Crystal Shards

This is not my German team...

Neuer is working harder than he should have to. Superbus thinks they're playing possum, which I can see first half maybe, but it's dangerous to do that this late...

He marked Podolski as offsides early in the match when he wasn't even close. Another time he marked him as off but he actually was. EDIT: By the way I iddn't mention the fouls on the Spaniards because I don't know their names as well. But the ref screwed them over too.

Wow, what a shitty ref. Marked Podolski as offsides when he wasn't, failed a card, and potentially failed a penalty. Nevermind the stuff he's missed with the Spaniards, like that clip earlier. It's like he's intentionally making the game hard to play.

It would have been cool, yeah, but I'm not too upset that Nadal won. It was a good tournament.

1. Reason: logic, least amount of harm and the greatest amount of good. Justice: same thing, only in response to an injurious action. 2. Um, it was in the definition. 3. No. Chance doesn't factor in, and again, it's not injurious. It doesn't cause harm. 4. See 1. 5. Um, it was in the definition. I'm sorry, but I'm done with you until you actually learn to comprehend what you're reading.

Yep, you're definitely correct.

He's had a 100% success rate for Germany in the WM so far, but this isn't a new thing. His overall record is 85%.

1. Anything that causes harm without reason or justice. 2. Um, no. They're done with reason, and that reason isn't injurious. It's to help (unless you're talking about torture, in which case: yes). 3. No. As it's not injurious. It's neutral. Unless you were stupid enough to bet a lot of money, which is then your fault. 4. Again, anything that causes harm without reason or justice. 5. No, that's reason. Are you intentionally being daft? Just wondering.

evil –adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days. 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition. Not difficult. Generally speaking, it boils down to things that cause injury, particularly without reason or justice. EDIT: Had to reformat the definitions.

He's only been right for 85% of the German games, so...

Exactly. Germany can't lose tonight. It's impossible.

Dude, if Germany doesn't win tonight... I'll be honestly surprised.

Um, no?

I'll just leave this here: Comments about 'atheists' put off non-religious voters

No, you really don't understand. God is all-powerful. He can create a world in which we aren't forced to love him and that we can only do good. He can create a world where those are compatible. Just like he could create a world filled with orange blobs or one where there is no gravity or one where we're all black and white. He could have created anything he wanted to, but he chose a world with evil in it and a world where we're tested, one where earthquakes happen and children die from diarrhea. One where screw flies exist. That's either not benevolence, or it's not omnipotence. And don't feed me that "we can't define omnibenevolence" shit because it's a human-made word--we can define it any which way we want to. And for most educated people on the planet benevolence means "good" and omni means "all", so omnibenevolence means "all good." There's no way you can give excuses for how God made the world because if he is indeed all powerful he could have done better. So either he's NOT all-powerful or he's not all good. Again, assuming he exists (which I don't, for the record), since this debate is pointless if we assume the opposite.

I don't think you understand: IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL, GOD CAN MAKE THE WORLD HOWEVER HE FUCKING WANTS TO. IF HE WANTS TO GIVE US FREE WILL AND ALSO HAVE ONLY GOOD, HE CAN DO THAT, BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING GOD.

He doesn't need to. You already did (even though you weren't quite accurate in your assumption, as pointed out). PS you don't need God to live for something more than yourself. And just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean my life is worthless. Speak for your own life.

Um, no? I don't think you understand. If God is all powerful he can MAKE IT THAT WAY. Just because our world is the way it is, that good cannot exist without evil, doesn't mean that's the only option. Please take the time to understand my points before trying to refute them. To many, it's not a novel, so you have no real point here. I don't even know how to respond to this. Um, yes, for this debate to even happen that's more than a little necessary. Stupid question. Not necessarily. Provide proof where he's only punished for wrong doings. By that logic, earthquakes and other natural disasters are not evils, starving children in Africa aren't evils, AIDS and other diseases aren't evil, screw flies aren't evil, etc. I have no idea what you're referencing, but it could be a coincidence, or it could be one of those things where it's like, "This is how we interpret it after the fact," like it is with many of Nostradamus's works. Still, even if it's an accurate and valid prediction, one out of an infinite number does not a good track record make. I'm not proving anything. I'm just saying that in order for him to okay genocide, he's not the trifecta. If he has all the power you're saying he has, then he could have made this world without evil. He didn't, so either he's not all powerful or he's not all benevolent or all knowing (most likely the former). 1. Actually, you'd lose, because it's impossible for reasons I've stated before and that others are probably going to state better than I have in later posts. 2. That would make him not benevolent, so I would win. 3. What a sad life you must lead if you feel the need to satisfy something that doesn't exist. Please, go through the proof then. Because it's very easy to imagine a world without one.

I personally think that second Dutch goal was offsides but honestly I don't think it affected the outcome. I feel like they would have won anyway. Good job and good luck to Holland.

Well to be fair the defender fucked up too. Good goals so far, but the Dutch are diving a bit too much for my liking...

Wrong, and a lame duck of an excuse at that. If God is all powerful, he can make a world in which there is only good, and that people completely realize what good is. And again, it's not a matter of "poofing" ANYONE out of existence. It's making it so they never happened in the first place. Let me use an example. Garden of Eden. God is all powerful, right? He could have just as easily created a Garden of Eden without the Forbidden Fruit. He could have made it so Adam and Eve didn't feel temptation. He also could have made it where people didn't need to prove their affection for God. After all, God's God. He doesn't need affection from us and to think that we as mere lowly beings (as most people see us; I disagree but that's not the point) and our actions are needed is ludicrous. Fact of the matter is God could do things very differently than what he has done, assuming he exists. Either he's evil or not any of the following: all good, all knowing, or all powerful.

Note the topic title. Now look at what people are posting about. Then read my post again. I think then you'll be able to see that my point is this is really off-topic now.

No, I know they lost in 2008 to Australia (2-1 in case anyone's interested). I know they're undefeated for the 2010 year but I don't think their record goes that far.

In other news, atheists really hate being discriminated against. I don't like the use of "everyone gets a turn." I think it's an ignorant line of thought.