I hate being involved in such debates, but I think you are over-simplifying the concept of God and religion. No serious Christian considers God just a "bearded fellow who sends people who he doesn't like to burn in bonfires or to fry on metal pans". That's a primitive way to be religious. Homosexuality may be considered a sin if a person chooses that and uses it as a "flag" to brandish or an excuse to start fights. If somebody is born with a homosexual inclination and can't help it, I don't see how any serious religious person (not a fanatic looking for an excuse to fight) blames them if they just mind their business and the religious people mind theirs. Transforming this in a POLITICAL WEAPON, that's wrong imo, but I personally can tell you that even though being religious, I don't blame gay people who are born like that if they aren't belligerent, I blame only the ones (who usually aren't even gay themselves) who wreak havoc to push the agenda down other people's throat. If somebody pushed religion down the others' throats, that wouldn't be right either.
To sum it up, I don't see how does condemning the Orlando shooting automatically contradict being religious.

I thought you wouldn't provide any examples to back up your assertion and you didn't disappoint. Just another case of someone blowing smoke.

Your response about the Soviet Union...as I said a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Can't compare "indoctrinated beliefs for thousands of years" with atheism since atheism hasn't been around for thousands of years. The atheist societies that have existed are within the past 150 years and were uniformly brutal.

In response you cite the KKK, which isn't a religious group but a political one (it was considered the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party), and even then, you didn't provide evidence that it massacred gays. "Christian fundamentalist groups in Africa.." do you mean the religious cults in Africa that are a mixture of different religions and are not Christian in fact? You really hit it out of the ballpark with "religious groups across the world persecute, torture and murder gay people every day" but is that true with Islam taken out of the equation? Do you not also realize that's an overgeneralization fallacy since "religious groups" can be extremely different from each other? This is why in my question to you I wrote something like "except for Islam." I asked for specifics and you provided none. If you can't back up your claim it's probably because it's not true and should probably stop making things up. Maybe that's what people without "bearded imaginary friends" do: they lie.

All of a sudden you want proof....??? How come when ever I ask for that from a religious person all I get is nonsense? My views arent used as reason to kill and threaten people, religious views are.

You probably do have to look further back in history for the mass persecution of people from a christian perspective, but it is guilty of persecution on a daily basis and, to be honest, the islamic faith is agruably the most popular faith in the world at the moment, so it follows that most religious people are persuaded by it...so why ignore it as the best example of intolereance?

Religious people all believe in essentially the same thing to varying degrees, which is fine, but dont go around spreading the word and expect a political platform from it

You're the same guy that wants all guns banned.

In order to ban all guns you must threaten people with force. All political power comes from violent threats." Do what we say get thrown in a cage."

I'm an atheist. But I realize most atheist got rid of God and replaced it for the State.

No, we got rid of dozens of fictional deities and replaced it with common law., ultimately you might have to use force or loss of liberty to enforce common law whats the alternative? Religion didn't make a very good job of it when it had its chance

We move on, religion does too I suppose...in so much as people don't generally worship Thor, Zues, Wotan etc anymore..they just evolved into other other fictional characters. And thats the sad truth...again, I wouldn't care, but these guys in many cases want (and get) a political platform because of a made up belief. Presidents humour them and say whats needed to win votes in the bible belt..Bush had a hotline to God did he not? If God trusts him, we'r

Pressed submit there by mistake...we're all going to hell was my parting shot!

Most atheists these days are Statists.Worshiping the state in one way or the other without realizing it. The more extreme cases are the communist countries, but these's more mild versions of this in non-communist countries as well.

Laws today go way past common law. I like the basic libertarian framework of the Non Aggression principle. Aslong as you don't hurt anyone else, then no force should be used against you.

Atheist threw away one form of superstition and replaced it with another superstition. The state, democracy, political action, and government regulations as a means to fix all problems.

Even worse was the rise of moral relativism. Atheists got rid of religious morals and replaced them with no new moral framework. Which is a big problem for civilization.

Ultimately, statists are intolerant people that want to use force and the threat of violence to punish people that disagree with them politically. Even worse than most religions.

Good points SoCal, although I wouldnt say "ultimately statists are intolerant people". it just goes back to my point earlier that human nature means some will always take beliefs, principles and actions to an extreme, we just need to be mindful of that whether its religion, atheism, political etc etc.

I suppose the most diffcult thing is defining "extreme"-I think its extreme to preach about the threat of hell and eternal torture specifically to indoctrinate kids and that certain human behaviours that effect nobody else are immoral. I do understand and have some appreciation of the reasoning for it though-how else could you preach a "faith" successfully and keep people within the guidelines of your specific teachings if there was ultimately no "punishment" for making mistakes (commiting sins)? If you sin and dont repent, you burn in hell forever-and thats from the moderates....slightly different from even an extreme statist belief in which there are at least different levels of punishment, depending on how serious the perceived crime is...I do concede that some of the "crimes" they define are ridiculous though. I cant see the US at any point defining the punishment for gun ownership as the death penalty...if it were a sin in religious terms, the punishment would be far worse though - assuming we all accept the literal idea of hell, death is only the start of the punishment....I'd like to know what maniac came up with that idea...

I feel sorry for the guy who cheated on his wife during the roman conquest of Britain nearly 2000 years ago...he's STILL being tortured...

#feeltheloveorelse

And what makes you think we should accept the LITERAL idea of hell in its medieval and primitive imaginative form (fire, frying pans, tortures etc)? Ever heard of allegories?


Nonsense...That's a primitive way of imagining after-life, even one for sinners. By the way, it's you that made up the idea that God would be so vengeful and picky that he would throw somebody in hell for an eternity just for ONE bad action, especially if the person later repented.
If you were joking, it wasn't a funny one.

And before somebody does so, PLEASE don't quote the Old Testament to prove your point that "religion is cruel". That part of the Bible is long outdated since it contradicts the New Testament, otherwise it would still be "eye for an eye".

Dwalin...you raise the new testament...it is full of references to hell and eternal punishment...there's not even enough room here to supply all the ridiculous quotes...c'mon, get real eh?

For unrepentant sinners, thats the punishment-and that's what IS taught to young kids.

You mention at the start that the idea of hell is medievel and primative...you realise your describing religion? Im not to clear what the "modern" version of hell is? Something a bit more acceptable? Surely not, it needs to always be scary enough to frighten young kids

You know the worst thing, I can accept faults within my beliefs....NEVER once have I heard a religious person admit that...thats what causes problems

For the New Testament, each quote can be discussed separately, I can't just analyze the whole of it right here, but I am sure many of them are allegories, especially the reference to the "fire" of hell.

That is taught to kids, you are right, but that doesn't mean the ones who teach it have themselves a 100% correct idea about after-life, many people just simplify it and reduce everything to ridicuolus quotes like "the scary devil will take you away if you don't obey you mother" or whatever.

About the idea of hell, I imagine it more like an emptiness of the soul, a sense of being far from God and happiness, like drowning in the sinner's own anger and unwillingness and/or inability to accept and understand the concept of all-over goodness, love etc which is supposed to be Paradise.
Don't know, after all nobody has returned from after death to tell us what, if anything, is there.
I don't know if you had read it, there is a short story by the English author Clive Staples Lewis, "The great divorce". That's the closest to how I imagine hell and Paradise.

I haven't read anything to show that you accept any fault within your beliefs. Nothing. Zero.

-When atheist atrocities are brought up, such as the over 100 million deaths attributed to atheist Communist governments, you make excuses and falsely claim that they weren't really atheists, or those governments don't really represent atheism. In other words, a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

-Then there's other problems with atheism, uncomfortable facts that follow from the logic of atheism, such as: (1) There is no concept of absolute right or wrong, no objective morality, it is amoral; (2) It cannot account and has no basis for logic or reason, so on that basis alone atheism is inherently incoherent and self-contradictory; (3) It cannot account for existence since in atheism materialism logically follows.

I haven't outlined any faults yet, thats why...I believe in scientific progress and am always willing to accept contradictions/faults whenever they arise...when does a religious person say the same?

When you bring up communist government atrocities, its similar to me continually talking about Islam and how evil it is. I think we both agree that both are fairly poor examples of religion/atheism? My point is though, that an intrinsic doctrine within nearly every religion is the threat of punishment and intolerance of particular groups of people...that was the original point. These same religious people aspire to political office...why should people tolerate presidents running the USA who subsequently say they can hear a god talking to them?

Theres no real accepted thought amongst atheists that religious people should be exterminated and you know it. You think the best form of defence is attack and find it best to raise extreme examples of atheist intolerance...I haven't done that with religion (it would be easy though). Fact is, religious people CANNOT accept faults within their faith lest they become sinful...thats the catch 22 with religion.

Have a personal faith, by all means if it gives strength/comfort etc great...just don't bother other people with skewed opinions about real things..Ive heard it before on the boards about gay people and its usually from those with a religious faith who just cannot accept any fault in what they say...which I understand - whenever religion is questioned, its taken as a personal insult...no wonder if they've invested so much time and effort into it but, tough shit, relax, compromise, take the blinkers off and accept some criticism sometimes - there must be something somewhere in the book that can be interpreted that way.

And your last 3 points....sorry, but you're joining dots that don't exist and drawing conclusions from it....I don't need to get into atheism that deeply... Its enough that it keeps me pragmatic about most things, other than that I simply use common sense and reasonable judgement when it comes to morals etc...I don't particularly need atheism and certainly not one of the religions to tell me how to think

From the how stupid can you be file:

An independent candidate running for Tennessee’s 3rd Congressional District hopes a racist campaign sign points to the path of victory.

Rick Tyler, a local businessman running in the heavily Republican district, has drawn sharp criticism for a pair of inflammatory signs near Highway 411 in Polk County: One that says “Make America White Again,” and another that invokes Martin Luther King Jr. and reads “I Have a Dream” over an image of the Capitol surrounded by Confederate flags.

Just curious. What does he want to do with all non whites? Kill them, or round them up and deport them en masse?

It's sad that people like Rick Tyler still exist. I'm sure every other politician will repudiate him. He just alienated not only himself, but it's already cost him business. It's a good thing that being a racist and a moron usually go together.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A tie vote by the Supreme Court is blocking President Barack Obama's immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the rest of Obama's presidency. The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role.

People who would have benefited from the programs face no imminent threat of deportation because Congress has provided money to deal with only a small percentage of people who live in the country illegally, and the president retains ample discretion to decide whom to deport.

A tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics.

The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer."

"Constitutional right to end a pregnancy." That these activist judges or any pro-abortion liberal can actually say that with a straight face never ceases to amaze me.

June 30, 2016:

DYKER HEIGHTS, Brooklyn — The co-owner of iconic pizzeria L&B Spumoni Gardens was shot and killed in the Dyker Heights section of Brooklyn Thursday night.

Louis Barbati, 61, was found dead just after 7 p.m. in the backyard of his home at 12th Avenue and 76th Street.

Sources tell PIX11 News the deceased who found with two gunshot wounds to his torso is a co-owner of L&B Spumoni Gardens.

Police are continuing to look for the gunman.

It is not yet known what led to the shooting.

L&B Spumoni Gardens is a pizzeria located in Gravesend and is known for its Sicilian pizza and ices. It has been featured on the show Man v. Food and NY Eater critic Robert Sietsema considers L&B Spumoni Gardens a must-try Italian American restaurant in Brooklyn.

A Scottish woman was crowned Miss Hitler 2016 following a neo-Nazi contest. (Photo: National Action)
A Scottish woman, who goes by the disturbing pseudonym “A-Bus-Full-of-Retards,” was named the winner of the Miss Hitler 2016 competition.

The pageant was held by the Britain-based radical youth movement National Action.

The woman, who was interviewed under her pseudonym for the competition, said she was an NA activist who had dedicated her life to the group.

Is she single?

I think we all may know a guy for her. He loves Hilter, and I think he's straight. Hangs around some of the mob forums.

Wow! Olivia de Havilland celebrates her 100th birthday. I assume she's the ONLY cast member of GWTW that is still alive.

http://www.people.com/article/olivia-de-havilland-100-birthday-plans.

TIS

I would also like to express my appreciation for her role in The Heiress, which gave us this stone cold badass kicking a gold-digging Montgomery Clift’s ass to the curb.





Happy 100th Birthday, Ms. de Havilland!

How can an anti-abortion law be enforced without invading the pregnant woman's privacy? I'll wait.

The grandson of John Gotti was busted for possessing painkillers and steroids...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-...ticle-1.2696521

A simple Google search would tell you that it's enforced by going after doctors and clinics that violate the laws.