There are two types of characters: Player Characters (PCs, or simply "players") and Non-Player Characters (NPCs). A Player Character is an avatar in the game environment that is controlled by a player, whilst Non-Player Characters are controlled by the game software and can only interact with PCs through scripted events or artificial intelligence (AI). There are three types of NPCs. Friendly NPCs cannot attack friendly characters and vice versa. Hostile NPCs are either of the opposing faction or are mobs (enemies controlled by AI) and will freely attack any PC with whom they are hostile. Neutral NPCs will only attack if provoked. Some NPC interaction is affected by the reputation a PC has with them.

Those beliefs do not change one's interaction with the world any more than anyone elses social or moral convictions, they do however have a deeper impact on the belief in something outside of that world. What makes religion suddenly comparable to a VR helmet in one's interaction, any more than being a pacifist or a vegetarian would influence one's actions based on external thoughts and views? We all colour the world with our own personalities and the influences upon us. Singling out religion and focusing effectively on comparing in order to claim that religion is virtual seems to me to be more of a prejudice and dislike of religion than a serious study. I am influenced by the culture of my work environment. I am rewarded for taking certain actions and conforming to certain modes of thinking.

It would be very interesting to see how virtual worlds might provide aspects of the experience of religious participation, or how the experience of religious faith might parallel the virtual world experience (though I can't really think of instances for that latter one). If we're looking for comparisons and connections, virtual worlds and clubs of various types might be more fruitful. I have had extensive personal experience with religion, which is what informs my opinion that being a believer in a religion is like participating in a virtual world. Part of the reason that I think religions are like virtual worlds is that the religion I was raised in is unusual. This religion is an amalgam of all world religions (a child of the I AM Movement).

Sure! Social networks are not religions at all. There are no objectives, no levels, and no dominant personalities to whom the participants owe homage or from whom they gain knowledge. There is also no shared fiction, which is at the heart of my argument that religions are virtual worlds. Instant messaging is not a religion either. Neither are cell phones, or text messaging. Photo sharing is not a religion. Cities (and then suburbs) were cultural phenomenon and they are not religions. But Rex, my contention is not that a lot of things are 'like religion' but that religions are like virtual worlds. These are very different positions.

I still don't see why saying that religions are like virtual worlds is so offensive to the religions themselves. If religions are virtual worlds, that means they're imaginary, right? They're not real, because otherwise you wouldn't need that "virtual" adjective. Now although I personally am perfectly happy in characterising religions as imaginary constructs, used by people to ask their imaginary friends to alter reality for them, I'm an atheist. People who are not atheists may not be so keen on having their faith presented in this light. That's why they may be offended by it. I know of two books which come at this from the same direction as you.

There are many other external views that could be brought up to show the logical difficulties this approach brings ("are dogs cats" probably being the most succinct). To get back to your comparison, religions, for most people who follow one, are decidedly not summed up by externalities, the social network, "leveling up" or the like. Rituals and such are obvious externals, but anyone who follows a particular religion will tell you that the ritual is significant not for the overt actions, but for the internal meaning.