Because it's THURSDAY, BITCHES!

PISS CHRIST: THE GAME!

This break, I have been extremely busy trying to keep myself from being busy, and I have discovered some amazing indie games as a result. Here are a few of them!

You may remember our good friend Piss Christ from an old Blasphemy Friday post. Luckily, an indie game developer has created a game that is equally sacrilegious! Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce Piss Christ: The Game. In Piss Christ: The Game, you take on the exciting role of photographer Andres Serrano as you attempt to fill a moving cup containing a crucifix with urine. You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you'll be blown away by the amazing graphics and story. And the soundtrack is top notch.

Not to be outdone by himself, the creator also packaged Piss Christ: The Game with a sequel: Piss Christ The Game 2: Piss Christ in Space. In the words of the creator,

To combat dissatisfaction with PCTG's 'casual' gameplay, a hardcore, action-packed sequel was devised. In PCTG2:PCIS (now with gameplay!) your urine stream can be used as both a weapon and a method of propelling the player character through space. Defend yourself from the oncoming crucifix hordes for as long as you see fit before your inevitable demise.

If you're still reading this post, I urge you to stop right now and to start urinating on a pixellated Jesus as soon as possible.

YOU REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS.

A facebook discussion has been created entitled "Is evidence needed to support spiritual claims?" My answer was, of course, "yes." But a post was made on that discussion which contained the following line of reasoning. I won't single out the author by using a name, but if the author wants to respond to this blog post, I welcome the discussion!

Evidence is not _needed_ to support spiritual claims.

Evidence is never _needed_ for scientific claims, either.

Now, if a person wants evidence, she can state a rule that she will not believe something until evidence is provided.

Lack of evidence for one person does not invalidate for another.

For example, if you tell me you just had pizza for lunch, and you want me to bet money on that, I will desire more evidence. You will not. You have memory and evidence sufficient.

Also of note is that your evidence is not the same as mine, nor is it equal in amount. I need to see a receipt from the restaurant and the credit card you used to match it to the receipt.

Meanwhile, you simply recall "I had pizza" and that is enough for you.

It would be unwise and unfathomable for you to rely simply on your word; however, I may choose to believe you on your word alone, and while it is risky, I do not "need" more evidence. It is at my option.

This analogy does not work because the claim about having had pizza is not a scientific or a faith-based claim. The big difference between what you had for lunch and a scientific claim is that your lunch-oriented claim is not a claim about how the world works. It is a brief description of a single event that had relatively little impact on anything after it.

Evidence is needed for both scientific and faith-based claims primarily because they are in direct opposition to one another. If I claim that the Earth is just like every other planet and was formed out of essentially stardust, I must back that claim up by demonstrating the composition of Earth and of other planets, and I must demonstrate that the implications of my claim hold true. Similarly, if you claim that the Earth is the center of the universe and that the sky is actually made of a firmament holding up an unfathomable amount of water, you would have to back that claim up because it contradicts mine.

Now, on to the question of equivalent evidence. Because the claims are mutually exclusive, their evidence must be equally strong. If I claim that you robbed my house and you claim that you didn't, we now have mutually exclusive claims. If your defense is "seriously, I didn't." And my prosecution is that I found your fingerprints all over my shit, and also you left your wallet in my house, and I also have DNA samples from hair you left in my carpet, guess who wins the case? When two ideas are in opposition, the idea with more weight behind the evidence wins out, hands down.

It is only possible that one of our claims is true. The Earth can't both be the same as other planets, created by circumstance, and simultaneously be at the center of the universe, created by an omnipotent being who made our planet by separating it from water... whatever that means. The party that can actually back up their claims with tangible evidence will come out on top. If the only evidence you have is a 2000-year-old, badly-written, poorly-translated fiction novel assembled by people who believed that evil spirits caused their livestock to get sick, you will be met with skepticism.

On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that your claim is true through objective means, such as by using methods involving actual measurements and real data, your evidence will be on par with evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for you, most spiritual claims do require evidence solely because they make claims that contradict reality. The evidence, though, is (unremarkably) nowhere to be found. Your claims about God are exactly the same as the claims of the drunk man standing on the street corner waving a sign and shouting, 'THE END IS NEAR!"

Perhaps the question should be rephrased, "Is scientific evidence needed by faith-utilizing people in order for their faith to be deemed justified - and attractive - by scientific people?"

If you tell me I need evidence to support the claim that "God exists" then you probably are either the most caring person in the world or the dullest person in the world

A skeptical atheist asks me "Do you really believe in God?" because they are afraid that I am wasting my life.

Another type of atheist is one who asks me, "Do you really believe in God?" and laugh in my face. That person is saying, in essence, that the evidence I have is insufficient for them and for me. (That type of person is much closer to the religious wingnuts who kill gays and abortion providers, and they know it, and love to argue with them.)

It's not that I'm the most caring person in the world, though I'm probably pretty close. I'd say I'm the third or fourth-most caring. Anyways, claiming that my pointing out the logical holes in your claims makes me the dullest person in the world won't stop me from doing so.

For instance, here is another logical flaw in your argument. You have listed here two types of atheists, operating under the assumption that an atheist can't both be afraid that you are wasting your life and simultaneously think that your ideas are laughable. I would consider myself in both categories. Watching someone who has devoted their life to their religion is both a tragedy and a comedy. It's hard not to feel sorry for that person, but it's also hard not to laugh at the utterly ridiculous things that person believes, despite being bombarded every day with evidence to the contrary.

And Finally, I'm not sure what you mean at the end there about atheists who laugh at religious people being in par with people who kill homosexuals or who abort fetuses. That literally makes no sense. Again, this seems like an attempt to shield yourself from further criticism by equating those who criticize you with people who others deem to be bad. It doesn't work.

VESSEL!

I want to take this last part of my THURSDAYS WITH SETH #11 post to show a trailer for a freaking sweet upcoming indie game. It's called Vessel. Like Piss Christ: The Game, it revolves around the use of fluids, but in a much less blasphemous way. Check it out!