OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21217/Game_Review_Grand_Theft_Auto_4_XBox_360 Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:02:57 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355644 http://osnews.com/thread?355644

authored by Jesus Christ himself

Could it be that the figurehead of what is historically one of the world's most violent religions is losing his edge? :-)Edited 2009-03-28 13:51 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355645 http://osnews.com/thread?355645 Nice one.

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darknexus) Comments yes, but http://osnews.com/thread?355648 http://osnews.com/thread?355648 But while annoying, it`s still a fun game. Thom, you can`t be serious thinking this is the worst game you ever played. You got your expectations too high, but GTA IV is still one of the most finely crafted labour of love games around. Just the sheer amount of thought and work put into it by devs deserves some praise. I couldn`t care less about the character, that is right.Edited 2009-03-28 14:27 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (stooovie) Comments RE: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355649 http://osnews.com/thread?355649 Interesting the atheistic view is THE most violent in history. They made their muderous splash in less than 100 years. Europe was mostly catholic and the US was built protestant.

Dont start an idiotic flame war. The author's point is that GTA is way over hype. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bnolsen) Comments Right on http://osnews.com/thread?355650 http://osnews.com/thread?355650 And here's the mini-review of the PC version, which is every bit as bad as the XBox version, but made infinitely worse by a port seems to have been done by an intern after a particularly bad night of drinking.

When I purchased this game on my new computer (Quad core, 4 gigs ram, Radeon 4850), it essentially didn't run at all. First I had to sign up for two extra accounts (rockstar has their own network, and then windows live) and then it takes about 3 minutes to load.

Not that loading was actually a good thing, because after about 2 minutes of playing the game, textures started randomly disappearing and flickering, getting worse and worse until I was walking in mid air along with a couple cars. I did actually play through this for a while because I have such good memories of playing previous GTA games. The issues was eventually sort of fixed in a patch, although the game still stutters and sometimes loses textures. I don't think it looks that great to justify the staggering system requirements.

Then the half-assed port is really obvious in the fact that you can't actually look up controls. In the control configuration, all you get is an option to set up an XBox controller. On a PC???? WTF.

I'm surprised that you didn't spend more time complaining about the cars. They're actually my biggest issue with the game. You spend so much time having to get to places, but the cars are completely broken. And they're not even realistic! Realism would be a blessing here because real cars handle much better than cars in GTA.

Driving an SUV in GTA is completely impossible because the body roll at speeds higher than 30km/h will cause you to flip over. Any regular car can roll down a hill at about 30-50km/h, and when you hit the e-brake will actually do a 180. Turning a corner without hitting a building at high speed is completely impossible. Normal cars have artificially low top speeds. Real cars can all top 150km/h now, but in GTA some of them top out at what feels like 80 or less.

All the fun with hitting jumps is gone. You can't drive up stairs, and hitting them with a motorbike, will cause you to go flying off the bike. I could go on, but it just sucks so badly. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leos) Comments RE: yes, but http://osnews.com/thread?355653 http://osnews.com/thread?355653 ...it's just that the thought and work have gone into the wrong aspects of the game - realism and graphics, while completely ignoring everything else.

Games like Saints Row 2 and Left 4 Dead are a lot cruder and less realistic, but they shine where matters: gameplay. I want my gaming experience to be a fun one. That's why I play games: to have fun.

As such an overly hyped and praised game, I expected GTA4 to be fun, while it simply wasn't. It's dreadful.Edited 2009-03-28 14:52 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments Disagree http://osnews.com/thread?355657 http://osnews.com/thread?355657 Actually I would say the story is more about someone hell bent on revenge due to the experience of a traitor during the war.

The graphics are great. I experienced NONE of the darkness problems that you describe though I played / am playing on the PS3.

The physics for the vehicles is great.

The attention to detail is astounding, like getting in certain makes of car and the there is SAT NAV. The radio chatter. The textures used to give a really diverse looking city with many differnt shop fronts etc. The fact you can hear people on mobile phones in conversation as you walk past.

I agree the constant phone calls for meeting up with people is really annoying, but I would say the game is great despite it.

I personally think the story is great though I haven't completed it yet.

The game is vast with the usual sub-games, a huge city with plenty to explore and do. There is so many missions it's just great value for money and will keep you going for a long time.

I can understand someone finding it over-hyped and not delivering on expectations but describing it as one of the worst games you have ever played is laughable, unless you really haven't tried many games.Edited 2009-03-28 15:14 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (amacdonald) Comments The hell... http://osnews.com/thread?355660 http://osnews.com/thread?355660 "I guess the people handing out the praise (basically every game reviewer) have never played Mass Effect, which sports the best dialogue and story of any game ever made."

I stopped paying attention to the review at this point. Seriously, that's one of the most baldly idiotic statements I've read in quite a while. Even if you do like Mass Effect, saying that its cliched plot and flatline dialogue are the "best of any game ever made" are a sure indication that the reviewer hasn't played very many games at all.

GTA 4 does leave a lot to be desired, but then so does this review. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (phanboy_iv) Comments Chinatown Wars id way more fun http://osnews.com/thread?355661 http://osnews.com/thread?355661 I've been playing GTA: Chinatown Wars on the Nintendo DS for the past week, and even at this early stage, I feel it's the best GTA game I've ever played.

I returned GTA IV (PS3) after a week... if was an inferior game to San Andreas in many respects. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gan17) Comments RE: yes, but http://osnews.com/thread?355664 http://osnews.com/thread?355664 i have to agree with him, GTA4 is the most overrated game i have ever seen.

I tried it on PS3 and 360.

You just go around kicking and running.

I don't think it is the worst game ever, there are much worst, but it is on the top half of my list.

If you want to play one of the best game ever, buy a PS3 and play Metal Gear Solid 4. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kwanbis) Comments RE: The hell... http://osnews.com/thread?355666 http://osnews.com/thread?355666 Yeah, why don't you just quote the entire paragraph, making it clear that it's more than just the dialogue and the story that make Mass Effect stand out so much here:

GTA4 was lauded for its cutscenes, dialogue, and voice acting. I guess the people handing out the praise (basically every game reviewer) have never played Mass Effect, which sports the best dialogue and story of any game ever made. Yes, I'm very decisive in this case: Mass Effect's epic story, combined with the innovative dialogue controls, film-like camera work during dialogues, and the near-perfect trademark BioWare voice acting make it stand out above any other game in this department.

Edited 2009-03-28 15:45 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments kill everyone for nothing http://osnews.com/thread?355672 http://osnews.com/thread?355672 kill everyone for nothing Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (GODhack) Comments RE[2]: yes, but http://osnews.com/thread?355677 http://osnews.com/thread?355677

...it's just that the thought and work have gone into the wrong aspects of the game - realism and graphics, while completely ignoring everything else.

Games like Saints Row 2 and Left 4 Dead are a lot cruder and less realistic, but they shine where matters: gameplay. I want my gaming experience to be a fun one. That's why I play games: to have fun.

As such an overly hyped and praised game, I expected GTA4 to be fun, while it simply wasn't. It's dreadful.

The problem with this argument is that it can be used against you and be just as valid. People gave the game great reviews because they had a lot of fun playing it. And you can't argue against that because fun is subjective.Edited 2009-03-28 17:21 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Narishma) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355683 http://osnews.com/thread?355683

Interesting the atheistic view is THE most violent in history. They made their muderous splash in less than 100 years.

Hey, it's not our fault - all-powerful Atheismo works in mysterious ways. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355687 http://osnews.com/thread?355687

Dont start an idiotic flame war.

Right. Wouldn't want to upset the Jesux zealots. :-P

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Node/4081/ Edited 2009-03-28 19:30 UTC Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments Hint http://osnews.com/thread?355696 http://osnews.com/thread?355696 Dont go for overhyped games, they usually stink at gameplay...
I nowadays buy 90% independend games... Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (werpu) Comments overlooked http://osnews.com/thread?355700 http://osnews.com/thread?355700 I really enjoyed the first GTA, it was more of a pick up and play game back when we couldn't have 'good' graphics and effort was put into the fun aspect of game play. Something that is lacking in most modern games these days unfortunately.

I've given up on the GTA games now, its the same-old game repeated with less game play and seemingly better graphics/world engine, but thats about it.

Fans of GTA may find they prefer something along the same lines, with a bit more 'crazy' aspect to it. They should consider looking to give 'Just Cause' a try.
In saying that, remember its not GTA and you will find faults with Just Cause if you look at it as a clone. However, even on its own merits you'll find problems with that game but it sure is a nice alternative to GTA that provides a nice pick up and play game with some fun injected into it.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/13670.html - review that some may find interesting. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sagum) Comments Come on, there are loads of games worseâ�¦ http://osnews.com/thread?355703 http://osnews.com/thread?355703 :/
I rather liked Davilexâ M25 Racer, I even still have the CD preview copy (pressed but unlabelled)
It never crashed, it wasnât insanely hard, you could even see real mapped buildings (it was like a poor mans MSR) in London!

As for GTA4, the only downside I found playing it were the pestering friends, much more tolerable in comparison to GTA: San Andreasâ eat/sleep/training regimen. Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Beta) Comments Imagine my surprise http://osnews.com/thread?355709 http://osnews.com/thread?355709 You are surprised the game did not live up to your expectations?

I'm surprised to read a review of the game almost a year after release. Its like so yesterday Thom. Get with it man.

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bit_Rapist) Comments Hmmm http://osnews.com/thread?355718 http://osnews.com/thread?355718 I hope it's better than GTA San Andreas. Jesus was that ever an over-rated game. I'm not easily offended and generally think all the hoopla about video game violence is nonsense (I can remember Commando Libya and the outrage it caused) but playing GTA San Andreas was the first time I considered a game morally reprehensible.
Your friends are morons, the main character lacks spine to tell them this and that their plans are moronic and you HAVE to accomplish them on these stupid, violent missions. I dunno, I just don't think willingly participating in drive-by shootings and murdering people for nothing endears myself to the character I'm supposed to root for. Too bad they squandered the angle to seek revenge for your dead mother but maybe that returned later. I never got that far before getting bored with the missions.
Only funny thing was to steal a Harley and drive around randomly. If avoiding the plot is the most fun thing something is really wrong with your game. Oh yeah, and you can get the creepiest lap-dance ever. Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments Come on.. http://osnews.com/thread?355724 http://osnews.com/thread?355724 A game review just with subjective comments on the FRONT PAGE at OSNEWS?? Come on.. this article is much *overrated*. I think if many people say that it is a fun game, that's not overrated. Rather, the person who say its overrated has a different (minor) taste. Period.

I have tried not to post a comment about a thing for a dozen times. However, I can tell which articles are written/posted by Thom only by reading a sentence or two from the article (or sometimes just by reading the title of the article!), and sadly imo most of them were quite depressing including this one. Please.. Thom.. Please. Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (t3RRa) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355739 http://osnews.com/thread?355739 I can't help but comment on this off-topic comments. Actually, I wouldn't count Stalinism as atheism, as it drew its power from a religious-like devotion to an "inevitable" victory of "the working class" over their "oppressors." The reason that people didn't wake up en masse and revolt against their "worker's revolution" becoming the oppressor and the party leadership having set themselves up as a new aristocracy is because of all the religious indoctrination they were subject to and the faith that they had in their eventual liberation as the invisible hand of class struggle took them into a glorious future wherein no government would be necessary. Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (David) Comments Agree with the author http://osnews.com/thread?355748 http://osnews.com/thread?355748 In a nutshell, this game is ass. Even one of the guys at Giantbomb said, "I love everything about this game, except actually playing it" and they STILL gave it game of the year. WTF?

I remember after playing it for an hour or two, I took this chick out on a date, and was playing this horrifically craptastic bowling mini-game, and then something happened on the way out to the car (think I ran into her or something)... she got spooked and ran away, then I had to do the whole f**king thing all over again.

And it didn't get any better after that. The controls for fighting are sloppy and rather unresponsive, and when you fail a mission because of the shoddy controls, you have to DRIVE to the mission all all over again. I swear, driving to the missions take longer than actually PLAYING them.

I have been told that eventually, you can call a taxi so you don't have to drive anymore, but I never made it that far. I'd rather watch flies f**k than play this game terrible any longer than I did. It was all I could endure. I'd rather play Combat on the Atari 2600. Seriously. Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE: Agree with the author http://osnews.com/thread?355749 http://osnews.com/thread?355749

I remember after playing it for an hour or two, I took this chick out on a date, and was playing this horrifically craptastic bowling mini-game, and then something happened on the way out to the car (think I ran into her or something)... she got spooked and ran away, then I had to do the whole f**king thing all over again.

Pardon me, as I haven't played this game. But are you talking about something that happened to you in real life, or something that happened in the game?Edited 2009-03-29 20:16 UTC Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: Agree with the author http://osnews.com/thread?355750 http://osnews.com/thread?355750 If he got a date, must be in game ;P Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbenitezb) Comments RE[2]: The hell... http://osnews.com/thread?355766 http://osnews.com/thread?355766 Mass Effect's plot may be epic but I'm more impressed by a small story, set in the real world than all that derivative, Star Trek stuff.

There are very few real world stories in video games. R* may make a nonsense of them with their lovable psychopath dichotomy and their body count but at least they're trying.

I thought the relationship between Nico and his cousin was actually pretty well realised - one of the most convincing relationships I've encountered in a game and that is something that seriously needs commending.

You're complaints were mostly pretty valid but it's unfair to ignore the game's qualities. The recreation of a contemporary American city has to be the best in video game history. Oh yeah, and multiplayer deathmatch rules. Seriously. Having both guns and cars as weapons and not having to aim makes for a surprisingly strategic shooter.

I think many of the game's failings derive from the fact the GTA games sell very well, so they don't like to change much (this game is nothing like as different from previous games as people make out). But, hopefully, the law of diminishing may finally be kicking in, even if the gaming world hasn't got the message from this and The Sims that people would like some games set in a real world that they can relate to.

BTW, you forgot to mention that the over-the-shoulder camera used in combat is complete rubbish. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Michael) Comments RE: Come on.. http://osnews.com/thread?355778 http://osnews.com/thread?355778

A game review just with subjective comments

What else than subjective comments would one expect from a game review? Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[2]: Come on.. http://osnews.com/thread?355787 http://osnews.com/thread?355787 something more useful information than "I didn't like it, so it was overrated" thing. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (t3RRa) Comments I strongly disagree with the review http://osnews.com/thread?355788 http://osnews.com/thread?355788 The game isn't bad. Far from it!

It has its flaws, but nothing like you described - I wonder how you could just play it to the end. When I don't like a game like you didn't like this one, I just give up. And feel sorry for spending 60-70â¬ on it...

You're a brave guy Thom.

But I love GTA IV. Sorry.

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rramalho) Comments RE[3]: Come on.. http://osnews.com/thread?355791 http://osnews.com/thread?355791 Then you didn't read the review.

I said I didn't like it, and provided a long list of faults with the game to explain why I didn't like it.

I'm sorry that I'm not a sheep. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments Jeez... http://osnews.com/thread?355792 http://osnews.com/thread?355792 The game has plenty of annoyances, but it is actually FUN. Which is the most important for a game.

Mass effect, which the author gives so much praise to, consisted of 50% procedural content that repeated itself over and over again. The same dungeon, the same space ship, the same base, over and over again with slightly different game text and dialog associated with it. I quite quickly found out that side quests were a complete waste of time in Mass Effect.

Then the dialogue. The acting was solid, but the dialogue content was uninspiring and incredibly tedious. Very little humour or interest was involved.

Anyone that claims that Mass effect has the best story ever made has clearly never played either Baldur's gate or Planescape Torment. So Holwerda goes into the same trap as he claims the GTA reviewers go into. Besides, just because there is a better story around, doesn't mean praise can't be given. This is not a 'winners take all'. Mass effect has a decent story, but you are really drinking the cool aid if you think it is the best ever.

I have absolutely no idea why Holwerda can find Mass Effect fun, while slating GTA IV, when at least GTA IV's side missions has some variety in them and does not reuse the same tiny maps over and over again, with randomised crates to try to fool us into thinking it is somehow different.

I can only think that he wants to slate GTA IV because it is 'the cool thing to do'. Ludicrous review. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lindkvis) Comments RE: Jeez... http://osnews.com/thread?355793 http://osnews.com/thread?355793 And here we have another one who refused to read properly.

I never said anything in this review about Mass Effect as a whole - I only specifically referred to the story/dialogue element of that game. The rest of Mass Effect is pretty damn terrible. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments cars in the game http://osnews.com/thread?355801 http://osnews.com/thread?355801 aren't really that difficult to control, you just have to get used to the in-game physics and then you can pull off shit you never could with realistic physics. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aperh) Comments RE: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355805 http://osnews.com/thread?355805

"authored by Jesus Christ himself

Could it be that the figurehead of what is historically one of the world's most violent religions is losing his edge? :-) "

What purpose, other than to try to start a flame war, does your post serve?

For the record, Christianity doesn't teach its followers to be violent. It's human stupidity and greed that perverted teachings of a religion that permeate violence. Try reading the Bible some time so you'll actually know what you're talking about. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355808 http://osnews.com/thread?355808

For the record, Christianity doesn't teach its followers to be violent. It's human stupidity and greed that perverted teachings of a religion that permeate violence. Try reading the Bible some time so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

For the record, ever hear of some small historical events such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I would say regardless of what a book says, the actions of the religions followers are what determine it's teachings. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DrillSgt) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355809 http://osnews.com/thread?355809

What purpose, other than to try to start a flame war, does your post serve?

Humor, for those who are not overly-sensitive?

For the record, Christianity doesn't teach its followers to be violent.

For the record, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Actions... and history... speak louder than words.

Try reading the Bible some time so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

Been there. Done that. The Old Testament is grisly reading, indeed. Stephen King's most horrifying passages seem like Doctor Seuss, by comparison. But Stephen King's followers make no claims as to the events he describes being true.Edited 2009-03-30 14:48 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355810 http://osnews.com/thread?355810 He sure hit a raw nerve though. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments RE[2]: Jeez... http://osnews.com/thread?355811 http://osnews.com/thread?355811

I never said anything in this review about Mass Effect as a whole - I only specifically referred to the story/dialogue element of that game. The rest of Mass Effect is pretty damn terrible.

Ah.. and so you attack the convenient parts of my post and ignore the part that actually addresses the story/dialogue part of Mass effect.

Your original argument is basically "GTA IV was given praise for story/dialogue, yet it isn't as good as Mass effect's story/dialog (which is the best ever), therefore it is terrible". This is a lousy line of argument.

Your whole review is pointless from a 'public education' point of view, and you even admit to it yourself. The only reason for this review is thus to make yourself appear superior by slating GTA IV. "I am so much better than everyone else, because I have seen through this product."

I fully respect your opinion, but I wasted a fair bit of time reading this drivel, and will try to remember this before reading another review of yours.

Of course, this post is also pointless from a public education point of view, since people will already have suffered through your review before reading this post. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lindkvis) Comments RE[3]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355814 http://osnews.com/thread?355814

"For the record, Christianity doesn't teach its followers to be violent. It's human stupidity and greed that perverted teachings of a religion that permeate violence. Try reading the Bible some time so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

For the record, ever hear of some small historical events such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I would say regardless of what a book says, the actions of the religions followers are what determine it's teachings. "

Quick, look up really fast....ah, too late. The point clearly went over your head. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[3]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355815 http://osnews.com/thread?355815

"What purpose, other than to try to start a flame war, does your post serve?

Humor, for those who are not overly-sensitive?

For the record, Christianity doesn't teach its followers to be violent.

For the record, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Actions... and history... speak louder than words.

Try reading the Bible some time so you'll actually know what you're talking about.

Been there. Done that. The Old Testament is grisly reading, indeed. Stephen King's most horrifying passages seem like Doctor Seuss, by comparison. But Stephen King's followers make no claims as to the events he describes being true. "

If you read the Bible, then you'd know that the teachings of the New Testament override those of the Old Testament. Spread your FUD elsewhere. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[4]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355816 http://osnews.com/thread?355816

If you read the Bible, then you'd know that the teachings of the New Testament override those of the Old Testament.

Apparently some of you guys don't keep your Bibles properly patched. :-PEdited 2009-03-30 16:07 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[4]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355821 http://osnews.com/thread?355821

Quick, look up really fast....ah, too late. The point clearly went over your head.

You had no point except to attempt to spread your beliefs, and force them onto others. Thanks for playing

As to another post, the New Testament does not over ride the Old Testament. They are part of the same book, one before the birth of JC, the second part after. It is a history book that has been (mis)-interpreted too many times in being translated from the original work. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DrillSgt) Comments RE[5]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355824 http://osnews.com/thread?355824

"Quick, look up really fast....ah, too late. The point clearly went over your head.

You had no point except to attempt to spread your beliefs, and force them onto others. Thanks for playing

As to another post, the New Testament does not over ride the Old Testament. They are part of the same book, one before the birth of JC, the second part after. It is a history book that has been (mis)-interpreted too many times in being translated from the original work. "

My point was simple, you just refused to acknowledge it. Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean. That point was made very clearly in my post, which you either ignored, or was outside your ability to understand. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just ignored it, because it went against your beliefs. However, you're being intellectual dishonest with yourself to cite the Crusades (something that was against the teachings of the Bible).

To illustrate your point in a different context, let's say you're studying up on C#, you write an application, and it fails to compile due to errors in your code. Your stance is that is the errors in your code is what you were taught to do, although the textbook that you were studying from clearly says otherwise.

The Bible is a collection of books, not just one book. I agree that there are parts that are mistranslated, which is why you must interpret the teachings in it's entirety, not just by one singular verse from a book in the Bible. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[6]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355827 http://osnews.com/thread?355827

Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean.

in favor of rational thought.

Yeah, because rational thought has never killed anyone.

The problem is not religion or science or whatever. The problem is us.Edited 2009-03-30 18:06 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[7]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355829 http://osnews.com/thread?355829

"Humans can pervert any teachings to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Once society has said that it's OK to believe irrational things... no evidence required, then there is no limit to the severity of the ensuing abuse. That is the ultimate problem with the insanity that is religion. And that is why it ends up doing so much more harm than good in the world. And that is why its best to discourage it, in favor of rational thought. "

Using your argument and viewpoint - is it insane to believe all of life occurred naturally (abiogensis)? Abiogensis has not been proven, yet, you may have "faith" in science that it must be how it occurred without irrefutable evidence. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[8]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355830 http://osnews.com/thread?355830

Yeah, because rational thought has never killed anyone.

Requiring evidence to believe in something is an important safeguard that makes rational action more likely. I doubt most of us would deny that in most non-religious contexts. Why religion gets a free pass is unclear.

I don't deny that there are contexts in which the only rational thing to do it to kill. But I'm curious as what examples you were considering when you typed that. I'm wondering how rational the thoughts in your examples might turn out to be when subjected to scrutiny. Defensive wars and self-defense come to mind. And, of course, we kill and inflict suffering by remote control every time we use more of Earth's resources than we actually need. But I'd be interested if you would elaborate. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[8]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355831 http://osnews.com/thread?355831

Using your argument and viewpoint - is it insane to believe all of life occurred naturally (abiogensis)?

It would be irrational to believe that any current theory or model is the be all and end all. No scientific theory is ever beyond question. General and Special Relativity have proven themselves time and time again, their predictions agreeing with experimental results. But if they were found not to agree with some new experimental data, they would have to be modified in some way.

That said, once enough experimental data has agreed with a theory's predictions over time, it is rational to have some confidence that new data will also agree.

It would, however, be very irrational to believe in a completely different theory, or in religious "teachings", without a body of supporting evidence which religions never seem to have. Just a bunch of unsupported claims, and some convenient excuses for why no hard evidence exists, and, of course, the occasional bit of anecdotal "proof" which often amounts to nothing more than an interesting coincidence experienced earlier in life.

Edit: I forgot to include the depressingly common "How dare you call my mother a liar!"Edited 2009-03-30 18:33 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[9]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355833 http://osnews.com/thread?355833 The problem with the idea that rational thinking will mean the end of all violence is that rational thinking is a completely subjective matter. What you may call rational thinking, is something I would call delusional thinking.

Hitler and his gang of happy friends thought they were rational. Mao thought he was rational. Lenin and Stalin thought they were rational.

You can say "Yeah, well, but they proved to be completely irrational!", and with that, you'd prove my point: rationality is just as much a debatable issue as religion. It's not set in stone. It's not definitive. It changes from person to person.

On a less mass-murdery scale, a lot of religious people believe that it's perfectly rational to see god in everything. They look at all the wonders of the world, and rationally come to the conclusion that god exists.

I must say, I don't see any less rationality in that than I see in the idea that everything just "appeared" out of nothing.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not religious at all - I don't believe in anything I can't touch, see, hear, smell, or taste - but I'm not anti-religion either (hence, I do not like being called an atheist). I just see it as another way to answer the questions of life, and to me it's no less valid or rational than just blindly believing whatever scientific magazines feed you. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[10]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355842 http://osnews.com/thread?355842

The problem with the idea that rational thinking will mean the end of all violence is that rational thinking is a completely subjective matter.

Well, let's immediately dispose of this misunderstanding of what I said. Requiring evidence before gaining confidence in a theory will likely result in fewer missteps than if that sanity check were not in place.

Which is not to imply that I think you were misrepresenting what I said. But it is a misunderstanding that needs to be corrected, clearly, as early on as possible.

Hitler and his gang of happy friends thought they were rational. Mao thought he was rational. Lenin and Stalin thought they were rational.

But were they? In each case, it's pretty easy to see the leaps of faith that led them first to their irrational beliefs, and then on to their bloody campaigns. I wonder how much concrete evidence actually supported their world-views. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient to incite violence. But it has surely shown its potential as a catalyst to violence over the course of history. Not to mention in current events.

I must say, I don't see any less rationality in that than I see in the idea that everything just "appeared" out of nothing.

Science makes no claims as to what happened before the first fraction of a second after the big bang. Science does not say that everything simply appeared out of nothing. It says that based upon the balance of the actual evidence that we have available, we can say a few things about state of the Universe beyond about the first 10e-11 seconds after the event. A God could be hiding behind the big bang. A God could be hiding inside black holes, another domain outside our current science, about which we are careful to make no claims beyond those of overall mass and energy which are still fair game.

I just see it as another way to answer the questions of life, and to me it's no less valid or rational than just blindly believing whatever scientific magazines feed you.

A couple of things. First of all, this is why scientific papers have references. You could check them out, if you wanted to. But of course, many do not do that. Which is why open peer review is so important. Not perfect, but it sure as hell is better than just making a leap of faith based upon no evidence, and having our social group nod their heads and say "that's just peachy".

Since you bring the topic up, I do want to make a distinction which, amazingly, almost always seems to get passed over in these kinds of discussions: What do we mean by "God"?

If we're talking about some entity that might or might not have been responsible the existence of the universe, then there is no conflict with science and reason at all. Obviously, it was something pretty awesome that set the big bang into motion and determined the nature of space, time, and the physical laws. If someone wants to call that a God, that's perfectly reasonable.

But (very) often, people want to go further. They want to claim that some God is hanging around watching over us, listening to, and acting, based upon our prayers. Punishing people who don't act according to His word, etc. These are claims of a completely different nature. And they lie within the domain of the testable, which makes them perfectly fair game for the scientific method. And when tested like any other theory, they don't do so well.

The question of "what pushed the universe into being" is one thing. Believing that some "God listens to one's prayers, said this, did that, punished the other, and it's all absolutely true because I have this book that says so" is of a completely different nature. But it seems like it is the latter that is the most important to some people.Edited 2009-03-30 19:41 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[9]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355857 http://osnews.com/thread?355857 "It would, however, be very irrational to believe in a completely different theory, or in religious "teachings", without a body of supporting evidence which religions never seem to have. Just a bunch of unsupported claims, and some convenient excuses for why no hard evidence exists, and, of course, the occasional bit of anecdotal "proof" which often amounts to nothing more than an interesting coincidence experienced earlier in life.

Edit: I forgot to include the depressingly common "How dare you call my mother a liar!""

While many say that those of faith have the "convenient" excuse of explaining the unexplained as "God did it!", and such, being someone of faith isn't very convenient, and can be rather difficult at times - such as defending my views and beliefs on here.

As a Christian, I have no problem saying that Evolution could very well be real. It doesn't threaten my faith. But what I find most interesting (and at times, hypocritical) is those that have a "tunnel vision" and believe that only their beliefs could possibly be...well, possible. Take someone who is firmly in the camp of Evolution, and mention Intelligent Design to them. No, there is absolutely no proof that ID exists. But then, how much is there "really" of transitional fossils, abiogenesis, etc.. When it comes to the fossil record, how much fraud was presented as "proof" and by scientists? It's a very long list - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Lucy, Yale DNA, etc.. - yet, many will defend it, and even defended the cases of fraud until the "scientists" came out and admit the fraud. At times, and for some people, this segment of science called Evolution is almost a religion to them. And it's not going out on a limb to say that those that accept it 100% as it's described to them (including abiogenesis) require faith to believe in it. Yes, these theories are tested, and adjusted based on those results, but some of the things will never be proven most likely (abiogenesis) but are accepted as "fact" anyways.

Okay, you've got me. I have no idea where - "How dare you call my mother a liar!" - came from. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OMRebel) Comments RE[10]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355860 http://osnews.com/thread?355860 Shall we move this over to OSNews Conversations? Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[10]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355888 http://osnews.com/thread?355888 But then, how much is there "really" of transitional fossils,

A significant number, actually - with the fossil record of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) being one of the most complete.

When it comes to the fossil record, how much fraud was presented as "proof" and by scientists? It's a very long list - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Lucy, Yale DNA, etc..

Of those examples, I'm only aware of one that actually was a fraud or hoax (Piltdown Man - although I'm admittedly not familiar with "Yale DNA"). "Java Man" is a nickname for the first specimen of Homo Erectus discovered, while "Lucy" is a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis.

Furthermore, who do you think discovered and exposed the Piltdown Man fraud? The answer is: scientists.

That's a key strength of science: it is ultimately self-correcting.

- yet, many will defend it, and even defended the cases of fraud until the "scientists" came out and admit the fraud.

I highly doubt that you can find any living, reputable archaeologist or paleo-anthropologist who would argue that Piltdown Man was genuine.

At times, and for some people, this segment of science called Evolution is almost a religion to them. And it's not going out on a limb to say that those that accept it 100% as it's described to them

True - although you can cherry-pick ignorant advocates of any idea (and if I wanted to be a jerk, I would counter by pointing out some of the exploits of people like Kent Hovind, William Dembski, or Michael Behe).

(including abiogenesis)

Which is clear evidence that those people are woefully-ignorant of the ideas they're advocating, since abiogenesis is a theory (or family of theories) about the origin of life. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, says nothing whatsoever about how life originated. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[11]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355894 http://osnews.com/thread?355894

although I'm admittedly not familiar with "Yale DNA"

He's probably talking about the Sibley-Ahlquist work on DNA-DNA Hybridization. All the items he mentions regularly make the rounds on conspiracy theorist sites, the stories and claims getting ever more fanciful as they pass from site to site. As these folks are *really* uncomfortable with the idea of our having DNA in common with other primates, let alone birds, "coverage" of the Sibley-Ahlquist work often receives a special dose of imagination.Edited 2009-03-30 23:04 UTC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[12]: Middle Age http://osnews.com/thread?355902 http://osnews.com/thread?355902 As these folks are *really* uncomfortable with the idea of our having DNA in common with other primates, let alone birds, "coverage" of the Sibley-Ahlquist work often receives a special dose of imagination.

Hah, they would really hate Neil Shubin then. Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments