Steve Drakovari: Stuff from my Brain

Ok thanks for reading my comment! First of all I am not a teacher in a high school, I am a classroom assistant.
You are just after saying that Jesus exists within a calender that is not georgian, this does not prove that He himself did not exist.
Secondly Immanuel was another title for Jesus which means “God with us”. Matthew 1 v 23. the bible also calls him Messiah, the Consellor, Prince of Peace etc. So just because he is not constantly referred to as Immanuel does not mean that it wasnt one of his titles.
Also the Jews do not believe that Christ has came back yet. They do not use the new testament and only have the old testament as they do not believe of Jesus returning to the earth. Infact they still set places for him at their tables at the time of the passover-just incase he comes back. So if they only use the bible in terms of the old testament this is why they do not mention Christ.
Common era is also derived from the form of Christian era and was also designed by a christian man actually, a monk. If it is before the common era then it is the same as saying “before the christian era”. And there could not be a christian era, without a christ to bring the term christian about. But it again is just another method of trying to get rid of God within society.
I’m a bit confused on how you say that medicine comes from evolution? As far as i know, all new medicines must undergo thorough testing before being approved for use. Before a new medicine can be tried in humans it must undergo extensive testing in the laboratory by using wee mice and other animals to assess its safety and biological activity. This ‘pre-clinical’ development stage may last as long as 3 or 4 years. Then clinical trials in human volunteers, determine if a medicine is safe and effective, at what doses it works best and what side effects it causes. So i do not get how evolution determines medicines?
evolution also has 6 meanings only one of which is scientific-cosmic evolution (big bang theory which there is no evidence for at all!), chemical evolution (which if the big bang theory happened, it produced hydrogen and helium but how did all the other 105 element on the periodic table come about?!they would have had to evolve from hydrogen and helium which science proves can not happen),stellar and planetary evolution (which is the formation of planets and stars which noone has seen happen-stars explode in supernovas but never has anyone seen one be formed-apparently its from the energy of lots of stars exploding that new stars are formed but this is an assumption and is purely a theory), organic evolution (where life came from nothing-again there is NO evidence that this happened at all!), macroevolution (changing from one being into another-noone has ever seen a dog produce a non dog substance and you said that this process of evolution happens over millions of year, well time hasnt stopped so why is it still not happening?if you go back far enough in time you then have to believe that everything came from a particle or a rock…..hmm) and number six is microevoultion where variations happen within a species-ONLY THIS ONE has been observed!! the first 5 are only theories, this one is the only one that has been observed e.g. different breeds of animals-a rotweiller and a dalmation are two totally different looking creatures but they are still dogs.
Also SCIENCE contradicts itself in saying that the earth came about from the big bang theory but the first law of theordynamics says that matter can not be created and/or destroyed.so then how did the world get here?! either God made the world or the world made itself.
If evolution is true we call came from this hiccip within a space and according to evolution we are not worth a thing because we just are a mixture of chemicals and really then, what is the point and purpose of life? If you believe in evolution its just about not being here for a long time, its for a good time and thats it. end of.And when you die you are going to get eaten up by a worm and work your way back through an ecosystem and thats it. But the bible says (also in the jewish bible, the very first verse!) in the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth. So all of that is reversed for me.
You also say “the vacuum of space is not completely empty”. I know that space is a vaccum and that it contains millions of stars but what i am trying to put to you, where did they come from?! As for virtual particles, that particle needs energy to come about and what i do know is that energy can not be formed from nothing within an EMPTY vaccum which big bang theorist say that two particles collided in an EMPTY vaccum. contradicting itself in the one sentence.
As for Mother Teresa, i do not agree with her teachings at all. The Bible states that God is love and we are to love our neighbour. I do not agree in persecuting etc and I do know that mother teresa may have done some good works in her life but she clearly needed to read the bible to see that God sent Christ to endure our spiritual sufferings.

OK, I will hit the key points here. You seem to have some serious misunderstandings of Science and Scientific Theory.

This has of course, as it always does, turned into a Science Lesson… I was under the impression that the religious people actually HAD some evidence for their God. As I have said before you could take down all of science and it still would not prove your God exists, that requires actual evidence.

The thing is people have been undertaking science and tackling these big questions for a very tiny amount of time. On a scale of a few hundred years. You cannot seriously expect it to have ALL of the answers to every question RIGHT NOW. Saying that, science has proven itself to be the correct way to get answers.

Saying “I don’t know” is not a flaw, it’s a statement of fact. Science does not and probably will never know everything. The religious answer of “God did it” is an answer, yes… but it explains precisely NOTHING.

Please offer some evidence for God, I am beginning to think this is a futile endeavor.


So here goes:- Some of the quotes may have spelling corrected, my spell-check is a bit of a pedant, the content hasn’t been changed.

You are just after saying that Jesus exists within a calender that is not Georgian, this does not prove that He himself did not exist

Correct! It does not, but it does highlight your use of the calender as evidence for his existence or influence as a flaw. To prove Jesus existed outside of the Bible narrative would require some tangible evidence or some CONTEMPORARY accounts of his existence, written at the time.

The first account of Jesus in the Bible or otherwise was written 30 Years AFTER his documented death. I have a feeling you may bring up the “Shroud of Turin”, I will make you aware that this has been shown to be a fake, in fact one of a number. Radiocarbon dating has repeatedly placed the Shroud as medieval in origin – specifically, between 1260AD and 1390AD to use your preferred dating system. And the dyes used have been identified.

So to prove the existence of Jesus requires evidence outside of the Bible writings, written while he was alive. And even then. if you showed a man called Jesus existed you still have the Burden of Proof to show he was more than just a famous moral teacher of his time.

Common era is also derived from the form of Christian era and was also designed by a christian man actually, a monk. If it is before the common era then it is the same as saying “before the christian era”. And there could not be a christian era, without a Christ to bring the term christian about. But it again is just another method of trying to get rid of God within society.

BCE (Before the Common Era) is used by secularists that do not hold to the idea of Jesus and also by people that are not Christians. Saying it was created by a monk is a non-issue it means nothing towards your position. For instance Mathematics was created in the Muslim world by followers of Allah and Mohammed, this is not a point towards their faith. the origins of something have no bearing on it’s modern usage.

Also just because a dating system was based on Jesus does not mean he actually existed. For instance based on the Hindu dating system they are currently 5000 years into Kali Yuga, and celebrate 2500th Birth Anniversary of Buddha, this does not mean it is based on any real event or being. Again evidence of the person is required.

I’m a bit confused on how you say that medicine comes from evolution? As far as i know, all new medicines must undergo thorough testing before being approved for use. Before a new medicine can be tried in humans it must undergo extensive testing in the laboratory by using wee mice and other animals to assess its safety and biological activity. This ‘pre-clinical’ development stage may last as long as 3 or 4 years. Then clinical trials in human volunteers, determine if a medicine is safe and effective, at what doses it works best and what side effects it causes. So i do not get how evolution determines medicines?

Wow, really? You use the term Biology in a sentence while not understanding how it relates to evolution? Evolution the very thing that explains Biology! I’m sorry but that is just.. wrong. The testing is done to see how it reacts with the evolved biological environment of an organism.

You are yet again arguing from a point of ignorance: Here is a resource that explains - This is from Berkeley.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01

Evolution also has 6 meanings only one of which is scientific-cosmic evolution (big bang theory which there is no evidence for at all!)

Are you taking the piss? No evidence? I am beginning to think you are willfully denying evidence to suit your preconceived ideas.

Another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Chemical evolution (which if the big bang theory happened, it produced hydrogen and helium but how did all the other 105 element on the periodic table come about?!they would have had to evolve from hydrogen and helium which science proves can not happen)

No, no and no.

You are aware of what a Star is aren’t you? It is a massive ball of Hydrogen gas that has collapsed in on itself via Gravity and because things under pressure heat up it eventually ignited to form a star. A star is hot and dense enough to undergo Nuclear Fusion. Our sun is a 3rd generation star, meaning it is the third star to have formed in it’s general area. As a star undergoes Nuclear Fusion it fuses Hydrogen into Helium.

Here are two videos to educate you on the truth of the matter.

http://youtu.be/DEw6X2BhIy8

http://youtu.be/B-LXUHJmzzc

Stellar and planetary evolution (which is the formation of planets and stars which noone has seen happen-stars explode in supernovas but never has anyone seen one be formed-apparently its from the energy of lots of stars exploding that new stars are formed but this is an assumption and is purely a theory)

No! Saying “nobody has seen it” is not a refutation of a well known phenomena. Supernovae have been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supernova_observation

Stars are formed from Hydrogen under the influence of gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

I have explained to you that your use of Theory is incorrect, you obviously are insisting on using the incorrect term seemingly on purpose.

And here I quote myself:

This is an egregious misrepresentation of what a Theory is. You are misusing the common usage of theory and placing it in the same spot as a Scientific Theory, they are two completely different things.

Common usage: a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that. / A nontechnical name for hypothesis.

Scientific usage: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

Your use of Theory is wrong in this context. You use it to mean as highlighted above Hypothesis (a mere assumption or guess)

….

organic evolution (where life came from nothing-again there is NO evidence that this happened at all!), macro-evolution (changing from one being into another-noone has ever seen a dog produce a non dog substance and you said that this process of evolution happens over millions of year, well time hasn’t stopped so why is it still not happening?if you go back far enough in time you then have to believe that everything came from a particle or a rock…..hmm)

For this I will have to quote myself again: You are confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis. You seem not to know what Macro-evolution actually is it is the accumulated changes of Micro-evolution over time.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a self-replicating organic molecule arises from inorganic matter. Matter does and has been shown to spontaneously organize itself into more complex systems obeying the laws of physics and chemistry.

Evolution is the process by which inherited genetic traits are passed onto descendents with random mutations. The beneficial mutations are retained simply because they survive within the animal they belong to. Over time these tiny changes (micro-evolution) add up to massive changes (macro-evolution). This is a constrained system, not a free one, constrained by resources, available genetic mutations to work with, environment and competing organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Also SCIENCE contradicts itself in saying that the earth came about from the big bang theory but the first law of thermodynamics says that matter can not be created and/or destroyed.so then how did the world get here?! either God made the world or the world made itself.

You have created a false Dichotomy here, and by that I mean falsely constrained the answer to A or B. This is wrong, and again based on a lack of knowledge.

Matter can be converted to energy and Vice Versa, The fission of two nuclei heavier than iron or nickel generally absorbs energy and thus converts energy to mass, while the fission of nuclei lighter than iron or nickel releases energy. In nuclear fusion, the reverse obtains. The earth formed of elements formed via fusion in Stars, when the star explodes that matter is released and is free to form planets under the influence of Gravity.

The First law of Thermodynamics you have stated is completely wrong. Again, you need to look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

If evolution is true we call came from this hiccup within a space and according to evolution we are not worth a thing because we just are a mixture of chemicals and really then, what is the point and purpose of life?

Aside from your misunderstanding of Evolution that being a confusion of Abiogenesis as stated above. Your inability to grasp the reality that life has no inherent “Meaning” is a problem for you not Science or any of it’s accrued facts.

You make meaning for your own life and that means more than having it handed to you by something else.

Are you seriously saying being created on the whim of some supreme being and commanded what to do is more meaningful than doing it for yourself? That is slavery and I find it abhorrent.

If you believe in evolution its just about not being here for a long time, its for a good time and that’s it. end of.And when you die you are going to get eaten up by a worm and work your way back through an ecosystem and that’s it

Yes, that’s it and your attempt to make it seem a bad thing is a sad notion. We get one life, one chance to live a good life. We do our best to make our mark and make the world a better place for those that come after us.

Having an afterlife, somewhere were we will live “Forever” weather or not we want to cheapens this life, makes it nothing more than a test, a stop off before the big party, a truly degrading and sickening thought.

But the bible says (also in the Jewish bible, the very first verse!) in the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth. So all of that is reversed for me.

Where did your God come from? If you state God is eternal you are saying something can and has always existed. Why not the universe or the Singularity that spawned it? This is the same flaw as you say there is for the Big Bang, what created God?

I know that space is a vacuum and that it contains millions of stars but what i am trying to put to you, where did they come from?! As for virtual particles, that particle needs energy to come about and what i do know is that energy can not be formed from nothing within an EMPTY vacuum which big bang theorist say that two particles collided in an EMPTY vacuum. contradicting itself in the one sentence.

Obviously you’re misunderstanding the concept, and using your flawed notion of “What Science Says” to try and debunk Science, a contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

The Bible states that God is love

What does that even mean? God is Love? Do you know?

God sent Christ to endure our spiritual sufferings

And that I find to be truly sickening idea: A human sacrifice to pay for the “Sins” of other people. That is not justice it is scapegoating. Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway.

If your God is Love and is seemingly good. For what possible reason could he need a Blood Sacrifice? I mean if he’s God he could just forgive. But no he wanted suffering and blood. An evil notion if there could be one.

This is how rational people see it:

God had himself killed so he could take a three day nap, after which he would simply resurrect himself at will and rule the Universe. Only now, he subjects every living (and yet-to-be-born) human under a ‘boo-hoo, look what I did for you’ cosmic guilt trip.

Now I ask if you have evidence FOR your God, not just bad attempts at disproving science. Remember Science is Wrong does NOT equal God is real.

This is [name removed] fault that I am putting in my bit and I hope noone thinks that I’m a bible basher…BUT lol
I DO believe in God! I am a christian and that is my own personal choice-everyone has their own choices and i respect others who do not have the same beliefs as me (at the end of the day, there is no point in falling out over it! lol) but basically as i said I do believe in God and that there is a God. Time itself is based on Jesus who is Gods son e.g. 1000 BC. I dont believe in evolution the big bang theory as the big bag theory says all matter and all space was originally part of an infinitesimally small point called the Singularity. The theory says nothing about where that singularity came from. It is assumed to have come about by a random quantum event. (I work in a high school and this is what we are learning about year to year lol im a pro lol!haha! ) Quantum scientists believe that something can come out of something like say a matter can form out of a vaccum? noone has ever seen this happen. things can’t appear from nothing and then go back to nothing!
Also then that ties in with common sense questions today such like if we came from evolution that means we came from monkeys-why is that not still happening today? i know there are some people who act like monkeys lol but it doesnt happen. And how some animals that live on land used to be fish..how did they grow the legs? did they tell their bodies “right, i need legs-lets go!” there is more evidence that points to God than there is to evolution and the big bang. Remember,they are just theories! But i know that there is a God. I have witnessed God work in my life and when the bad times come I dont blame God because i remember that nothing bad comes from God, it is to do with sin and the devil (maybe we should start a debate does the devil have horns and is red with a wee fork? lol). But thats my speak lol

My reply begins here:

This a huge reply, sorry but it’s necessary.

I wasn’t aware so many people were interested in this debate besides myself. Well anyway lets get to it.

Fist off you believe in a God, that’s fine but, why? and why THAT specific God over the thousands of others? Any argument used for the existence of one can be used to justify the others.

Time itself is based on Jesus who is Gods son e.g. 1000 BC.

This in not true, the Gregorian Calendar is the one we use… it has adopted the BC/AD system because it was already in use, based upon the the christian worlds use of the Birth and Death of a man called Jesus (which the Bible stated should have been called Immanuel). The Jewish Calendar based upon the Torah (that’s the book the Bible is derived from) is currently in it’s 5772^nd Year on the 13th day in the month of Iyyar. No Jesus mentioned, in fact the very people responsible for the prophecy of Jesus do not accept that it has been fulfilled. I myself use the terms CE/ BCE (Common Era and Before the Common Era).

I dont believe in evolution

I’m sorry but not to believe or more aptly not accept evolution (it requires no belief) in the modern world is a truly odd concept. We are alive today only because of it. All of medicine (actual medicine, none of that new age bollocks) is based upon it. If you ever get a vaccine or antibiotics or any treatment in hospital you are accepting that it works, and all based on 180 + years of medical experimentation, research and theory based upon Evolution. We don’t just stick some crap in you and say “well it might work, cross your fingers”.

Evolution has been observed in nature, a bacteria has been shown to evolve the ability to eat a completely man-made substance not found in nature. Later it was shown to have evolved an enzyme to allow it to metabolize the fiber. Butterflies in a city have been shown to evolve dark colouring to blend in with the soot stained buildings in a matter of years.

There is so much evidence of evolution that to not accept it is quite literally willful ignorance of the topic.

big bag theory says all matter and all space was originally part of an infinitesimally small point called the Singularity

Yes that is what Big Bang Theory suggests as far a current evidence shows. But simply because it doesn’t yet sate where the “Singularity” came from does not invalidate the theory itself. The theory is the best answer so far and it withstands all experimentation and attempts to prove it wrong.

To say you don’t accept an entire theory based on the fact it doesn’t answer one “Single” point “yet” is a flawed argument. it’s like stating the cooking of a meal never took place because you can’t say where the ingredients where grown.

It is assumed to have come about by a random quantum event.

Yes, this is theorized and “Virtual Particles” have been shown to appear in the vacuum of space and self-annihilate within seconds, there are Quantum Fluctuations and these have been observed.

Quantum scientists believe that something can come out of something like say a matter can form out of a vaccum? noone has ever seen this happen. things can’t appear from nothing and then go back to nothing!

Not one scientist would state that the vacuum of space is “nothing”, the vacuum of space is not completely empty. Like above Virtual Particles appearing and disappearing have been observed 

You make the statement

things can’t appear from nothing and then go back to nothing!

First you must define “Nothing” nowhere anyone has ever looked has shown there to be “Absolutely” nothing at any point in time. No theory even suggests the possibility of “absolute nothingness” we don’t even know if it’s possible. So the statement that things “can’t” appear from and disappear into nothing” is false. Because as far as we know “Nothing” doesn’t exist. An odd notion but true nonetheless.

Also then that ties in with common sense questions today such like if we came from evolution that means we came from monkeys-why is that not still happening today?

I am sorry but I cannot allow that one to pass. people DID NOT come from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with Monkeys and Apes (we are Taxonomically classed as one of the Great Apes” We branched off from Monkeys millions of years ago. A separate species and then lived and evolved alongside Monkeys. We still share over 90% identical DNA with Monkeys. Evolution is not a ladder where one animal evolves into another. It is like a tree, where on branch splits off from another, both branches still exist.

To say why are we not still evolving into Monkeys is like saying “If there are Americans, why are there still English people?” Answer they split off from us we didn’t become them.

And how some animals that live on land used to be fish..how did they grow the legs? did they tell their bodies “right, i need legs-lets go!”

This is an immensely flawed and deep misunderstanding of what evolution is, how can you attempt to argue with something you don’t grasp even at its base?

This is Axolotl (A fish with proto-legs)



Here’s a link to something on walking fish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish

there is more evidence that points to God than there is to evolution and the big bang

Well if there is, have at it, so far the best people have is denying the basis of modern science and medicine with flawed arguments and no actual evidence of a God. If you have some use it.

Remember,they are just theories

This is an egregious misrepresentation of what a Theory is. You are misusing the common usage of theory and placing it in the same spot as a Scientific Theory, they are two completely different things.

Common usage: a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that. / A nontechnical name for hypothesis.

Scientific usage: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

Your use of Theory is wrong in this context. You use it to mean as highlighted above Hypothesis (a mere assumption or guess)

But i know that there is a God. I have witnessed God work in my life and when the bad times come I dont blame God because i remember that nothing bad comes from God, it is to do with sin and the devil

These are personal anecdotes and therefore entirely subjective. they cannot be used as evidence unless you can show them to be accurate and actually caused by a god. Though you do mention sin and the devil… these are claims that can be debated too.

OK, I answered all of your points, I think, If I missed some just say and I’ll be happy to get on it.

I hope nothing offended you personally, it was not my intention.

Now lets see what people have to say if they read my essay


EDIT: I did not address this

But i know that there is a God. I have witnessed God work in my life and when the bad times come I dont blame God because i remember that nothing bad comes from God

Really? Are you serious here?

Example Mother Teresa: She believed suffering brought you closer to Jesus, so her medical clinics withheld painkillers & patients often died screaming. Suffering is BAD universally bad, nobody can claim it to be good. And Mother Teresa did it FOR god as a direct result of her faith.

I could write an entire book on the innumerable instances of suffering caused by the Christian god. In fact many people have Christopher Hitchens for example, on the point I just mentioned has a book called “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice”

How about the Christians Gods acceptance of a burnt human sacrifice for winning a battle?

Judges 11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

An offering accepted by the Christian God, an innocent girl sacrificed by burning in payment for winning a battle. This is not from God? Really?

And this is where I left it, I could have said a lot more, but overkill and all.

I wonder, did I do a good job?

Your ability to reason comes from god.

Therefore, if you use reason, you prove the existence of god.

If you use reason to disprove god, you actually prove god.

If you claim any of their arguments are logically fallacious, you are using reason, which comes from god, therefore you prove them correct.

Demanding evidence for a claim presupposes that you should support claims with evidence; they make no such requirements, therefore they are exempt from providing evidence for their god.

This god just happens to be the god of the talking snake and the guy who was nailed to a big stick.

They know this for certain because god told them he was god.

Video game players can now identify their characters as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Which is wonderful, unless you’re a sad homophobe

It must be awful, being a homophobe. Having to spend all that time obsessing about what gay people might be doing with their genitals. Seeing it in your mind, over and over again, in high-definition close-up. Bravely you masturbate, to make the pictures go away, but to no avail. They’re seared onto your mental membranes. Every time you close your eyes, an imaginary gay man’s imaginary penis rises from the murk, bowing ominously in your direction, sensing your discomfort. Laughing. Mocking. Possibly even winking. How dare they, this man and his penis? How dare they do this to you?

Obviously you can’t fight the big gay penis in your head. It has no physical form, so you can’t get a grip on it, much as you’d like to. You’d love to grab it and throttle it until it splutters its last. That might bring you closure. But no. So you do the next best thing. You condemn homosexuals in the real world. Maybe if they could just stop all this “being gay” business for 10 minutes, you’d get some respite from that scary headcock. It might shrivel away completely, leaving nothing behind. Except maybe a nice bit of bum.

No, dammit! Forget I said that! No bum either!

Of course sometimes the act of condemning homosexuals in the real world overlaps with the imaginary realm. Over the past few weeks, games company Electronic Arts has been subjected to a letter-writing campaign from idiots outraged by its decision to allow players to define their characters as gay in a Star Wars game. The Florida Family Association says, “children and teens, who never thought any way but heterosexual, are now given a choice to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender” – adding that even if they chose to be straight, they would still “be forced to deal with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters chosen by other players”. Personal choice and co-operation: two appalling threats to our youth.

They also claim “there were no LGBT characters in any of the Star Wars movies”. I don’t know which wacky re-cut version of Star Wars they’ve been watching, but I saw the original when I was about six years old and even then I was struck by how outrageously camp C3PO is. He was a gilded John Inman in space. And what about Luke Skywalker? Apart from briefly kissing his own sister, he shows no interest in women whatsoever. The first film is a tender gay parable in which Luke falls in love with Alec Guinness and gradually “comes out” as a Jedi. The final scene oozes symbolism: having penetrated the Death Star’s trench in his phallic spacecraft, he closes his eyes, submits to his true inner instinct and triumphantly blasts his X-Wing’s seed into an anus-like aperture, causing an orgasmic eruption that changes his universe for ever. It’s hard to see how they could make Star Wars any gayer, unless they gave the Millennium Falcon a handlebar moustache.

But hang on, some of you are saying, this is a video game we’re talking about. Isn’t this gay content a bit shoehorned in? Sonic the Hedgehog never agonised over his sexual identity. He was too busy sprinting through a rainbow-coloured landscape leaping at rings. True, but that was in 1991 – which in “technology years” was about nine millennia ago. It’s like comparing a cave painting with a surround-sound 3D movie. EA’s Star Wars title in question is an MMORPG or massively multiplayer online role-playing game with more than a million subscribers: real people playing and interacting with each other in real-time, and hey, statistically, at least three of those people are going to be gay. The least you can do is let them reflect that in the characters they pick.

But wait: there’s even more gay content in another EA space epic, Mass Effect 3, which to the uninitiated is a bit like playing through an entire Star Trek boxset. It’s bold space hokum and it’s great fun – and just like Star Trek, it includes a range of potential love interests for the main character. Previous Mass Effect titles have let you play as a woman and – gasp – seduce other women: this final instalment is the first to give players the option playing a man who woos men. Play your cards right (or play your dialogue tree options right) throughout hours of gameplay and you’ll be rewarded with a short, chaste love scene in which two bare-chested men kiss and cuddle in bed.

Players have complained bitterly about the ending of Mass Effect 3 – not because of the potential for homosexual love, but because they found the narrative underwhelming. The game has a variety of different endings, depending on your decisions: some have moaned that none of the possible endings are happy or satisfying enough. In fact, they’ve moaned so much, EA has hastily released an additional ending free-of-charge, so these players can experience “further closure”.

I can’t work out if that’s depressing or sweet. On the one hand, they’re spoiled little emperors with a mind-boggling sense of entitlement: it’s one thing to be disappointed by the end of a story, but another to demand the author sits down and writes you a new one RIGHT NOW. You need “further closure”? What’s wrong with you? But on the other hand, it’s a sign that players sometimes invest so much of themselves into the characters they play, they care about them to a degree that should make any author jealous. Sneerers will doubtless leave comments about “saddoes” and “shut-ins”, oblivious that by doing so, they too are playing a character in an immense MMORPG called the internet. Face it: you’ve even chosen a nickname and an avatar just to join in.

Allowing players to identify their characters as homosexual isn’t, as the anti-gay campaigners claim, a tokenistic novelty, but an unavoidable consequence of the fascinating evolution of video games. Not that there’s much point explaining that to them. They don’t believe in evolution either. And they wouldn’t hear you anyway over the thunderous roar of dicks screaming for ever in their frightened mind’s ear.

I fully intend to begin fleshing out this blog, I have received a most excellent piece of nonsense from my local Jehovas’ Witnesses which I am going to post about.

It’s a booklet about the “Origins of Life”. So, badly veiled intelligent design then.

I have promised the Jehovas’ Witnesses that I will read it and give them my thoughts on it… Those poor people, they have no idea what they’ve asked for.

Needless to say the booklet contains many feeble attempts at “Science”, logical fallacies included.

Should be a “fun” read.