Did Jesus exist? Yea probably, is there direct evidence? No not really, but there's not much evidence of any specific people from that time period. Now was he a magic man born from a virgin that performed miracles? I rather doubt it. In fact he wouldn't even have been the only person of that time period claiming as much. It's a story that has been rinsed and repeated through various cultures. Ancient believers didn't even deny this, they claiming that earlier stories are quite obviously trickery by the devil and his apparent fortune telling ability. That said it does bear pointing out that no biblical events have been dis-proven, and if you really don't believe in god then you should know that. From that perspective one may as well try to disprove King Arthur, how can you prove anything about it one way or the other if it never existed? It's simple you can't, also some stories from the bible may very well have been based on historical events. Look up info on King Joshua and the fate of the canaanites, last I checked there was quite a bit of debate over the evidence there. And not every historian who dated the relics found there to King Joshua's time are christian.
Religion is by definition a cult. Not all cults are violent or end in mass suicides, but they are still cults. Even if you call that a technicality when you look objectively at what are typically considered cults and what are typically considered religions, there really is no difference other than the fact that the religions are more popular.
Do the homework, look up information on the topic, and see what the experts (people who study these things for a living) have to say. You will find that the numbers show that not only are video games not causing more violent crimes, but that the rising popularity of video games (particularly violent video games) is actually associated with a drop in violent crimes. Because they are a source of stress relief and a coping mechanism for many people. In fact the claims that people have made against violent video games were the same claims made against books, comic strips, and even Mr. Rogers neighborhood. However realistically speaking, all that is kind of irrelevant, the simple fact of the matter is prohibition doesn't work. How many times do we need to learn that lesson?
While all the points made by the other side are valid, and even I have to admit it is a bit unethical to force someone to do something that goes against their religion or personal belief system. This sets a dangerous precedent. to use the question given as an example (we all should already know what this question is really about) if the Muslim baker is refusing to make cakes for Christians solely because they are christian, but happily makes cakes for other religious holidays as long as they are not Christian ones. Then a restaurant can refuse to serve Christians and schools can refuse to accept Christian students and people can refuse to sell houses to Christians. The list goes on and on, by the end of it Christians would have access to only the worst of everything and Christians aren't the type to take these things lying down. If people can refuse service to a specific group of people simply because they don't like them, that is one step away from segregation and segregation does not work. It didn't work in the past and it won't work now no matter who you're throwing to the back of the bus.
Regardless how you feel about the president (I would hope no one holds much love for Kim Jong Un) this is obviously a good thing. At least they're talking with words, not bombs. Which is the only alternative.