E3 Keynote Speaker Says Non-Christians Will Burn In Hell

[Anarchemitis]

If those words are what he beleives, (under my unlawful judgement) he is a very misinformed Christian.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Time to play the devil's advocate. Surely if he does believe that stuff, it is A) his right, and more importantly, B) if he speaks at E3, why do his beliefs matter? Surely he won't use a gaming conference as a pulpit.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

True enough thebobmaster, unless he wants to Moralize, then no force on earth could stop him.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Hrrm...IANAL but I would have thought both count, or is it the interactive part that doesn't count?

The link, as far as I can see it, is that Texas Governor votes against mature representations of sex, but is then asked to make a delegate speech at a place that produces mature representations of sex.

And, given that ZP are looking to make T-Shirts with 'obscene' slogans on them (And it was fucking awesome), couldn't that Texas Law block them receiving funding?

IANAL either, but statements like "digital interactive media production" typically mean a Production of a Media which is Interactive and Digital. ANDs, not ORs. ZP, and De-Rez both fall outside the obscenity clause in this particular bill. As I said though, they are VERY likely to fall under other obscenity clauses, in other contexts. You might also consider that ZP or De-Rez probably don't employ a large enough number of residents of the state of Texas to even be considered in the first place (even as a film/moving picture product), let alone denied for reasons of obscenity under a clause which wouldn't apply to their category. T-Shirts? T-Shirts DEFINITELY don't fall under this bill.

Also, the Texas Governor did not "vote against mature representations of sex". I'm not sure how familiar you are with the US legislative system... The legislature created the bill (potentially, with influence from the Office of the Governor, but I haven't found any coverage of that aspect in my research), and after passing their House of Representatives (with additions/edits/etc), was sent to the Senate, who did the same thing (added stuff/excluded things/changed wordings like how they phrased "film"), and after passing the Senate, was sent to the Governor's office to be signed into law. The only way to extrapolate that the Governor voted "against mature representations of sex" is to say that he explicitly approved of every aspect of the way the bill was written, by not veto-ing the bill and demanding a rewrite. I think the majority of the time that a bill is signed into law, the Executor is noting that nothing is problematic enough to warrant fighting with the legislature over. Tacit approval of what is in the bill is about as far as it gets.

Not to mention, signing a bill with an obscenity clause does not exclude all depictions of mature sex, it just excludes all obscene depictions of mature sex, as defined by Texas State Penal Code section 43.21. You are digging for obvious contradictions, where there are none (obvious ones, at least). It's just not as clear-cut as that.

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Going with the rest of your commentary with Cheeze_Pavilion, whether or not the person goes to Hell is outside of the individual's control, and always will be. The disconnect with the present-day madman who thinks everyone IS his slave, and lacks the power to enforce it, is the time-lapse. The Hell thing is later, not now. It would be more like the madmen believing that after he dies, then all others will be his pawns. It is not that he lacks the power to enforce it now, but that he doesn't believe he has any need or right to do so.

 

[Arbre]

Right. So...I fail to see your point.

I was just commenting on the Pope's words, not engaging into a debate with you.

This is a bad case. He's simply a nutjob who thinks we are his pawns, but is not capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in.

*exactly* and "capable of enforcing his ridiculous idea of superiority against the laws of the nation he lives in" wasn't part of your original statement.
All you said was that if someone believes another person will go to hell, that's intolerance. Now you're modifying what you said to add the quality described in the passage of yours quoted to the mix.

What?
Please, don't make things more complicated than they are. I was handled an improper analogy, which in no way helped to dispute the idea that fear of Hell is just "therrorism".

It should be quickier if people could be honest with themselves for a second, and really wonder why they believe in religion X. I'm sure, if they do their job well, that they'd would realize that it has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with flocking (bandwagon style), mystical awe for merry tales, fallacy of age, fallacy of quantity, feeling of security in believing something assumed as "strong", and in most cases, being forced to believe in it during the first parts of childhood.

The same could be said of being honest with ourselves about our belief that our parents love us.

This would be a short lived debate which, I'm afraid, has no relevance there. Please keep it on rails.

Besides, I bet if most atheists were really honest with themselves I bet they'd realize that their atheism has little to do with a proper and well nurtured reasonning, but more to do with rebellion (bandwagon style), cynical disbelief for merry tales, feeling of superiority in believing something assumed as "hard", and in most cases, being forced to believe in (edit) the opposite during the first parts of childhood.

Yes, but I never said I was an extreme atheist. I'm in the zone where there's that sign at the entry which says "I'm ignorant and I live with it, I do think about it, I have possibilities but intil time comes, I'm stuck with that", not the one that says "Believe in God or you'll go to Hell".

Just because all people believing in A are necessarily irrational doesn't mean any act of belief in not-A is necessarily rational. When it comes to the question of whether you are acting rationally in believing something, it's not enough that what you believe in is rational; you must also be motivated by reason and not by something else to believe it.

I wasn't trying to defend extreme atheism.
That said, atheism is wise in the sense that it requires proof that something exists, and doesn't rely on empty claims. That's basically how science works to sort the nonsense out of possibly good suppositions.

I think we globally agree, but there's something funny to point out. If it's silly, from a believer's point of view, to pretend that you will be spared Hell because you claim don't believe, this would be a great display of intolerance, in automatically condemning even good people who simply wouldn't have t3h faith. This is nothing more than terrorism. The idea that millions of people on Earth gulp this is scary.

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Complicity, yes. Then it makes God intolerant. Oh, why would he bother, since he's God anyway?
But then, why would an entity such as God would even take time setting up a system where mere unbelieving mortal would go to "Hell"?
The core concept is absolutely absurd.
A true God wouldn't bother.
It makes this version of God just a petulant child who spits at the screen because the AI doesn't do what he ordered it to do with his mouse.

Going with the rest of your commentary with Cheeze_Pavilion, whether or not the person goes to Hell is outside of the individual's control, and always will be. The disconnect with the present-day madman who thinks everyone IS his slave, and lacks the power to enforce it, is the time-lapse. The Hell thing is later, not now. It would be more like the madmen believing that after he dies, then all others will be his pawns. It is not that he lacks the power to enforce it now, but that he doesn't believe he has any need or right to do so.

Then the analogy was incorrect.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Wait... how the hell did we end up with the content of pages 2 and 3?

I swear if it wasn't for your religious beliefs all the people arguing here could be lovers, your exactly the same!

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

MY INPUT 2)

Do you atheists really care that much? if he's so wrong why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever somebody says something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

MY INPUT 3)

Do you believers really care that much? If they're so wrong then why do you insist on getting an asscramp whenever they attack something like this? Either your not as sure as you think... or your just argumentative dicks.

Ill repeat what i said earlier, apart from where you spend your sundays you people are more conformist than any church.

- Ultrajoe, fighting ignorance everywhere since 1985, Flawless Victories by appointment.

 

[Nidenel]

James 9-13

9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring? 12My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom.



Here is a thought what if Christians read the Bible! Gasp what a thought....

 

[Arbre]

Why is the analogy improper?

See what Geof42 and I said about that please.

It has plenty of relevance.

The bit about parents loving us?
Not at all.

You can't call atheists 'people who demand proof of everything they believe as if it were scientific phenomenon' if they don't make such a demand.

That demand is automatically formulated by the fact of being atheist.

You criticized what the Pope said for not subjecting his belief about god to such a demand--why don't you criticize atheists for not making a similar demand of something they 'know' like the fact that their parents love them?

Because it's irrelevant. It's a red herring that has no bearing at all on the topic. Stop evading the question.

I never said you were. However, you seem to have harsher words for religious people than atheists, and if the above is your motivation, well, it's hypocritical to chastise one group for a certain behavior and not another.

This is false. I discussed about both sides.

That said, atheism is wise in the sense that it requires proof that something exists, and doesn't rely on empty claims. That's basically how science works to sort the nonsense out of possibly good suppositions.

Atheism doesn't necessarily require scientific proof that something exists, just that god exists.

I didn't say the contrary. I merely said that their request is a scientific one, within the topic of religion, since atheism is religion related after all.
An atheist doesn't accept the idea that a or several gods exist without the proof of such.

Plenty of atheists believe in things that cannot be found under a microscope, things like human rights.

This has to be the most absurd analogy ever made.

In any case, the intellectual basis for atheism and the psychological roots of an atheist's belief are two different things. You are addressing the former here; in the part you quoted, I was addressing the latter.

Actually, my "bit" did also look at the psychology behind beliefs or lack of beliefs, like feelings, terror and such, which aren't necessarily the result of a reflexion, but just that, feelings and related to behavour, both leading them and resulting from them.

What I'm trying to draw your attention to is the fact that we subject a religious belief to a scientific standard, yet we don't subject a romantic belief or a belief about what it means to be a family or a belief that 'all men are created equal' to the same standard. Do *you* subject every single belief you hold to the rigor you were saying the Pope failed to impose upon his own beliefs? If you don't, then why not?

What is there to subject to science about love?

 

[Arbre]

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

 

[KapnKerfuffle]

Sen. Perry would like Doom 3, I think. I bet he didn't know that Hell is also filled with ammo crates.

 

[Fronken]

now i might get banned for this, but i dont care, religion has got to go, if you look at history, what is the primary reason for War?, thats right, Religion, whats the primary reason for jews being persecuted?, Religion, its all Bullshit, the world would be a better place if everyone just realised that they should live their own lifes like they wanted to, and not follow some made up story from 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ never existed, God never existed, Heaven and Hell never existed, Its all Bullshit!

 

[Geoffrey42]

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

It's actually far worse than him shouting through my mail-slot. He "prodded his audience to fight "moral weakness," to vote for religious candidates and oppose same-sex marriage, saying, "God is the Supreme Court.""

In other words, he was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals to go out into the world and control the lives of differently minded individuals. Huge distinction, don't you think?

You seem to be referring to Rev. Hagee, whereas I believe Ultrajoe was talking about Gov. Perry.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

That's why Perry wasn't at E3 making these remarks. And, hopefully, will NOT be making these kinds of remarks, when at E3 (and there is no evidence to suggest that he would, given that all we have so far are religious comments made at a religious function, and later in the same day, in regards to said religious function).

What I find interesting there is that you place the condemning act on the individuals. The individuals, on the other hand, would say it is their understanding that God is condemning those individuals. It is not their judgment which condemns (which kind of goes back to Perry saying this is what he understood, but he also understood that he can't know everything about what God does), but God condemning them. If you want to argue that this is just some sort of proxy setup so that people can feel alright about condemning others to hell, then sure, go for it. Sort of a different argument.

Complicity, yes. Then it makes God intolerant. Oh, why would he bother, since he's God anyway?
But then, why would an entity such as God would even take time setting up a system where mere unbelieving mortal would go to "Hell"?
The core concept is absolutely absurd.
A true God wouldn't bother.
It makes this version of God just a petulant child who spits at the screen because the AI doesn't do what he ordered it to do with his mouse.

I find it hard to condemn complicity with the actions of an omnipotent being. If you do not believe, then you aren't exactly going to "defy" the actions of something you don't believe in. And if you do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is the source of all that is Good in the world, you may very well question yourself before questioning the deity if you have doubts about how the deity chooses to go about its business.

Personally, I've always fantasized that, if there is a deity who is going to judge my immortal soul, and sends those that chose not to believe based on a complete lack of evidence into the pits of some sort of punishment area, that I would spit in its face for being a jerk. Unlike the gods of some other mythologies, there aren't exactly a bunch of stories of men going up against God and coming out on top.

You also seem to be making the case that the God who falls into this category can't be, because he wouldn't be a very good or sensible deity. I don't know that this is something that can be debated. If there is an omnipotent deity, just one of them, they don't have to live up to our ideal of what a deity should be. They get to do whatever they want. God may be a petulant child spitting at the screen; there's not much we could do about it.

 

[swatmajor1]

Ok, I'm going to be "That guy" here I think... Ok, there was once a US politian who said that thy universe and everything in it was designed by God. And that very god's son started a cult which has exploded into a religion named after thy son in question. And that cult says that anyone who doesn't believe in thy cult will go to a place to burn. A place which no one alive has ever seen, and there is no evidence of thy fire pit of pain...unless you count the many large deserts in the world. Well, maybe not, but close enough.

The thing is, if you couldn't grasp from my above text, that everything from the bible may be real, or may be fiction. But all in all, what someone says shouldn't be taken as the be all and end all of everything. If the world is truly going to become together in harmony, side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, they should really look at themselves, and think, "Is there proof of a god, a place called hell? If not, ignore it."

And just to be sure I have established my point, I do have an open mind on things. There is a lot that can be learnt through Cristianity, good will, kindness towards others, try your best to better youreslf, and for the most part, thats all well and good. Many other religions say the same thing. It's when we start taken not the lessons taught, but who origionaly taught them, along with the so called "punishments" for not following a particualar persons teachings, and hold them in such high reguard we worship them, problems erupt, simple words can be seen as an attack on others, and conflict and anger festers.

So, to end all this, I'll say this: "Lead a good life, no matter what you believe. Don't let what people say get to you. Don't let the finer details of the many believes stop you seeing the greater good they try and teach. And don't allow one person's high belief in a religion cause you to start looking at your own for a shield."

There you go, my 2c's, and if it sparks more comments, good for my open mind...

 

[Ultrajoe]

MY INPUT 1)

given that this man was speaking to a group of like-minded individuals, do we have the right to get indignant as those he was not specifically addressing? he wasn't shouting through your mail-slot, you were listening through his.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

you shouldn't, because if you'd read the damn article he wasn't saying these things at E3...

if you suckle the medias teat like a baby, i'm going to treat you like a child.

and for the record i'm christian Cheeze_pavillion, although in religious arguments i try to keep it ambiguous so i don't become 'that Christian guy', to be frank i dislike anybody who argues faith against another faction (and i have not, before someone feels smart, ive argued against argument)

and i still think my sentiment stands, if the other side is so damned wrong then why do you give a crap? and if your here to bait then quite frankly hell will come into existence/create new ways to hurt you just to punish your sorry ass. Why do i give a crap you ask? because nobody here is 'wrong', but this process of needless bicker is.

 

[Xanadu84]

I always thought virtuous non-believers would get sent to Limbo, not Hell.

That was mainly Dante, and he played VERY fast and loose with Christian beliefs. He made up a ton of stuff, sent random popes to hell, and did some staggering justification to put some pre-christ people in heaven. Hes not really canonical.

Dante is the only person who actually posited a philosophical basis for Hell that both made sense and that I'd agree with. And the popes he put in Hell were all corrupt bastards.

I know he's not cannon, but he put a lot of humanity into the faith.

I didn't say he wasn't awesome, I just said that if you only take the bible into account, and as empirical fact, he plays very fast and loose. I personally think thats fine, but its not a viewpoint taken by any particular religion, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Ultrajoe]

and i still think my sentiment stands, if the other side is so damned wrong then why do you give a crap? and if your here to bait then quite frankly hell will come into existence/create new ways to hurt you just to punish your sorry ass. Why do i give a crap you ask? because nobody here is 'wrong', but this process of needless bicker is.

Where did I ever say atheists were 'wrong'?

you didn't, i was preempting a comment (its the internet, if you don't you will be consumed) along the lines of "well if we're so wrong, why do you give a crap"...

 

[Arbre]

I find it hard to condemn complicity with the actions of an omnipotent being.

Well, of course, you're not left with many choices. :|

If you do not believe, then you aren't exactly going to "defy" the actions of something you don't believe in.

Of course not, from my point of view I only challenge the idiocy of an absurd concept among a billion.

And if you do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who is the source of all that is Good in the world, you may very well question yourself before questioning the deity if you have doubts about how the deity chooses to go about its business.

Why so?
If the super being is behind everything in this universe, or at least everything good (wait, did God get demoded or something recently? I didn't get the note), then it still doesn't answer the question of why would he'd give a damn if humans don't believe in him.

Personally, I've always fantasized that, if there is a deity who is going to judge my immortal soul, and sends those that chose not to believe based on a complete lack of evidence into the pits of some sort of punishment area, that I would spit in its face for being a jerk. Unlike the gods of some other mythologies, there aren't exactly a bunch of stories of men going up against God and coming out on top.

I've been, like probably many, dreaming of this if that God stuff would ever be true. It would be funny, give him the finger, and side with Satan, grow an army for the horny guy and go kick some ass in heavens.

You also seem to be making the case that the God who falls into this category can't be, because he wouldn't be a very good or sensible deity. I don't know that this is something that can be debated. If there is an omnipotent deity, just one of them, they don't have to live up to our ideal of what a deity should be. They get to do whatever they want. God may be a petulant child spitting at the screen; there's not much we could do about it.

Oh. And so you'd believe in such a retarded guy/girl/shemale/whatever?
What humans can come up with, just to make life worse, is literally incredible.

I don't recall the E3 being a christian meeting.

you shouldn't, because if you'd read the damn article he wasn't saying these things at E3...

if you suckle the medias teat like a baby, i'm going to treat you like a child.

Well first I like teats.
Secondly, my point is that since the E3 is not supposed to be a christian convention of any sort, there's that governor guy who's basically going to be talking to a vast room full of people already listed on that charter flight to Hell, because they don't share his beliefs. Cool eh?
I think the E3 staff could have picked a better figure rather that this fuckhead. But hey! his hairdo is top class.

What is there to subject to science about love?

What is there to subject to science about religious belief?

Ah, Jesuit dodging now. Fine.
Love is an emotion any normal human can feel.
You don't have to put love to trials, according to scientific standards to verify its existence, since we come with it by default, anyone can feel it, and it has obviously nothing to do with a belief whatsoever.
I mean, Cheeze, just drop the point. I know you like stretching discussions, but this is really getting absurd.