Easter Bible Quiz!

I do not take credit for this content. It is taken from bornatheist.com. I have hyperlinked the Bible verses cited to skepticsannotatedbible.com, which is an unedited KJV. Enjoy!

Christ’s resurrection is the central event of Christianity, a fundamental truth that must be reaffirmed with vigor at all times, as to deny it in different ways, as has been attempted and continues to be attempted, or to transform it into a merely spiritual event is to make our faith vain. If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and . . .  faith is in vain.(1)
Pope Benedict XVI

The Jesus coming-back-from-the-dead story is Christianity’s
most important myth. You might think they would have their
story straight, especially since they had years to rehearse it
before writing the Bible. But if you think so, you are wrong.
Take this multiple choice quiz about the Jesus rising story:

1. What time of day was an empty tomb found?    A.    While it was still dark (John 20:1)
   B.    Very early in the morning (Luke 24:1)
   C.    At dawn (Matthew 28:1)
   D.    After sunrise (Mark 16:2)
   E.    All of the above

2. Who first went to Jesus’ tomb?    A.    Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)
   B.    Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1)
   C.    Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)
   D.    Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna and the others with them (Luke 24:10)
   E.    All of the above

3. Did the woman or women meet anyone at the tomb?    A.    Yes, a young man dressed in white was already sitting in the tomb (Mark 16:5)
   B.    Yes, two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning were not there initially but quickly appeared (Luke 24:4)
   C.    Yes, an angel who rolled away a stone from the tomb entrance and some guards who were standing there (Matthew 28:2-4)
   D.    Not at first, but later that day two angels appeared inside the tomb and talked to Mary Magdalene (John 20:12)
   E.    All of the above

4. To whom did Jesus speak first?    A.    Two disciples (Luke 24:13)
   B.    Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:9)
   C.    To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9)
   D.    In the presence of two angels, to Mary Magdalene, who first thought Jesus was a gardener (John 20:14-15)
   E.    All of the above

5. How long did Jesus hang around before heading up to heaven?    A.    Only one day (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51)
   B.    An unspecified period of time, but at least long enough for his disciples to get to Galilee (probably several days walk)(Matthew 28:16)
   C.    More than a week (John 20:26, 21:1-25)
   D.    Forty days (Acts 1:3)
   E.    All of the above
My guess is that you answered “all of the above” to each. That
means either you are a cynic, a Bible scholar, or you figured
the citations next to each answer means that I read the Bible
passages and reported the answers accurately. The correct
answer is “all of the above.”
It is difficult to believe that almost one-third of Americans
(2) think the Bible is the inerrant word of God when the story
tellers cannot even keep their most important story straight.
If the “testimony” of the Bible were presented in court, the
case would be dismissed for lack of reliable evidence. Religion
requires faith because it lacks facts. The great mystery is why
so many people let these poorly constructed ancient myths
dictate their modern behavior.
----------
1. “Pope Benedict on the Resurrection,” Catholic Online, May 1,
2006, (sub-quotation marks omitted),
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3246

2.  “One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally
True,” Gallup News Service, May 25, 2007,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

Victory Is Determined By Strength

I had bought my son a pair of Nerf swords for some holiday or other a couple of years ago; he loves swinging them around, as well as lightsabers, because they’re just too cool. Lately, he’s been prone to say that he “knows all sorts of attacks”. Perhaps he’s been watching me play Soulcalibur too much.

I was feeling nostagic today and found this article by a man named Tom Junod while searching the internet for things about Mr. Rogers. A portion of this article is a story about how Mr. Rogers met a little boy with a sword. I get the feeling that if Fred Rogers were alive today, and had met my son, this is almost exactly how things would have went down if I was the mother.

Once upon a time, a little boy with a big sword went into battle against Mister Rogers. Or maybe, if the truth be told, Mister Rogers went into battle against a little boy with a big sword, for Mister Rogers didn't like the big sword. It was one of those swords that really isn't a sword at all; it was a big plastic contraption with lights and sound effects, and it was the kind of sword used in defense of the universe by the heroes of the television shows that the little boy liked to watch. The little boy with the big sword did not watch Mister Rogers. In fact, the little boy with the big sword didn't know who Mister Rogers was, and so when Mister Rogers knelt down in front of him, the little boy with the big sword looked past him and through him, and when Mister Rogers said, "Oh, my, that's a big sword you have," the boy didn't answer, and finally his mother got embarrassed and said, "Oh, honey, c'mon, that's Mister Rogers," and felt his head for fever. Of course, she knew who Mister Rogers was, because she had grown up with him, and she knew that he was good for her son, and so now, with her little boy zombie-eyed under his blond bangs, she apologized, saying to Mister Rogers that she knew he was in a rush and that she knew he was here in Penn Station taping his program and that her son usually wasn't like this, he was probably just tired. ... Except that Mister Rogers wasn't going anywhere. Yes, sure, he was taping, and right there, in Penn Station in New York City, were rings of other children wiggling in wait for him, but right now his patient gray eyes were fixed on the little boy with the big sword, and so he stayed there, on one knee, until the little boy's eyes finally focused on Mister Rogers, and he said, "It's not a sword; it's a death ray." A death ray! Oh, honey, Mommy knew you could do it … And so now, encouraged, Mommy said, "Do you want to give Mister Rogers a hug, honey?" But the boy was shaking his head no, and Mister Rogers was sneaking his face past the big sword and the armor of the little boy's eyes and whispering something in his ear—something that, while not changing his mind about the hug, made the little boy look at Mister Rogers in a new way, with the eyes of a child at last, and nod his head yes.

We were heading back to his apartment in a taxi when I asked him what he had said.

"Oh, I just knew that whenever you see a little boy carrying something like that, it means that he wants to show people that he's strong on the outside.

"I just wanted to let him know that he was strong on the inside, too.

"And so that's what I told him.

"I said, 'Do you know that you're strong on the inside, too?'"

"Maybe it was something he needed to hear."

RIP, Mr. Rogers. The world is a better place today because at one point, you were a part of it.

Reverend Red Mage vs. Kissthepilot

Here’s a backstory for you. I’m a regular contributor to Yahoo! Answers under my usual cyber-pseudonym. I had answered a question citing examples of poor “design” of a supposedly omnipotent god/’designer’ as one of my answers. Not too long after, I received a message from a user who goes by the name Kissthepilot. Since replying to that first one, I have received quite a few more, as I guess he’s wanting to bait me into a debate with him. Here is the description in his bio:

I'm a young earth creation believer who has done so much research on evolution that I cannot believe anyone still follows that stuff anymore. I am a real christian, and I love debating with atheists. I just wish they would follow their own logic!

I know what you’re thinking. Headache waiting to happen. Believe me, I still think it, but in terms of my wrists, because right now I have a lot of typing to do. I hope you’ll join me on this journey and provide a little insight if you can.

Now, I’m not a scientist, I just play one on the radio. I’m not going to claim to be one, either. I don’t exactly have the debating skills or articulation of people like Matt Dillahunty or Richard Dawkins, but I’d like to consider myself at least well-learned enough in basic scientific concepts and logic that I can counter pretty much anything a YEC like Kissthepilot could throw at me.

Yes, Kissthepilot is notified about this blog post, as sending messages is only a 1500 character limit with Yahoo!. I have a little more wiggle room on my own blog, and by wiggle room I mean all the space I want to address everything that needs addressing.

…which is everything. So here we go.

Intelligent Design is a search for design in nature, and I believe it has good evidence of a designer. Since it's science, it says nothing about who the designer is.

Here’s where the siren went off, right off the bat. Other than the fact that Intelligent Design isn’t science; heck, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis. The whole thing is one gigantic argumentum ad ignorantium, but more on that later.

Design in nature is easily found; heck, if you cut down a tree and look at the rings, there’s a pretty circular design. Organs in our body are “designed” to perform certain functions. I get it. However, this is because evolution is the designer. There are plenty of instances in nature where such design is inefficient; for example, the holes in my throat that lead to my respiratory system and digestive system are aligned in such a way that choking on food is a risk for me.

I’ve heard YEC’s and other creationists cite the design of the eye as a great example of Intelligent Design (ID) or God’s handiwork. In other species, this is not the case. We have a blind spot in our eyes that is caused by where the bunching of optic nerves enter the retina. Squids do not have this.

But here’s what Kissthepilot (Ktp) has to say.

Also, all of the examples I've been shown of apparently poor design in nature are explainable as actually good design. For example, the mammalian eye. People say the blood vessels are on the wrong side, and the octopus has a better design. Well, how well to octopusses see? When we say someone can see well, we dont' call them octopuss eyed. We call them eagle eyed. Eagles have the same design that humans and other mammals do.

First, I want you all to spot the first rationalization, and I’m going to tell you why it backfires. Ktp has managed to try to explain examples of ostensibly bad design as good design, by referencing the eagle. Yes, Ktp, when someone can see well, we do call them eagle-eyed. Do you know why? It’s because an eagle has such ocular acuity, it can identify a rabbit moving at a mile away. An eagle’s eyesight is four times better than a human’s. Now, you would agree that this is good design, but I’m not an eagle. I’m a human. Why wasn’t my eye designed to have the same acuity as an eagle’s? I’ll tell you why. Because I don’t need eyes like an eagle. My environment has dictated that my eyesight should have a certain range, focus, and clarity. In my case, I’m worse off than others because I actually have to wear glasses to correct my vision. That’s not design, that’s a natural flaw.

Here is the heart of the argument with ID.

We can see design in nature. If something is designed wrong, in your opinion, why a designer would do that is an interesting question but has nothing to do with if there was a designer.

I’ll agree with the fact that we can see design in nature. Ktp forgets, however, that design is a subjective term; what one certain biologist might consider a thing of beauty, like squids and other cephalopods, I consider to be ugly. (Sorry, PZ… nothing against you.) What YECs like Ktp might consider to be good design, like eagle eyes, is quite frankly a missed opportunity in other species. Imagine the strides we could have made if our vision was like that bird of prey!

Moving on, Ktp dishes out the second standard Creationist boilerplate fallback:

Evolution is not a fact. Unless you are talking about microevolution, which nobody disputes. Saying micro proves macro is a bait and switch scheme. I'm too smart to be fooled by that kind of logic.

Evolution is a fact. It’s scientifically testable and observable; modern biology and many other sciences (like the medical branch) are based heavily off of evolution.

Micro does prove macroevolution. Parsing these two terms out of evolution is an invention by creationists to rationalize away speciation, which they say cannot be observed. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. Ktp, perhaps you have outsmarted yourself.

After this point, I attempted to reason with Ktp by calling out the Discovery Institute and other “creation scientists” as liars. Ktp countered with what looks to be a plea for me to evaluate “both sides” of the argument.

But that’s the problem here. There isn’t two sides to this. Evolution/creation isn’t a controversy; hell, it’s not even a battle. Evolution is science. ID/Creationism is not. I would have thought that Kitzmiller v. Dover was the final nail in the coffin, but it seems I was wrong.

If you want to find out what ID is really about, I could suggest some reading. So far, nobody who believes like you do has agreed to take up my challenge. I'll even read a book by Dawkins or whoever you want at the same time.

The only reading that Ktp could suggest is by representatives of the Discovery Institute; after all, they coined the term! So no, Ktp. I’m not going to take up your “challenge”, and for good reason. I want you to read whatever books you want, Ktp, but only because you are truly interested in learning the material and forming objective conclusions based on their content. I’m only going to suggest that you read books by real scientists and biologists, such as Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, and The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. Both lay out an excellent case for evolutionary theory as opposed to what “creation scientists” say.

In case anyone missed it, I’ve been granting that I can very easily spot instances of design in nature. However, it came with a caveat; I also recognize that “design” is a subjective term. It should not be interspersed with “purpose”. Vestigial organs are a case in point of this. Clearly, they once were designed for some use, but no longer have any purpose.

ID is the scientific search for design in nature. It uses the same methods that many sciences use to detect design, sciences you would not object to. However, if we turn that science down to look at biological things, you cry foul and say it's not science. Why?

Ktp, I have said no such thing. I’m not an “evolutionist”, nor am I a scientist, as I stated earlier. If you want us to have a debate, the first thing you need to learn is to not put words in my mouth and build strawmen.

The major problem with ID is what Ktp stated: the “search for design”. This implies the presupposition that nature was designed. Science says life on earth was “designed” through evolution. ID says life on earth was “designed” through… what, exactly?

According to the Discovery Institute, ID “agnostic regarding the source of design”. Right. So what is it? If anyone kept up with Kitzmiller v. Dover like I did, this has statement been exposed as an egregious lie.

This doesn’t sway Ktp, though.

Some examples of similar science are forensics, random number generation, cryptology, reverse engineering, and SETI, the search for extra terrestrial intelligence.

None of these examples are at all the same “scientific search” as ID, Ktp. As a programmer, I can tell you all about random number engineering, but I won’t get into it. Mathematics has nothing to do with subjective opinion. Forensics relies on evaluating microscopic evidence. Cryptology is mathematics- and logic-based, a far cry from what ID can hope to achieve. I need not go on.

If you have never heard any of these arguments, you don't know what ID and the discovery institute is all about. So, are you willing to learn, or are you going to refuse like most of the people I ask?

So far, Ktp, you haven’t really taught me anything. I have heard all of these arguments, and so have many others before me who have refuted it not just online, but in a court of law. We’ll have one of those people, Joshua Rosenau, on the show next week, if you want to tune in.

The remainder of your messages, Ktp, was yet another passive-aggressive assault on my credibility, which I think I have addressed here. But one final thing you said:

One question, what if I told you I only got my information about evolution from answers in genesis? Would you believe I had a balanced view? What's the difference between me saying that, and you only getting yours from talkorigins and Dr Dawkins?

No. I don’t think you have a balanced view at all, despite you having repeatedly claimed that you look at both sides. There’s only one side to this debate, and it’s the one based in scientific fact. I’m sticking to that side, because it’s the side that talkorigins.org and Professor Dawkins are on. However, I understand the motive behind your argument. TalkOrigins and Dawkins are not my final authorities; they are resources. I cite them because they have objective, verifiable, and empirical information that I can verify on my own.

I hate to say it, but the same cannot be said of anyone in the “creation science” camp. “Creation science” is an oxymoron, because creation isn’t science. It’s a presuppositionalist religious assertion.

A comic I once read defined the difference between Creationism and science, and it went like this:

• Creationism: Here’s the conclusion. *holds up Bible* What evidence can we find that supports it?
• Science: Here’s the evidence. *displays some natural phenomenon, item, etc.* What conclusions should we draw from it?

If you can’t see why the first part doesn’t work, then I think our discussion should end here.

A Transparent Shield

I found this little tidbit on Reddit that I thought was worth sharing. I corrected the spelling and punctuation.

I'm a 19 year old college student, atheist, at a private Baptist university.

Today in my (mandatory, but tolerable) Christian Heritage class, the professor posed the question "Do you believe that a baby is a sinner, without the knowledge of what "good," "bad," or "sin" is?"

A girl immediately raises her hand and says "Well if they don't know it's sin then it's not real sin. But we don't really know. We're not God; none of us are, so we can't really answer it. I know if it was my baby, I don't want to think of it being damned to hell just for ignorance."

I asked her, "So your entire belief rests on the theoretical? You would LIKE TO THINK of this certain way in an optimal scenario, so that's how your faith is based? What you think you believe to be true?"

She said "Exactly, thats how faith works."

I ask, "So why bother asking? Why try? Why even argue about it in a class right now, why teach it, if we're NOT God and we cannot possibly KNOW, if its only faith and best guesses?"

She paused for a moment, and said "Well why believe in anything if you look at it that way?"

"Exactly. That's how intellect works."

"Faith". It's the fail-safe word when a religious person is backed into a corner. Dan Barker was right concerning what he said about faith; it's nothing more than a cop-out. When you use the word 'faith', you're freely admitting that the beliefs you hold can't stand up on their own merits, and because these beliefs are a part of your faith, they deserve to be free of criticism.

Faith, on one hand, is something that is very comforting to people. We know this. Many people in our country regard faith as something sacred to them, something personal that pulls them through tough times, because they feel that a higher power is watching over them at all times.

We cannot deny, however insulting as it may sound, that faith is the result of a weak mind. It is nothing more than a clear plastic shield, wielded by its bearer to protect them from a little something called reality. As Mark Twain puts it, it's "believing what you know ain't so." It takes a lot of faith to believe that the earth was created in six days, that your loved ones are living on forever in eternal paradise, and even that Hitler is serving some cosmic justice in Hell, burning in agony for his deeds on Earth. It takes a lot of faith to think that you have seen and communicated with a millennia-old Jewish zombie and his deified father. We know this, because we're humans too, and none of these things happen or have happened in real life.

The belief that if a baby dies, since it is imbued with Original Sin, that it goes to Hell, is nothing short of completely barbaric. One is completely within their rights to hold such a belief, but unfortunately one is completely within their rights to rationalize it away such as the girl did in the above example.

This is why the Rhode Island Atheist Society, and other groups like it, exists. The views of atheists are views that, the majority of the time, correspond with the reality that can be observed and empirically tested. These archaic, Bronze-Age myths have given rise to beliefs that are destructive in nature; not just physically, but mentally as well. (Case in point? Listen to last week's episode about how a religiously-fueled woman killed a puppy.)

We need to stop treating faith as if it were something righteous, virtuous, and sacred, and instead exposing it for the fragile religious escutcheon that it is. Intellect, reason, and skepticism are valuable tools that we must put on a pedestal in its place.

I Saw the Signs

The latest billboard put up by the American Atheists is a promotion for the Southeast Regional Atheist Meet in Huntsville, Alabama, but you wouldn’t know it from first glance.



The first one was pretty catchy (“You KNOW it’s a Myth”), and I can see why Christians would think that it’s an ‘in-your-face’ kind of deal. I mean, just look at the abysmal choice of font size and irregular capitalization. Nitpicking aside, the billboard here is an interesting one.

First, let’s get a clear definition of what exactly a scam is; it’s a fraudulent (and intentionally so) practice, engaged to be a lucrative venture. It’s designed to make money. I am sure most of you reading this will agree that religion does a pretty good job of this; tithing, donations, other miscellaneous monetary offerings, all for promises of an afterlife that doesn’t exist. Unethical, to be sure. After studying the symbols in this picture for a while, though, I’m torn.

I’d like to think that the Rhode Island Atheist Society is an organization devoted to promoting positive atheism, civil rights, and the separation of church and state in our great State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. I think that’s a keyword we need to focus on, as it’s clearly in our mission statement. To me, this sign clearly is not about promoting positive atheism; it’s about provoking thought. I’m not saying at all that this is a bad thing, though. If the “You KNOW it’s a MYTH” sign is any indication, being blunt is a highly effective tactic when it comes to advertising.

This sign is smack-dab in the middle of the Bible Belt; it isn’t necessarily an insult, as O’RLY would like you to believe, but at the same time a very simple line of logic (in a fundamentalist mind) will follow from ‘atheists are calling my religion a scam’ to ‘atheists just hate god’. To a lot of these preachers and followers, they don’t think it’s a scam. They genuinely believe in giving their hard-earned money to the church or whatever house of worship they desire, because they believe it is a worthy cause and there is no deception involved. It’s entirely within their rights. However, no amount of money you put behind your dogma can quantify the truthfulness of your beliefs; only the sincerity behind having them.

The smaller line below the catchphrase is an announcement of SERAM. Outreach. I think we can all get behind that. What bugs me is that in bold text at the bottom, AA seems to pride itself on “Telling the Truth”. The fact that “Truth” was capitalized already made me shiver, but unfortunately I’m going to have to call them out on this one. Not all religions are scams, and not all religious leaders are intent on deceiving their flock for monetary gain. I sincerely believe this, and having been good friends in the past with priests and rabbis, I think it’s justified.

Local humanist/atheist groups around the country have the right idea with the “you are not alone if you don’t believe” billboards. That’s outreach to everyone, as well as invitation for discussion. When the fundies go apoplectic over signs like that, then we’ll know who is really being the hostile ones.

I Swear I’m Not Scrooge

I had made a facebook post earlier today that I will definitely be discussing on next week's edition of Freethought Rhode Island.
This is in regards to a recent billboard:

People think we atheists are attacking Christmas and calling it a myth and such. We're not. Christmas is very much real. The birth of Jesus is not.

Apparently, my first missile has been launched here. My mother decided to respond, and one thing I admire about my mother is that although we are on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding spiritual beliefs, we can actually have civilized discussion about such things. We always do after every show I'm on.

She responded to the post with this:

Must say that I disagree; I believe the birth of Jesus is VERY REAL. I think what you meant to say is that atheists do not "believe" the birth of Jesus is real. Just as many believers do not have "proof" that Jesus was in fact a man that lived, I don't think an atheist has "proof" that he was not. While I totally respect your opinions, please be careful how you choose your words so that you don't "offend" the opinions of others. ;)

Facebook is not really the place to be having long debates about this kind of thing, so that's why I'm moving it to my blog, where there is more of a personal forum.

Well, not really a personal forum, just a place for me to go to the furthest extent of my pedantry, I suppose.

I think what you meant to say is that atheists do not "believe" the birth of Jesus is real.

No, I meant to say what I meant to say. Some atheists do believe that the birth of Jesus was an event that happened, because it has nothing to do with belief in a god.

However, a lot can be said about this alleged event. Even the birth of this legend is quite similar to the story of Mithra, a Zoroastrian god-man that predates the Jesus story by about 600 years; Mithra himself was born of a virgin on December 25th, and like Jesus, had 12 disciples and was called “the way, the truth, and the light”, amongst other similarities.

Just as many believers do not have "proof" that Jesus was in fact a man that lived, I don't think an atheist has "proof" that he was not.

My mother usually has the very good reasoning and logic, but unfortunately this falls flat. The burden of proof isn’t on the one rejecting the claim, and it isn’t possible to prove a negative. I don’t have to provide proof that there is not a ceramic teapot orbiting Neptune.

While I totally respect your opinions, please be careful how you choose your words so that you don't "offend" the opinions of others.

At this point is where I will launch my final salvo.

I’m not going to water down my words to prevent somebody from being offended. I am a full-fledged advocate of free speech and the idea that nobody has the right to not be offended (including myself… freedom of speech is far more important than my own comfort). It is ethical to respect you as a person if you have earned it, but it is not mandatory that therefore I must respect your ideas and opinions. These things are not sentient; they do not have feelings, and not only should they be subject to scrutiny by others, but also by the person that holds them. I, along with the other hosts of the radio show, may seem brash and abrasive at times, but it’s only towards the absurd claims that people make regarding their religious beliefs. If you don’t want to be ridiculed, refrain from saying ridiculous things that ostensibly have no basis in reality.

Take a look at the billboard that was recently installed at the end of the Lincoln Tunnel in NYC:


Now I’m sure most of you reading this will regard this as in-your-face and aggressive. How is this any more aggressive than a billboard that reads “When you die, you will go to hell unless you believe in God”? (And yes, that was an actual billboard here in RI for a little while over in Cranston.) This billboard is nothing more than a tool for stating the obvious.

…unless you mean to tell me that a gigantic star led some old wise men to a manger in which a baby, who was the son of a god and was conceived without the act of sexual reproduction, on the night of December 25th.

Look at the billboard again. Is this a European depiction of Jesus as an adult? Heck, can you see Jesus anywhere in the picture? I sure can’t, even in that manger. The most pronounced features of the billboard are the three men on camels, the star, the ass, and maybe the palm trees if you’re that observant. But another focal point is the word “KNOW”. Knowledge is something that’s practical and supported by good evidence. It’s not something you take on “faith” or unjustified belief.

Some atheists celebrate Christmas. Some don’t… some have a Festivus for the rest of us. Some, who are Jewish by tradition, actually might celebrate Hanukkah instead. Christmas, in the way it is celebrated these days, is not at all religious. However, if you want Jesus to be the reason for your season, then by all means. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, however, with your whining and bitching about people using “Happy Holidays”. If your faith is so insecure that you snivel at people who use that phrase in place of “Merry Christmas”, then I pity you.

What I don’t want to do with this post is make it seem like I’m downplaying Christmas. I’m not. Christmas is a wonderful time of year, despite the fact that it’s 90% stolen pagan traditions (and nowadays, commercialized consumerism). Heck, I’m not even sure if I agree with “celebrate REASON for the season”. Reason isn’t anything to celebrate, but it is something that should be utilized throughout the whole year. What I do know is that Jesus certainly isn’t the reason for the season, either.

This season, celebrate life. Celebrate friends and family and togetherness. Celebrate love.

Mage Chronicles Game Reviews - Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

Konami’s latest gorgeous 3D installment in the long-running franchise is a real button-masher that seems more content on borrowing bits and pieces from others.

I am a long-time fan of the Castlevania series, despite the fact that most of Konami’s previous forays into the third dimension weren’t so noteworthy. Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (LoS) has been called a series “reboot” by its creators. It’s definitely a step in the right direction, although it heavily borrows favored gameplay mechanics from other titles that you’ll easily recognize once you start playing it. If it weren’t for the title being emblazoned on the pause screen, you would actually forget that you’re playing a Castlevania game.

The protagonist is Gabriel Belmont, who is a member of the Brotherhood of Light, an elite group of paladins who keep supernatural creatures at bay. His personal mission is to defeat the Lords of Shadow that are responsible for both his wife’s death and the pestilence and evil that plagues the world. By defeating the Lords of Shadow, Gabriel will obtain the God Mask required to resurrect his wife, Marie.

Please note that I am reviewing the XBox 360 version of this title.

Graphics: 9/10
After watching the opening cutscene, I was pleasantly surprised to find that what I was seeing was in-game graphics. LoS has the frame rate of an interactive movie, and every environment is richly detailed. Levels range from vibrant landscapes and abandoned ruins to dark castle corridors and deserted wastelands. Its charm became lost on me once I found the invisible walls. Just because you can see a location does not mean you can get to it; too many times I saw flat surfaces that the game would not allow me to jump upon.

Nonetheless, LoS is downright gorgeous, even the character models. Every monster seems to have been meticulously designed and crafted with love. The same can’t be said of any people in the game other than Gabriel, however; while his outfit is vibrant and colorful, everyone else seems drab and somewhat monochromatic. Perhaps this was meant to draw the attention to Gabriel, because it worked.

Story: 8/10
Gabriel has set upon himself the task of defeating all of the Lords of Shadow who are responsible for his wife’s death and the evils of the land. He is joined by a fellow Brotherhood knight, Zobek (voiced by Patrick Stewart, who also narrates the story before every level).  Gabriel’s drive to avenge his wife’s death is what drives the story, and he is helped along the way by the god Pan and a telepathic girl named Claudia.

Writer David Cox has stated that since this game is a ‘reboot’ of the series, the story of this game is not canon to other titles in the franchise. Although Gabriel’s name is Belmont, this means he is in no way related to other members of the clan in other games. (source)

I don’t want to spoil too much, as the plot takes quite a few twists and turns.

Gameplay: 7.5/10
If you liked God of War, then you’ll love the combat mechanics of LoS. If you liked Shadow of the Colossus, then you’ll love half the boss fights. I wish I was kidding. I guess if you’re going to borrow great gameplay mechanics, though, why not borrow from the best?

First, the combat. Castlevania’s trend of subweapons is still intact, with the inclusion of daggers, crystals, holy water, and fairies, but substituting for the whip is the Combat Cross. This is Gabriel’s vampire-slaying and landscape-traversing bread and butter. Like God of War, your attacks and combos consist of heavy straightforward strikes or wide-area but weaker strikes. Linking them together with Light Magic increases your health after each successful blow with the spiked chain, and augmenting with Shadow Magic makes your attacks hit harder. There are a lot of useful combos to be unlocked, although I found myself lost in button-mashing and still being successful.

The Combat Cross is also used as a grappling hook, which adds a new layer to the Shadow of the Colossus-type platforming you do in levels and fighting against titans. Oddly enough, this weapon gains the name of “Vampire Killer”, in spite of the fact that it’s not a whip.

LoS also contains an element of puzzle-solving, a creative addition to the game. You actually have the option of bypassing these puzzles and forfeiting the experience point reward you would get for solving them. They’re all not too much of a challenge, and the reward is worth the attempt.

Level trials are unlocked after you beat them, and demand that you fulfill a specific requirement before beating the level. Some of them are downright hard, and the only reward seems to be an Achievement for conquering them all. I’m not sure if it’s worth it. However, it does give the game some replayability once you’ve traversed the main storyline. Going back to previous levels to gather missed or unreachable items is highly recommended.

Sound: 8/10
All the voice acting in this game (especially the protagonist’s voice, Robert Carlyle, and Stewart) is done superbly. The script is a bit over-the-top, but what would a Castlevania game be without that? A miserable little pile of secrets. The orchestrated score is masterfully done as well, as each piece fits its respective setting. Every blood spurt, bone crunch, and chain slice is very satisfying, even when it happens to you.

Overall: 8/10
They could have removed Gabriel’s last name and the “Castlevania” connotation, and I would have been taken in. Like I said before, it’s all too easy to forget that you’re playing a Castlevania title if it weren’t for it being on the damn pause menu. Despite the sometimes inconvenient fixed camera angle, clonky platforming, and somewhat copycat combat system, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is a great pickup for people who would like to see the series go in a separate direction. However, I’d be more apt to recommend it to those who enjoyed God of War.

Delaware Has an Easy Senate Vote

For those of you who have just discovered my blog from the Freethought RI blog, a few things. First, I would like to thank you for being a loyal listener to the show! I had made a facebook post a while ago about wanting to get the topics that you, the curious listener™, want to talk about. Leave ‘em in the comments or send Dan an email. If you’re new to Mage Chronicles, check the archive in the sidebar or follow the tags for any posts that you may be interested in.

For those of you who are coming here from my facebook status updates, thanks also, and I really hope you keep reading! Now, on to the meat of the post. There’s a lot of meat here, so grab your utensils or what have you.

The residents of Delaware now have a very easy decision to make regarding their Senator this year; their Democratic candidate, Chris Coons. In a recent debate held before an audience of law students (remember this, it’s important), his opponent, Republican Christine O’Donnell, failed to the third degree. I’m not all that knowledgeable about politics, but there are a few things that I do know about that I would expect elected officials to have at least a rudimentary understanding of.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

I really don’t get what’s to criticize here. He’s absolutely correct, and he made the same point about Intelligent Design when O’Donnell brought it up and attempted to assert that it is a completely different entity. It’s not. We all know that Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise.

Furthermore, before that:

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution. Because the theory of evolution is not a fact, it is indeed a theory.”

This woman owes me a new irony meter. Secondly, how many times have we all seen “evolution’s not a fact, it’s a theory”? Once more, with feeling… in the scientific community, the two terms are indistinguishable. Evolution is a fact and a theory. I won’t explain that here, it’s done on TalkOrigins.

Coons countered correctly again by mentioning the separation of church and state. O’Donnell’s counterpoint? This little gem.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" (emphasis mine)

If you watch the video, the audience audibly titters. I’m sure many of them proceeded to facepalm. I certainly did. Let’s face it… there are a lot of political and legal debates out there about our Constitution and what it says, but I was under the impression that everyone understands the whole “freedom of religion” thing as well as our Establishment Clause in our First Amendment.  Everyone, it seems, except for fundamentalist Christians and right-wing pundits who assert that because the phrase doesn’t appear in the Constitution, we should throw out the principle entirely. Well, guess what? “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t anywhere in the document, either. I’m-a go get my gun.

But what’s even more troubling is that O’Donnell actually seemed perplexed by this. She seemed genuinely ignorant of the fact that the principle behind the separation of church and state is derived from our First Amendment. A little further into the video clip, O’Donnell actually had to be reminded about what some of the Amendments were and whether she supported them.

No surprise to me is that she’s a Teabaggin’ Party favorite. This is the best of what they have to offer, folks. These people are so outraged at what they are currently seeing in public office, that I guess they’ve decided to see what happens when they bring the whole system crashing down.

An Obligation to Etiquette or Ethics

The VP of the company is not my direct supervisor, but he's pretty much my boss. The good thing is, he's a great guy. Last week, he lost his sister to breast cancer. The most happy-go-lucky man I know came into our office nearly in tears to give us this news, and my heart sank because of it. It's bad enough that my fiancée's father is dying of lung cancer.

I decided to get him a sympathy card to be passed around our office. I knew everyone would sign it. I don't care whether or not he thought it was from me, but I'm guessing that the telltale sign would be the handwriting on the envelope.

Anyway, one of the other supervisors sent out an email encouraging the staff to leave early today to attend the wake. Being the godless heathen that I am, I opted out and stayed at the office for the remainder of my shift. I made sure that the card traveled with someone who did decide to go.

So here's the point of discussion... was I justified in not going to the wake? If you are an atheist or you are not religious, even if the wake/funeral was for a loved one, would you still go?

The Legend of Sylph Stridemoon - Chapter 6 - Wings to Discovery

I've finally written part 6!! I hope you enjoy it and continue reading.

---

What Feil described as the audience chamber qualified it as a misnomer. He had led Sylph to a pair of large wooden doors, which provided a gateway into a dimly lit edifice that seemed to be half the size of a cathedral. Sylph followed Feil down a red carpet lined with blacksteel candlesticks roughly his own height. Although stained glass windows lined the walls outside of his periphery, he could not help but admire the sheer majestic nature of the architecture of his surroundings.

When they arrived at the end of the makeshift corridor, Sylph was surprised at what he saw. A large, wide, mahogany desk lay before him, behind which was a rather large bookshelf. Two acolytes were rearranging tomes on the shelves, but there was one other who seemed to be fervently searching. From what Sylph could tell by its clothing, it was male, but it was a creature that bore slight similarity to the fountain’s statue in the courtyard. Its wings were not nearly as large, but still kept the creature aloft as they fluttered. It had fur as white as untouched snow, and its most pronounced feature was the red puffball attached to its head by a wiry stem. Its long ears twitched before turning to greet Sylph with a look of curiosity. He smiled warmly in reply, but with a matched sentiment. He nudged Feil and quietly whispered to him.

“That creature, there, tending to the books... I’ve never…”
“Moogles,” Feil quietly interrupted. “Direct descendants of Carbuncle herself. Wonderful creatures, they are. Always friendly and willing to lend a helping hand. I don’t know how this basilica would function without them... after all, they built this place.”
Really? Such fragile-looking creatures built… this? Sylph thought, but he was once again interrupted mid-thought.

“Ah, you must be Sir Stridemoon, kupo.”
Sylph had to look down to find the source of the airy, but deep voice. He immediately recognized what must have been an elder moogle; he lacked the red puffball of his younger counterparts, his wings were smaller and much more frail, and he sauntered toward the mages with a wooden crook. His ears were also an indicator of his age; they were bent as opposed to the pointed and perked ears of the more youthful Moogles. He was followed by two others who were robed in similar garb and hobbling along using canes. Other than the robes, Sylph couldn’t discern too many differences other than facial structure.

“We are the elders here at the Carbuncle Basilica. I am the head elder, Monobu. In the green is Pocomo, and in the violet is my wife Nikli. It is an honor to meet you, kupo.” The others simply nodded in agreement.

Sylph addressed all of them. “It is I who should be honored. It is thanks to Brother Feil here that I stand before you in the first place. I am grateful for your hospitality and healing efforts. And please pardon me if I seem aloof, for I have never met any moogles before.”

“Quite all right, kupo. You are most welcome here. It is very rare that we see a red mage around here. When Feil told me your name, however, I just had to meet you. Your story intrigued me yet further. Come… there is much we need to discuss, kupo!”

Monobu hobbled over to the desk and pointed, with his cane, to a few books on the shelves. All three were wide and looked to have rather thick bindings, but amazingly the moogle acolyte was able to carry their weight down to the desk with relative ease. Monobu opened the first tome to one of the many pages marked with a tattered ribbon; it was written in a strange runic language, one that Sylph could not read. His finger trailed over the line of runes, his eyes carefully following as he mumbled to himself in a tongue foreign to Sylph’s ears, yet strangely familiar.

Sylph intervened. “What is it, exactly, that you… we… are looking for here, Monobu?”
“Patience, kupo. I am attempting to unravel the mystery of Gustach’s sudden bloodthirst.” Monobu kept searching page after page until he finally spotted what looked like the paragraph he had been searching for. “This tome is a comprehensive history of Ivalice and its legends, kupo. There is much to be learned here, and I think your fate in all this is sealed. Sit, kupo… we have much to talk about.”

Sylph obliged, and Feil pulled up a chair next to him, fascinated by the elder’s sudden interest in the new guest.

Monobu began. “Gustach, as he may have told you, is the patriarch of the Necrati tribe to the far west. Years ago, he challenged the God of Winds in a fight to the death; he cursed his name for the winds that persistently ravaged his homelands, and decided to end it. Most unfortunately, kupo, he won that battle.”

“All right. That explains where he came from. When he decided to ravage Glenprice, it seems as if all he wanted was the ruby I had found in a cave earlier that day.”

“A ruby, kupo? And he is now in possession of it? This is not good, kupo,” Monobu trembled. Nikli spoke up.
“Long ago, the four Warriors of Light defeated Chaos to save our world. When they vanished, they left behind their crystals as a testament to their power.” Nikli combed through the book in front of her, which was also scribed in the same runes. “…and it basically says here that whosoever gathers the four crystals of the Light Warriors shall know that power once more.”

“Being power hungry will do unspeakable things to a man,” Sylph offered.

Monobu turned to the other elders for what seemed to be approval before speaking once more.
“Kupo… but what we find most interesting is the name of the God of Winds that he killed.”
Feil couldn’t hold in his curiosity. “It had a name? What was it?”

For the first time since they entered the room, the eldest-looking Pocomo solemnly spoke.
“The red mage we see here before us bears his name. The God of Winds… was called Sylph.”

The Ether pulsed.

...Coincidence. It must be, Sylph thought.
At that moment, more epiphanies than he cared to acknowledge hit him at once.
“No. Surely Gustach does not think… but… how is it possible…”

“Kupo, here at the Basilica, we know a thing or two about magicks. Mist runs in moogle blood. You, however…” Monobu paused briefly. Sylph felt the eyes of everyone in the room, including the flying acolyte, upon him. He dared not look back.
“…I sense no Mist within you.”

“Of course not,” Sylph replied. “I draw my power from the Ether.”
The elders could not help but gasp. Pocomo broke the moment’s pause. “That… that’s impossible, kupo. You do not jest with us, I hope.”

Sylph positioned himself in his chair in a way that gave Pocomo an honest reply.

“Sir Stridemoon… if that is even your real name, kupo,” Nikli said, “…such a power is only known to divine beings. At the very least, according to our literature. The Ether… it is a realm of legend, kupo.”

Sylph percolated only briefly on this new proposition.
“The logic is lacking here. I can be no god… I am but mortal. Clearly, I bleed.”
“But on anyone else, Sylph, your injuries were fatal,” Feil interjected. “You are not the first person I have seen in your condition. I am surprised you live to tell your tale.”
“Brother Feil has a point, red mage,” Pocomo said. “You may underestimate your own powers, kupo.”

Again, Sylph deliberated with himself only briefly. Everything seemed to add up. Too well, for that matter.
“…then that means… Gustach certainly knew as well… and… no. Glenprice…” Sylph sunk his head even lower. “…it was my fault. If I had not been there, lives would have been spared.”

“Nonsense, kupo!” the flying acolyte screamed, who immediately descended upon the conference to which he was listening so intently. “You couldn’t have known that you were who you were. What’s more, Brother Feil said that you did your best, kupo. I believe him, and I also believe you.”

Remarkably, Sylph was comforted. He’s right, Sylph thought.
“Thank you, young one. However, the responsibility to find justice for this tragedy lies with me.”

“It seems to be your fate, kupo,” said Monobu. “Gustach, as it seems as well, cannot kill you. He seeks the power that can finally send you to the hereafter… and who knows what else, kupo. We cannot let that happen.”
Everyone agreed.
“…which is why, kupo, you must retrieve that ruby from him, and find the other crystals before he does,” Nikli declared. “Where you will find them, we do not know yet, but there must be something within these old tomes that will help us point you in the right direction, kupo.”

“In the meantime, Sylph, we have a gift for you. Follow me,” Monobu said, already hobbling his way towards a door off to the back wall.

Sylph and Feil rose. Sylph adjusted his garb and silently followed.