The only textual interpretation they should do is to understand the meanings behind the words.
(Like the subject at hand : what was the functional definition of the words "well regulated" in 1791.)

The act of deciding "well, they wrote X, but we think they would have written Y had they thought of these new circumstances, so we're going with what we think" is taking things too far. (eg. concepts like : surreptitious telephone wiretap law applying to overt public video/audio recording)

The legislature exists for a reason. Writing/Updating laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and legislate new laws that alter the scope/definition of old ones.


The problem with case law is that there is no Federal/State/Country/City LIS system where you can just search for whatever laws apply to whatever activities. You would need access to legal databases, like say LexisNexis. Even lawyers don't read case results directly to know what the decisions mean, they use summarizing services that outline the fallout of court decisions in terms of enforcible concepts. Ironically, these summaries are copyrighted, and the public at large is not allowed to know what those enforcible concepts are without paying.

IMO, I think eminent is easiest confused with emanating. Because the concepts behind them are so similar. One sticks-out-of, the other oozes-out-of. If you said that 'an eminent thing emanates from something', you would be so so close to literally correct.

-scheherazade

1. Kickstarter lies

Before Anita started her Kickstarter campaign she held a talk where she said she was being harassed by a organized group of 4chan members for months. She said these 4chan members subscribed to her channel so they would know when she released new videos so they could attack her. The type of comments she said she received were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats. She said sometimes she got together with a friend to read through the comments because it would get overwhelming. She says that she probably has the biggest block list on Youtube and anytime they leave any anti feminist, harassing, or threating comment they would be blocked. She said that she had gotten use to these kinds of comments. She said she monitored her Youtube comment section so the only comments that were allowed to be shown had to be approved by her.

She lunched her Kickstarter campaign and made a Youtube video for the campaign. She for the first time allowed comments on her video. she makes a post on her website entitled Harassment, Misogyny and Silencing on YouTube. She says this in the post.

"Here is a very small sample of the harassment I deal with for daring to criticize sexism in video games. Keep in mind that all this is in response to my Kickstarter project for a video series called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (which I have not even made yet). These are the types of silencing tactics often used against women on the internet who dare to speak up. But don’t worry it won’t stop me!"

"These messages and comments have included everything from the typical sandwich and kitchen “jokes” to threats of violence, death, sexual assault and rape."

http://feministfrequency.com/2012/06/07/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

She says that all of these comments are because of her Kickstarter campaign because she dares to speak critically about video games. These statements completely contradict what she said before she started her Kickstarter campaign. Before her Kickstarter she said she was systemically being harassed by people on 4chan and that among the things they said to her were sexual insults, death threats & rape threats and sometimes it was so overwhelming she read them with a friend as a way to cope with it and she had gotten use to it by that point. So she leaves comments open on her youtube kickstarter video which is something she never did before and she was surprised by the negative comments but how can she be surprised by the same type of comments she was receiving long before she launched her Kickstarter. When she started her Kickstarter and left her comments open she knew exactly what the comments were going to be like because she been receiving them for months prior. So when she says during her Kickstarter that all of the negative comments were because of her Kickstarter campaign she's lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSoDEA6yw24

2. Other Lies

She says that Grand Theft Auto and Saint Row encourage players to kill women by giving players money for killing random female NPCs.

"some games explicitly incentive and reward this kind of behavior by having murdered women drop bundles of cash for the player to collect and add to their own stash"

The truth is money is dropped by any NPC that is killed in the games and has nothing to do with gender.

She says that the female stripper NPCs from Hitman Absolution were put their because the developer wanted players to kill them. The game discourages players from killing innocent civilians by taking away points. The whole point of the game is to sneak by people and keep unnecessary killing to a minimum while moving toward killing your intended target not to kill random strippers and lose points for doing so. The path to the strippers is one of two paths that the player can take. The path to the strippers is the harder of the two paths to take. The other path that the player can take is easier and doesn't involve coming near the strippers at all.

She also says this in her Background Decoration video.

"their status as disposable objects is reinforced by the fact that in most games discarded bodies will simply vanish into thin air a short time after being killed"

She tries to tie disappearing bodies as something that only happens to female NPCs but it has nothing to do with gender its just something that happens in a lot of games irregardless of gender because of limited ram capacity and not having the game slow down because of bodies pilling up.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingFades

shes a life long gamer
at a Santa Monica College in California back in early 2010 Anita says that she's not a fan of video games and she had to learn a lot about them. she says that she would love to play video games but she doesn't what to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads. During and after her Kickstarter she says that shes been playing video games since she was 5 years old and shes a life long gamer. How can she be a lifelong gamer if she said pre Kickstarter that she doesn't like video games specifically because she thinks that all games are violent. If she's a lifelong gamer than what has she been playing all of this time and why does she thinks all video games are violent. She obviously not a lifelong gamer and only said that as a way to try and give herself more credibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJj_7SVAIS4

In her damsel video she said Zelda was never a playable character in a console game. Zelda was playable in the CDI games Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon & Zelda's Adventure. I am not saying these are good games but they are console games where Zelda was the star of her own adventure.

She says that gaming is all boys club and women have until recently been barred from playing games. This is untrue their has never been anything stopping girls from playing games. Most game genres are not gender excluding. Racing, fighting, beat em up, real time strategy, role playing, puzzle, point and click, action adventure, platformers, MMO, Simulation, rhythm action.

Women have been involved in the making of games for years. Theirs been female programmers, artist, composers, designer, CEO, etc. Women have also been involved in the journalism side of things as well. This false narrative that Anita's trying to push that games have somehow excluded women until recently is a lie that she tells to try to push her gender base agenda.

The other thing that she tries to push is the ideal that man are trying to keep women from playing or criticizing games. Both things are false but she keeps to that script so she can fight against the imagery boogie man that she created and so she can justify the existences of her video series.

Anita omitted the fact that she has connections to the developer of the game sword and sworcery but I am sure that has noting to do with the reason why she chose that game's character as a positive female even though it contradicts her previous videos.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/315zh3/possible_ethics_issue_with_anitas_latest_video/.

3. Poor Research

In dismals in distress she said that peach was added to Mario 2 to fill a per existing gender role that existed in the original game Doki Doki Panic except for the fact that her own footage clearly shows that two females were playable in Doki Doki Panic. If she did further research like actually playing the game than she would know that it wasn't just one girl in Doki Doki Panic. The core concept that Anita doesn't understand about games is the fact that graphics assist can be replaced with anything. In fan made mods the cast of Super Mario Bros 2 have been replaced by numerous things like Star Wars ships, Pokemon, Transformers, Spider-Man villains, etc.

http://www.romhacking.net/?page=hacks&game=749

https://youtu.be/t8bub0B1-wk?t=6m15s

In Women as Background Decoration Anita says this

"In order to understand how this works lets take a moment to examine how video game operate as playgrounds for player engagement. Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious but bear with me. game developers set up a series of rules and then within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do and what we can't do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibility within the gamespace. So in many of the titles we've been discussing the game makers have setup a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable eroticized female characters. Players are than invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon. Because they were designed constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. Its a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."

Theirs two basic concepts that she doesn't understand. The first one is that games are interactive so players can do things that developers never intended players to be able to do. The second is the fact that games have bugs in them which also allows players to do things that the developers never intending for them to do.

For example in Halo 2 players can do button combos. Button combo is a sequence of buttons that, when pressed in order, results in the execution of an exploit. Typical button combos take advantage of unforeseen attributes of certain actions. Some actions, such as meleeing, can disrupt animations for firing and reloading weapons, performing melees, etc. By chaining these and other actions, players can perform special tricks, such as automatic Plasma Grenade sticks and instant close-range kills. However, many players disapprove of such "cheap" exploitations, and Bungie has declared these combos all as cheating and therefore banworthy

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Cheating

Another example is in early versions of arcade Mortal Kombat 2. Players figured out how to hit babies after performing Babalitys.

http://bbh.marpirc.net/mk2/

By Anita's logic midway endorses child abuse because players tested the bounders of the game and were able to interact with the objects (babies) in the game that were put their by the developer. So that clearly means that the developer supports any action the players can do in the game including hitting babies. Or it can just mean that games are interactive and filled with glitches and just because a player can do something in a game doesn't automatically mean that the developer endorsed it or even meant for player to be able to do it.

In her Bayonetta video she complains about Bayonetta clothes coming off when she summons demons. she doesn't acknowledge or knows that Bayonetta's hair is also her cloths so that's why her cloths disappears when she summons demons. She also makes the claim that Bayonetta is fighting demons when in fact Bayonetta is actually fighting angles. She also says that Bayonetta has a child except for the fact that Bayonetta doesn't have any children. She claims that Bayonetta is a "choose your own patriarchal adventure porno fantasy." Lets take a second to look at what the word Patriarchy means. Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. So how is Bayonetta a game in which players play as a strong women who is always in control of a situation and is more powerful than any man in the game enforcing ideals of Patriarchy. Bayonetta is not a choose your own adventure type game nor is it a porno.

She says this in a tweet

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

Bayontta was design by a women

http://platinumgames.com/2009/04/17/designing-bayonetta/

http://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Mari_Shimazaki

McIntosh said this on twatter about the Witcher.

"Geralt from Witcher 3 is emotionally deficient in the extreme. Never cries or laughs. Never expresses grief, fear, sadness or vulnerability."

Witchers are unable to express emotions on their faces because of the training that is involed to become a Witcher. Taken in as children, Witchers-to-be are subjected to intense alchemical processes, consumption of mutagenic compounds and relentless physical and magical training to make them dangerous and highly versatile against their vast array of opponents.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Witcher

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/

"In the beginning of “Women as Background Decoration: Part 2,” Sarkeesian references a scene from Dragon Age’s City Elf Origin story, in which a group of guards make disturbing sexual comments over the player character’s dead female companion. Sarkeesian implies that BioWare’s narrative is built on the “brutalization of women’s bodies,” using dead women “as an indicator of just how harsh, cruel, and unforgiving their game worlds are.”

"However, the female elf’s treatment is better understood as a thematic commentary on systematic misogynistic violence. Both women and elves are confined to strict socioeconomic roles within the origin story, as the brutal city government uses institutional force in order to keep women and elves oppressed. Essentially, the game explores the use of sexual violence as a form of violent oppression within a misogynistic institutional structure. Yet, Sarkeesian and McIntosh misread this moment – ignoring a critical look at misogynistic oppression within Dragon Age’s narrative."

"Sarkeesian has criticized the postmodern video game Hotline Miami for utilizing the “Damsel in Distress” trope. However, Feminist Frequency’s analysis completely erases the game’s subversion of the trope – as the narrative’s “damsel” seems to be held hostage by the player, and avenging her death produces no reward. Indeed, writers such as Maddy Myers have dissented from Sarkeesian and McIntosh’s analysis – praising Hotline Miami as a postmodern exploration of hypermasculinity which subverts the “damsel” trope."

http://gamemoir.com/lgbt-gender/frequency-anita-sarkeesians-strengths-weaknesses/

4. Things taking out of context

She shows footage of Fallout New Vegas where a womens body is being dragged around with psychic powers and says that games often permits women to be knockout, pickup, carried and thrown around. All of these things can be done to male NPCs as well. She also says that assault, mutilating & murder can be done to women in games but all of those same things can be done to male NPCs as well. She tries to use these things as examples of sexism towards women but its not sexism if the same thing can be done to male NPCs.

She claims that the objectification of female NPCs is terrible.

"Unlike other NPCs that exist for purposes outside of their sexuality, Non-Playable Sex Objects have little to no individual personality or identity to speak of. since these women are just objects there's no need or reason for players to have any emotional engagement with them. meaningful relations or interactions are not even possible. Their programming simply does not allow for it."

She tries to say this is unique to female NPCs. The lack of deep personalities, non emotional engagement or meaningful relations is true of all Pedestrian NPCs male or female.

"when assaulted by the player non playable sex objects might scream. but regardless of their canned automated reaction they are will designed to be expendable to be used and then tossed out."

Same thing is true for male NPCs as well.

In background decoration she talks about female character being objectified while showing footage of the main protagonist from Watch Dogs in the process of shutting down a human trafficking ring.

In her background decoration video she said this.

"In the realm of interactive media I use the term "instrumentailty" to refer to the practice of using virtual women as tools or props for the players own purposes. Courtesans in the Assassins Creed series, for instance, are available to be "rented" and used to help you "blend in" to the environment. Once acquired, they can be ordered to flirt with guards to distract them. Allowing the protagonist to slip by undetected. "

The courtesans were one of the four factions allied to the Assassin Order, with the other three being the thieves, mercenaries and Romanies. They usually aided the Order by collecting information from clients, or by acting as distractions and allowing allies to slip into restricted areas.

The player can also hire male thieves & mercenaries to aid them with blending into a environments and killing. So is using man as Tools bad as well or is it only bad when it happens to women in Assassin Creed.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Courtesans

Anita and mcintosh purposely says controversial things on tweeter to provoke a negative reaction from people so they can use the response to prove Anita's continued harassment. mcintosh even admits to purposely provoking gamers with his comments.

https://youtu.be/Xi5qQ3GIbD0?t=7m50s

Here's an example of Anita provoking a reaction from people and using the response as a example of her continued harassment to coincide with a Kickstarter update.

You only have to watch the first 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLD8gHkaqLc&index=21&list=PLbGeY5L25KBr_OtPsRJWfKoNslm2UZA6a

Lets take a look at some of these comments.

"A few months ago I started posting deliberately provocative tweets whenever I'd see the angry gamer mod launch a harassment raid on someone"

"I'd only post things I basically agreed with, but I did it in an overtly antagonizing way designed to enrage these specific hateful gamers"

"The goal was to see if I could draw some of their fire & distract them a bit from their usual targets. It worked like a charm. It still is"

"Its shockingly easy to drive these bozos into frothing fits of rage. Simply tweet critically about their beloved Ico, MGS or Bayonetta"

ANITA

"not a coincidence it's always men and boys committing mass shootings. the pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture"

"manhood, not guns or mental illness should be central in newtown shooting must read 2012 article by @ jacksontkatz huffingtonpost.com"

"mass shootings are one of tragic consequence of a culture that perpetuates toxic ideas of masculinity. this is how patriarchy can harm men too"

"there's no such thing as sexism against men. that's because sexism is prejudice + power. men are the dominant gender with power in society"

"games press: allowing unmoderated comments contributes to the culture of sexism and harassment. you can't be neutral on a moving train"

"Absolutely brilliant article by @janelarejones discussing the amazing levels of sexism in BBC #sherlock's irene adler"

"I finally watched the 1st season of Mad Men & i was HORRIFIED, it is not interesting or subversive to watch uncontested sexism & racism"

"I'll be discussing the reasons Bayonetta is so pernicious in my Fighting Fuck Toy video. Bayonetta is a quintessential example of the trope"

"Everything about Bayonetta's design, mechanics and characterization is created specifically for the sexual pleasure of straight male gamers"

"Disappointed to see most major Bayonetta 2 reviews completely ignore or even praise its shameless sexism and flagrant use of the male gaze"

"I have to say, I really don't like going into comic book stores because everywhere i turn i face misogyny and sexism"

"the US bombed them back to traditional values. feminism does not exist in Japan. while I don't like judging an entire culture, that does not excuse them"

"I've played a ton of awful sexist video games but God of War 3 really is one of the most brazenly misogynist titles ever produced"

"GTA5 is in the news this week because of its horrendous violence against women. Watch our episode on the issue here:"

"A favorite harassment tactic of online abusers is to send me gameplay footage or still images of the degradation of women in video games"

"Rockstar: when gameplay from your product is regularly used to harass women it might be a sign you're contributing to a hostile environment"

"time after new GTA launch before fans started harassing me with gameplay of the use & murder of prostitutes? 86 mins"

Shows a picture of her holden Metroid Other M and comments
"About to replay this monstrosity. The things I do for you people...#cringe

"Anime is the most disgusting, sexist, and misogynistic form of media to ever come out of Japen. Anime defiles women and caters to perverts and losers. those cartoons are corrupting teenagers and promoting rape culture.

"Dying Light has a damsel in distress storyline. Dear game developers, its 2015 aren't you embarrassed by this yet?"

"The Witcher 3 does to Ciri what Arkham City did to Catwoman Thugs yell "bitch" and "whore" and sexually harass both women as you play them"

"Welp, I guess we could just use The Witcher 3 to illustrate the rest of our #tropevswomen series because it includes all the sexist tropes"

"Also the "it's realistic for enemies to sexually harass female characters” excuse is nonsense in fantasy games filled with ghouls & wraiths"

"Dear gaming industry: If you want to appeal to women maybe consider not having your game yell "bitch" and "whore" at us while we're playing"

"Enemies in Witcher 3 yall gendered insults at the playable female character but insults thrown at the make lead are decidedly not gendered"

"Enemies call Geralt "freak" & "mutant" due to fictional prejudice against magic. When they call Ciri "cunt" it's rooted in real life sexism"

"Games like The Witcher 3 use sexism & sexual violence for "gritty world-building, presenting it as regrettable but natural and inevitable"

"In fact, Witcher 3 is a particularly egregious example of this problem. The game repeatedly uses brutal sexual violence as window dressing."

"This level of extreme violence shouldn't be considered normal. Its not an excuse to say it's expected because DOOM. Thats the problem #BE3"

"Its really troubling (and depressing) that the #BE3 audience is enthusiastically cheering for bodies being ripped apart"

"Only a few minutes into the Bethesda press conference and it's wall to wall glorification of grotesque violence. I can barely watch #BE3"

"If the games industry truly wants to mature it's going to have to focus much more on creative and humanizing interactions #E32015"

"The #Fallout4 crafting system is cool imagine how much cooler it could be if it wasn't SO focused on building stuff to kill other stuff"

A bit sad that #Dishonored2 didn't make the leap to an exclusively female lead but really pleased they're using Emily in marketing #BE3

"Saints Row is not a satire of sexism, it's sexist satire. Same goes for the Grand Theft Auto franchise"

"Like the myth of reverse racism, reverse sexism only exists if you happen to have a time machine"

"Portraying women of color as exotic, hypersexual and animalistic like the succbi in the Witcher 3 is part of a very long racist tradition"

"It makes me profoundly sad that mainstream pop culture now interprets feminism to mean "women can drive fast and stoically kill people too!"

MCINTOSH

"San Francisco is full of repugnant white dudes who believe capitalism and their personal technology idea will save the poor brown people"

"probably not super productive to tell random techie dudes that their business model is both evil and racist. but damn it they had it coming"

"dear silicon valley tech startups: there is no such thing as altruistic capitalism. you can't get rich while "helping" impoverished people."

"They are 100% sincere in their belief that their form of "altruistic techie capitailsm" is god's gift to the world"

"capitalism as an economic system and the continuous growth it requires is impossible to sustain. that's not ideology. that's math #ows"

"the games industry has a problem. Tens of thousands of people construct their identity around its products than act like hateful sociopaths"

"#JeNeSuisPasCharlie because I don't use my free speech to mock and deride the most marginalized and vulnerable in society like Charlie Habdo"

"Extremist vigilante shooters kill 3 in Los Vegas. meanwhile game developers at #E3 continue to glorify extreme vigilante violence"

"Gaming could be a perfect medium to help re-learn values of empathy and compassion but sadly it's most often used to permote the opposite"

"I'm not ashamed of being a man. Quite the contrary, I work to change toxic cultural ideas of what "being a man" means"

"so many toxic assumptions about violent masculinity here. You could write a thesis just about this game setting menu"

"Things that are not oppression:3) Pointing out extremely toxic sexism in hobbyist communities. 4) Criticism of video games"

"It's not a few bad apples. Gamer culture itself is absolutely steeped in extremely toxic ideals about masculinity"

"Each day a bunch of helpful gamer dudes helpfully tweet at me to help prove gamer culture is deeply sexist and toxic"

"Dear clueless gamers replying to me: The point of Male protagonist Bingo is not to win, the point is to illustrate limiting toxic patterns"

"Many promote a culture of aggressive toxic masculinity. So you just helped answer your own question there buddy"

"I’ve seen some mention the abundant sexism in The Witcher 3 but I’ve yet to see any real discussion of its toxic depiction of masculinity."

"Geralt of Rivia is the perfect embodiment of hegemonic masculinity. #TheWitcher3"

"@Scottcoeditor Rage and anger are two of the only emotions men are really allowed to express in patriarchy (which is super unhealthy)."

"Anger and rage are the only real emotional expressions male game protagonists are allowed. Needless to say that's a toxic message for men."

"Mass media narratives, especially games, are often constructed in ways that justify and exonerate men for their angry and violent outbursts."

"Reminder that both Bayonetta games include boss attack animations by Rodin which strongly imply Bayonetta has just been raped."

"If anyone needed further proof that Bayonetta is not any kind of feminist icon. RT @SJWIlluminati: hahahahahahahaha "

"We've fallen so far in critical discourse that I now regularly have to start debates with “You do know Bayonetta isn't a real person right?"

"@TheQuinnspiracy It also has a lot to do with control. They can control Bayonetta’s actions but can’t control human women, so they lash out."

"Don’t think Bayonetta is designed & marketed specifically for horny straight dudes? Nintendo partnered with Playboy. "

"Lollipop Chainsaw, BloodRayne, Dead or Alive and Bayonetta are ALL designed in the same way, as hyper-sexualized fantasies for straight men."

"Precisely. RT @mercurypixel: @radicalbytes Welp, they talk about Bayonetta like she's a freaking real human being, so... don't expect much."

"Bayonetta was created by Hideki Kamiya as his “ideal woman”. He also said "all women outside should dress like her" for his viewing pleasure"

"Bayonetta was created by Kamiya as his "ideal woman" RT @Brostalgia In fact Mari was told by her male boss to male a sexy fighting character"

"Amazed to see sexist gamer dudes now adopting feminist terminology to defend jiggle physics. We can thank Bayonetta 2 reviews for that one."

"Media literacy 101: Bayonetta’s creators make their fictional character do poses for the game camera specifically for the player’s benefit."

"No it’s really not. Bayonetta’s game camera is the most transparent use of the male gaze in video games I’ve ever seen."

"Actual comment. Doesn't understand fiction is constructed. "Stop sluts-haming Bayonetta. She fights and does sexy poses for her own benefit”

"I shouldn’t have to point this out but there is no actual sex in Bayonetta or Tomb Raider etc. Objection to the male gaze is not anti-sex."

"@a_man_in_black Bayonetta’s body/sexuality is specifically presented and displayed as a reward for successful actions taken by the player."

"@a_man_in_black Might account for the "i/her" dissonance if straight male players both self-project into & are sexually aroused by Bayonetta"

"@a_man_in_black Partly has to do with gender. Bayonetta is designed for straight male players but we’re not meant to truly identify with her"

"The special “naked” attacks essentially turn Bayonetta into a hypersexualized puppet designed to thrill the puppeteer."

"For male gaze in Bayonetta 2, pay attention to things outside of the character’s control like the cutscene camera & player directed attacks."

"Looks like most Bayonetta 2 reviews fail to mention the hyper-sexualized male gaze of the cutscene camera and player directed strip attacks."

"When Bayonetta 2 reviews come out we’ll very quickly see who actually cares about issues of sexual objectification & exploitation in gaming."

"Endlessy amused at some gamers complete inability to do even the most basic textual analyses of their favorite games. # MaleProtagonistBingo"

"For those who keep bringing up Sonic as a counterexample for Male Protagonist Bingo. I'll just leave this right here"

"The core value of patriarchal masculinity is control. It's not a coincidence that control is central to many video game mechanics & stories"

"Fascination that you somehow don't think there're any messages in Smash Bros. Start with violence solves conflicts"

"Amused to see so many hateful #gobbledygate user list aspiring game developer in their bio. Yeah good luck with that. You're gonna need it"

Zoe Quinn? What the FUCK are you even on about, you incredible heap of crazy?

Here's a quick clue, since communication what other human beings isn't your strong point: if someone has to go to Google to understand your ravings, you haven't made a point -- instead, you've done the textual equivalent of shitting your pants.

If God doesn't give you any revelation of His existence then the scripture is broken and you would have an excuse when you stand before Him. I would be the first to say that this is unfair. However, we're all human beings and I know that people willfully reject God. Not only from my own personal experience, but the bible itself is littered with accounts of people who know better and fall into rebellion against God.

God has made the truth of these things so clear to me, and I believe He is faithful to do the same for you. If God sent Jesus to die on the cross for you and me, He is faithful to let us how we should respond to that.

I think it's clear that an infinite being suffering an infinite punishment is infinitely worse than a finite being suffering an infinite punishment. The finite being has a finite experience, eternally or not. Adding up everyone who ever lived, it is still only a finite experience of suffering, whereas the infinite being has an infinite experience of suffering. Qualitatively, an eternity of suffering of a number of finite beings does not equal even a moment of suffering of an infinite being. Whether you think that is debatable or or not, God the Father considered the sacrifice greater than the punishment, and that is what counts.

Jesus was doing what His Father wanted Him to do, which was to reconcile the human race to Himself, who are alienated from God and spiritually dead because of sin. As far as whether the sayings of Jesus are authentic, we have the manuscripts to prove that they were not made up over a period of centuries or even decades. We have around twenty five thousand manuscripts of the NT alone, which is about 24 thousand more manuscripts than any other ancient text. We have manuscript evidence even going back to the first century, and using all of the manuscripts there is a science called textual criticism that can reconstruct what was in the original manuscripts from that pool of evidence. The idea that the bible is patched together from centuries of retranslations and additions is demonstratably false.

Even if we didn't have any manuscripts, from the writings of the early church fathers alone we could reconstruct the entire bible except for 7 verses in the first 250 years. Even before that, we have the prophetic writings from the Old Testament which show that Jesus did exactly what He was prophesied to do. He did not speak anything different than what had been written thousands of years in advance. If you understand the bible as you a whole, you will see it is one story and it is all saying the same thing. The fact of its internal consistency, considering it was authored by 40 people over a period of 3000 years is another proof of its authenticity.

There are many reasons to believe Jesus is the Christ, but the biggest one is Gods personal revelation, which He is faithful to give to you. If you want to know whether Jesus is the Messiah, simply pray and ask. If He isn't, you've wasted a couple of minutes. If He is, you are avoiding an eternal consequence. God bless!

This guy is full of false dichotomies and pretension. First, the whole "ritual" and "community" things are not specific to religion. Look at the art world, school, family life: all full of ritual. And the point about community has already been made above. Second, no one will look down on an atheist who likes aspects of culture and human thought/production linked to religion, be they architectural, textual or other.

He starts with the premise that it's the norm to know that believing in deities is non-sense and no-one does, and those who do do no harm. Well bullocks. The reason people are loud about arguing against superstitious beliefs is because they have dire consequences, especially when they are indoctrinated into vulnerable child minds who cannot oppose them (because not testable nor evidence-based). And that is a danger to humanity, period.

As for thinking about things, as it said above, education should take the place of giving people knowledge and material to be in awe of (e.g. anything by Carl Sagan) and philosophise about. The only reason the evangelicals/pentacostalists are convincing is because they are preaching to a crowd of indoctrinated sheep, making a conscious effort to bypass any critical thought. I think it would be terrible to "preach" that Shakespeare is wonderful. No. Live it. Learn to appreciate it critically. Or dislike it, but know why. And no, propaganda is never good. It is trying to imprint a message onto you without you questioning. No matter how "good" a message is, it should be up to the receiver to critically receive it, and accept/reject it based on their critical appraisal thereof.

Ugh, this guy annoyed me.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

^I don't know, I quite like the zombie theory, at least there is textual precedents (Matthew 27:51-53).

Though some scientists suggest he was a mix of several types of undead...

For more information, check this encyclopaedic article (as scientifically accurate as Conservapedia, but funnier).

@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:


1. Assuming that your belief in Adam and Eve as historical figures implicitly includes your acceptance of the ridiculous notion that all humankind descends from two individuals and their incestuous offspring, can you explain why a supposedly all-benevolent being would not only punish the two who disobeyed him, but all their children for generations on end? What did they do wrong?

You say: Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one?
Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?


2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

You say: In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.

But you also say: anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").


3. You say:Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.



Does the irony escape you?


I am looking forward to your next copy-pasted patchwork of apologetic gymnastics.

Oh boy, you have been "educated" on the bible, havent you. Too bad its all wrong.


Atheist error #1Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

This isnt really relevant, the bible could be the most accurately translated book of all time, and I'd still be an atheist.(its not, but I dont really care)

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.


Again, not really relevant. The bible, along with the outside sources, were all written by superstitious desertdwellers some 2000 years ago, who gives a shit if these sources confirm eachother. Most of it confirms things like historical facts (Names of kings, major events , who lived where, and so on) None of it confirms the truth of any of the metaphysical claims, so at best, the bible is historically accurate(again, its not, but this is a long discussion)

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Oh boy.. Where to start here... Only a really religiously distorted mind could write this nonsense.

And nonsense like it has been written to "confirm" the accuracy of other holy texts as well. I was hit with a list of "facts" from the Quran much like this in a discussion once, one such "fact" was some nonsense about the "mountains securing the firmaments of the earth" was somehow confirmed by modern Plate-tectonics. I wonder whether you religious nuts can see through eachothers claims, can you see for instance, whats wrong with that Quran-argument, or does that seem reasonable to you? If not, why do the above arguments from the bible about god "hanging the earth in its place" seem like good decriptions of astronomical fact?

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate.

Wow, thats almost 100% inaccurate. Israeli archiologists have, with great religious entusiasm and eagerness, for decades tried to document the 40-year travel through the desert from Egypt that the Jews are said to have done. One of the most famous bible stories, and, one would think, one of the best candidates to be proven true by archeology, yet they have all come up empty handed. It is, for all intends and purposes, as if it never happened.

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.

Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said

The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.


Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification

The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific

The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:

Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.

This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology

The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.

So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.

>> ^lucky760:

These types of dupes are not a result of siftbot searching by textual content but by finding what looks like an identical unique ID in the two embed codes. It's a bit tricky to feed siftbot a smart enough algorithm to support all video hosts, but when these types of issues arise just let us know so we can address them. Rest assured that these types of quirks are expected, but need to be addressed on an as-discovered basis.
Expect that these specific types of false dupes shall be resolved before long.


Thank you for the update, Lucky760.

These types of dupes are not a result of siftbot searching by textual content but by finding what looks like an identical unique ID in the two embed codes. It's a bit tricky to feed siftbot a smart enough algorithm to support all video hosts, but when these types of issues arise just let us know so we can address them. Rest assured that these types of quirks are expected, but need to be addressed on an as-discovered basis.

Expect that these specific types of false dupes shall be resolved before long.

Yeah, can relate indeed. BUT am also very good at pretending I don't know what I know and seeing it from their point of view. YOU know you can do these things I know you can do these things, but where does it really tell them from the interface that they can?

I do a lot of interface coding and have, in the past, been the head of the support team for a very large ISP and you have to put yourself in their shoes, without all the learned conventions that we have on how interfaces 'should just work'.

It's like when I do stuff on a Mac, so many of the things I take for granted in Windows don't work there, and work differently, and I used to go 'oh, Macs are just shit, they are so hard to use'... but they're not, they're different. And anyone coming from a Mac to a Windows PC needs to be in the same mindset, they're not crap they're just different.

No, take that feeling of not knowing how things work and apply it to any computer, or TV, or PVR or DVD player etc.

I appreciate really good interface design and deplore ones where they assume you have read the manual just to use it. An interface should be completely usable via cues it gives you on how it works. (visual, textual, aural, haptic).

Just sayin'.... cut people some slack, they probably know a shit load more about some subject that you know jack shit about.

wooooohooo.. that movie not only preceded real life when it came to graphical user interface in design software, but even surpassed it, by presenting a non graphical, non textual user interface. You just type shit, and it transforms into what you want.

Glasses... BOOM!!! guy wearing glasses BOOM!!!