This is true but religous faith or no religous faith you would feel like a dick if you didnt do something or irratable if you spoke up and no one listened.

that means your agnostic

You are talking to a wall sir. I get your position and agree for the most part. The major difference is I think they should get their voice and then we should be able to tear that opinion to shreds, without a thought on the person's personal feelings.

Many anti-choice people are also religous people. They typically state that it is against the bible and is evil like you say.

The thing is that with the expansion of knowledge why should we not use it and give everyone the choice to decide what they want. I feel that a 14 year old shouldnt even have a kid and should have an abortion.

It should not be right to call someone evil for doing something not illegal like abortion.

@fkumusot
Yes, it's okay for them to say it- legally.
No, it's not okay for them to say it- morally.

If they were to believe the place where there own morals come from, then they'd also believe 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' And anyone who truly believes that would be assuming the role of their own God by judging another, which is, after all, their God's job.

That's what I believe, anyway.

@starmistkarmic - I would say there is a difference between judging an act and the person that commits it. If anyone took what you said too literally (not saying that you´re doing it) then we wouldn´t be able to create laws. So moral is necessary in order to distinguish between the good and the bad (laws are based in the morality of its population after all). The things is to look at each case and always remember that individuals are complex.

Okay. If someone states that it is their knowledge that Obama is EVIL that's okay. If someone states that Obama is homosexual that's okay. If someone states that Obama is a murderer that's okay. If someone states that Obama is the ANTICHRIST then that's olay. In easch case these would just be statements with no evidence to back them up. All of these statemenst are to be considered un-bigoted and not-hateful? How would we know if we don't have access to their underlying facts and assumptions?

IF something doesnt sound correct question them on it. It could be jsut their personal opinion but still asking for proof or reason is a good way to find out which are facts and what are assumptions. If not google is your friend.

@marciosmg
I agree with you.
I was clumsily trying to say that accusing someone of being a criminal is morally incompatible with the belief system most of the accusers hold. When the placards say "Baby Killer" on them, it is the person being judged and not the act. Luckily, the state judges the act and not the person(though, even that is suspect.)
While the laws of men and women are certainly flawed, they are what works best. The morality of a society, as a whole, should be accounted for in it's laws, and the laws should change with the shifting of that society's morality.

While freedom of knowledge is one thing, expressing ot reciting that knowledge thus becomes freedom of speech, which is known to not do so well on moderated forums on the internet, not just vgchartz. So yes, there is freedom to know, but does the freedom to know result in the requirement to listen to another person's view or opinion? Or, a better question - are you certain that a truly intellectual conversation on theology can be had on not only the internet, but on a video game industry forum?