Gaming Expert Pat Robertson: ‘Murdering Somebody In Cyberspace’ same as murder

[omgwtfgg503]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/d7814ae6a70d0c59314740c34650c7f8/tumblr_mjk3bmog2c1s7io1yo1_400.gif

[omgwtfgg503]

(click to show/hide)

http://31.media.tumblr.com/d7814ae6a70d0c59314740c34650c7f8/tumblr_mjk3bmog2c1s7io1yo1_400.gif

[Lt_Anders]

To Yaro:
Interesting. An Orthodox Christian defending the faith. I oft find it to be the more right wing Protestant believers.(I do disagree with Organized Religion, in that most instances they have rituals built into them, that I feel dilute the Bible and the teachings that I have read. But that is a interpretation of the Bible I have made, and not the truth until proven in death.)
I did find your writings enjoyable, while I disagree with your interpretations of some points, your meaning was much in line.

As a personal aside, what I have read, personally, is and the way I interpreted the Bible is the way I will believe until I die.

I find it funny, though, that anyone who has a strong conviction in a belief is oft mocked for it. One of the (very few) passages of the Bible I have read specifically mentioned times like this. It is sad that you must mock someone, insult them, or otherwise because of a belief. In that respect, you would then be no better than that which you mock. How can you really mock a man for his belief, whether true or not, and feel better yourself for it?

I don't know what to say beyond that. I just find it sad.
BTW, Chalk me down as a Christian Right Winger. I won't ever argue it, for those who wish to argue have since made their choice.

[Zaren]

Personally this thread(up to page 4...got tired after that) is just huseby bashing and honestly im tired of reading it. For me there are 2 important things
1.believe what you want to believe
2.have good reason behind it

there are reasons to believe either.

I dont get why either side has a boner for attacking the other. If my favorite color is red and Bob over there likes blue, you dont see me calling him a dicksuckingmotherfuckingpenisgobblingbundleofsticks.(thats directed at you huseby btw edit-not calling u that....the rage is coming from you. The downvotes are not for your belief its for your jackass attitude)

[Gmnotutoo]

The real question here: Why is Huseby in a clan that is heavily god themed if he is so much against religion?

[Canuck]

I'm not afraid of anyone who breathes the same air as me.

So Huseby.. Does does that mean you're afraid of..

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

?

[EponiCo]

Now seriously, let's define a "belief system" as a statement which cannot be validated or invalidated through experiment (such as : "there's an undetectable rose unicorn behind the Moon"). In other words, a religion's dogma. If out of the infinitely many possible exclusive (as in, stating that any other religion is false) belief systems that could exist one of them is true, what are the odds it's yours ?

If m is the number of theories that contain the rose unicorn, and n is the number of theories without it. Then the probability of being in an universe with the unicorn is P=lim(m+n->infinity) (m/m+n). The rose unicorn is undetectable that means causaly ineffective. This means that, if theory A without the unicorn is logically consistent (*), so is theory A* which is exactly the same except with the unicorn. Likewise for every working theory B with the unicorn there exists one B* without it. Therefore m=n. Which makes P=lim(2*m->infinity) (m/2*m) i.e. P= 50%.
This isn't entirely true yet though. All that is required is that the unicorn can not causally interact with anything that can causaly interact with anything (that can ... etc) that we can see. This, however, like an unicorn interacting with nothing, is a closed system. Therefore what is said applies as well. However, it means that there may be in fact more theories containing the unicorn than theories that do not (since there can be multiple closed system of things the unicorn interacts with that can be inserted). So m>=n and P>=50%.
Now, rose unicorns are so awesome that they have to exist because they wouldn't be all that awesome if they didn't. So, really, it's impossible for rose unicorns not to exist. P=100% which is consistent with what we proved before.
There are people running around and killing unicorns with razors but they are evil.

(*) There has been the objection that causality and logic are not exactly the same. This misses the point however and is invalid. It cannot however be discussed in the scope of this silly post. Interested readers may find a thorrough explanations in the post "The Unicorn in a nutshell". A short overview of the argument can be found in "My little pony".

[Sir_Hans]

I usually don't intend to mock anyone's religion. But when they say something like this:
It's game on.

Religion is not dumb... people are dumb, including those who say something is dumb when they possess no knowledge on the subject matter.

You don't have to be a firm christian believer with a PhD in theology (which none of us have) to possess knowledge on what the bible says.
In my mind 5 years of 16+ hours a week studying scripture, discussing scripture, and listening to scripture counts as "knowledge on the subject matter".
So when I say something like:
"Organized religion is fucking stupid"
It's not simply because I know nothing about organized religion. I've had more than my fair share.

For the record, I'm not an atheist either, agnostic ftw. In my mind there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.
But claiming you know the existence of God, God's true will, afterlife, or which God is the true God are some of the dumbest statements a person can make in my eyes. It's all faith in the end, the bible is just like the Koran, so like someone already mentioned: thinking that your faith is more correct than another persons faith or lack of faith is just plain silly.

Everything in the world tells me that if there is a Creator/God he obviously doesn't want your worship or you to accept him as your God and savior. Much more likely he created us out of a random sequence of events, unintentionally. Or he created us for his personal entertainment and just loves watching the crazy shit we do on a daily basis... It sure would explain humanities obsession with war and power.

[Clockworkkiller]

Why do some atheists try so hard to disprove a god they claim doesn't even exist in the frist place?

Why should you care what others believe in?

I'm against homosexuality, yet when someone tells me they are gay, I don't go crazy to the point of insults and try to turn them straight. I just ignore it, why can't people do the same for religion?
No ones trying to shove it down your throat, so why should you care?

It's funny how people talk about "live and let live" and shit, yet those same people, mock others religious beliefs and try to keep them from living how they want to live

Anyway this damn thread should just be locked and left to die, but knowing this community, I doubt that's gonna happen

[chadz]

I'm against homosexuality...

How does that work out for you? I mean, when you see two men kissing, you think to yourself "stop caring for each other!"?

(click to show/hide)

Edit: Let me rephrase. I've heard people say they are disgusted by the thought of homosexuality. Whatever, you don't have to join them anyway. But how can one be against homosexuality. It's not like gay people will ever stop existing. It's like being against sunrises, against cloudy weather, against trees growing. Funny: now that I think about it being against homosexuality means being against nature.

[Ninja_Khorin]

Eh, people should be allowed to discuss and debate religion. But resorting to insults and memes is not exactly debating.

Someone who does not want to participate in the discussion isn't forced to. I don't really feel the need to disprove god, simply because I don't think I really have to.

However my stance on the subject says that I don't believe(atheism), because there is no convincing evidence presented and I'm not sure if there ever will be so I might not ever know(agnosticism). Any change in my belief will coincide with any change in my knowledge of the subject.

Therefore it is in my interest to see any evidence for the existence of God validated. This means that any evidence presented must be able to withstand any attempt to disprove it. So even if I don't feel any need to disprove God, I do find it of interest to see any evidence for God disproven or proven for that matter. Trying to disprove God is a fools errand, but disproving proof for God is possible and even necessary.

[Zaren]

Let me rephrase. I've heard people say they are disgusted by the thought of homosexuality. Whatever, you don't have to join them anyway. But how can one be against homosexuality. It's not like gay people will ever stop existing. It's like being against sunrises, against cloudy weather, against trees growing. Funny: now that I think about it being against homosexuality means being against nature. [/spoiler]

are you against murder? history shows its never going to stop, i guess being against murder means being against nature.

OR---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


that aside lets take this from 3 points of view which can all oppose the idea of homosexuality
1. a Darwinist point of view. The simplistic way to say it is survival of the fittest, BUT what is the fittest? the fittest is the being within the species which CAN PRODUCE THE MOST OFFSPRING! Now can 2 men or 2 women produce a child? NO!!!!!!! so therefore its not really  against nature since according to darwin nature opposes(or selects against) the homosexual.

2.Christian(wont include Jew since Im not familiar with their stance being that they do not have the new testament). Homosexuality is wrong, it is that its a sin(any christian who denies this has not read the Bible)that said, lust is a sin, stealing is a sin, hate is a sin, ect(im sure you are familiar with the more violent ones). Also EVERY SINGLE MAN AND WOMAN AND CHILD is a sinner. Therefore, is there a difference between the sin of homosexuality and that of stealing? no the man who steals is equally bad as the man who loves another man. The most important part? all sins are forgiven(if one believes in Jesus, ect. you guys clearly know the drill since this post has had some intelligent thought). So at the end of the day all sinners are sinners.

3.The teenager-EWWWWWWWWWW gayyyyyzorz

[Sir_Hans]

3

(click to show/hide)

unless its two hot chicks.

[Armpit_Sweat]

oh my... this thread... 
 
A foul smell of religion is unbearable here.
 
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 
 
Humans were talking about their magic invisible friends for thousands of years, yet, of cause, a magic friend of your parents was the only true and real. 
 
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 
 
Even the Pope got bored and abandoned the ship. A vicar of Christ, a Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and Prince of the Apostles didn't really want to do all that hocus-pocus anymore.
 
And when you are quoting any religious books on a video gaming forum, don't expect anyone to take you seriously:
 
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 
 
That's how you sound. Every time.

[chadz]

Let's open the can, shall we.

are you against murder? history shows its never going to stop, i guess being against murder means being against nature.

That's the wrong thought you have there. Murder is the act. The "feeling" that causes the act is hate or whatever. So saying "I'm against homosexuality" is like saying "I'm against people hating other people". You will neither stop some men loving other men, and you will also not stop people hating.

1. a Darwinist point of view. The simplistic way to say it is survival of the fittest, BUT what is the fittest? the fittest is the being within the species which CAN PRODUCE THE MOST OFFSPRING! Now can 2 men or 2 women produce a child? NO!!!!!!! so therefore its not really  against nature since according to darwin nature opposes(or selects against) the homosexual.

So according to your thought, homosexuals are not "fit for life" and will therefore "die out" and not spread their "defective genes", and therefore homosexuality will die out by itself? Yeah, could be that the fact that homosexuality is proven to exist with many mammals for thousands of years doesn't really support that claim. And I guess you have similar feelings towards: People choosing to be single their entire life, people deciding not to have kids, people that can't have kids, priests, etc... or is it somehow exclusive to homosexuals?
Because news flash, if you use "survival of the fittest" to justify fucked up opinions on other humans makes you a fucking disgusting misanthrope and [stopping before reaching godwins law]

2.Christian ...blabla

protip: don't use 2000 year old books as a guide for social interaction in the 21st century.