Yup, was assuming he is a Christian. Not necessarily a fundie, tho. "Moderate" Christians are just as bad, albeit in a different way. They are, at least, condoning the evil done by others in the name of their religion.

"Oh, but they are not REAL Christians, they don't follow the REAL message". And who decides what is the real message? So many different bibles (including the oldest ones, that show how much they changed over the centuries). So many interpretations. So many contradictions. So many excuses, apologies and lies of convenience. So many parts that get ignored because they are less moral than the moral developed by society. It is all true. Except the parts you don't like. Those don't apply anymore. Or you are reading it wrong.

Good. First, it is my intention to offend all religious people. And second, regardless of intention, science IS anti-religion. Science is based on logic and rationality, which must reject religion, since religion is based on faith (believing without proof or despite proof of the contrary). People who say that science and religion can go together either don't understand science, religion, or is just trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

You see, we disagree completely here. You seem to think that science keeping a good standing with religion is a good thing. I, on the other hand, think it is a very bad thing, because it can be used to lend validity to religion. Religion is mysticism, lies and control. It is (as proved by Ron Hubbard) a good way to get rich. It is a way to control people and to impose bronze age morals to a society much more evolved morally.

It is because preachers and churches in general started noticing they had to impose a firmer grip, because they were losing the battle against reason. Also, religion is big business. International business. Brazil is a country that is particularly good in exporting evangelical churches based on the "prosperity theology". Give to god and the church, and you will get rich.

I can see where you are coming from, relating the aggressiveness of atheism with people turning to more ortodox and fundamentalist forms or religion. But that is definitively not the case. What we see is not a backlash against atheism, but a backlash against science, because science is disproving religion every day. Up to a couple centuries ago (heck, even 1 century ago) religion still had a firm control over science. What could be researched, what could be published. But the cat is out of the box now, and believing in the supernatural is becoming more and more silly in face of the advances in science, philosophy, history and archeology. When we compare ancient bibles with the modern ones, we can see how much was changed. When we compare the way these old books describe the world with what we can test through science, we see them for the lie they are. We can now show that the gospel of john was written by several different people, and not one. We can show that all gospels were written much better than they were supposed to.

I'm perfectly fine admitting I'm anti-theist, and not only atheist. I am openly against religion, the same way I'm openly against slavery. Exactly the same way.

Religion is evil, and should be extinguished. We should fight against it, the same way we fight against crime, slavery, child abuse and anything else that harm humanity.

"Ass of U"... "Ass of U"? Please. I'm sure you can do better than that.

I can't say if I was assuming you were a religious person or not. My offending religion and religious people is in not way a personal thing. When I'm being offensive toward religious people, I'm being offensive toward the religion itself. The person I'm talking to is just the one representing the religion in that particular case.

About feeling smug and superior... Superior, maybe. But smug? I don't think any of my comments could lead anyone to feel smug, even if in a misguided way. Definitively aggressive and lashing back. I never claimed otherwise. I gave up trying to use rational arguments against people who hold irrational ideas. It is just incompatible. Right now, I'm settling to letting religious people know that if they push, me and others like me will push back. Hard. So yeah, you are right it is not a good strategy to convince them otherwise. But, again, I'm not trying.

I also don't believe people have a right not to be offended. However, it is one thing to be offended by a direct attack, like I do. Or even Ricky Gervais. But to feel offended by what Neil posted is a whole different issue, taking ignorance to a whole new level, and showing the person is most likely immune to logic or rational arguments.

Actually, Libertarianism, which is not 1 model but several, including the Anarco-Capitalism of Rothbard, is quite different than Lockean Liberalism.

If you did use in the sense (or misuse) you mentioned above, then you are in fact using it in the same sense of the Liberal Party, which you said I was wrong when mentioned. So, in all, you are not making any sense.

Also, not once I complained about your grammar. I'm complaining about you saying things that are bullshit. Because, even in the sense you say you meant, it has absolutely no relation. Racism and liberalism are two completely different issues. Both real. And sticking your head under the sand, or using ad hominem replies is only further proof that you are unable to fundament any of your positions, making them no better than opinions. And opinions, although dear to whoever express them, aren't worth shit.

So, either you keep your ignorant bigotry to yourself, study a little bit before saying stupid unfundamented stuff, or people will mock you for your lack of knowledge. The choice, however, is all up to you.

You have a very weird definition of trolling.
Trolling is when you make a statement regardless of your belief (sometimes even contrary to it) for the SOLE PURPOSE of creating dissent.

Somehow, I have trouble seeing what he did fitting that definition.

You are also making an assertion that he was making a parody of that "most recognizable of all bible verses" which I, having read the bible 3 times from cover, and having been educated in a Jesuit school didn't recognize. So not only it is not "most recognizable" (not arguing it is not on the Bible), but it is highly unlikely he was thinking about that verse when he made the post.

So yeah, you are seeing things where they don't exist (pun not intended).

That is not trolling. That's being offensive, which is quite a different thing. Which I will grant you I was being, and will keep being in the same proportion that religious people offend me by trying to impose their twisted views and morality on others.
Neither was Neil trolling. He was making a tongue-in-cheek comment.

But apparently people who only learn 1 book is unable to differentiate the 3 things. (See, again being offensive, and not trolling)

No. Me referring to "zombi-jesus" is an offense, not a deliberate troll. Even if it is descriptive of this iconic and mythological figure of a death cult turned into a religion.

Neil was not trolling. He was making a tongue-in-cheek statement, that apparently was too much for some people.

Really?... Then, pray tell, what was your bases for using the term "liberal" in your early post. It obviously wasn't John Locke's teachings, or any other liberal philosopher or liberal sociologist. Then please, enlighten me.

And how exactly you being an atheists disproved the fact that Christians try to co-opt stuff? Most of their holidays were pagan holidays who got co-opted. They keep saying they are the only reason for christmas.
You don't like what he did? That's your prerogative. Doesn't make what I said before any less true.

Actually, that is both right and wrong. Newton was born on Christmas day. You can't change the frame of reference for just one, while leaving the other intact.

I find it hard to understand the rightwing usage of "liberal". When we study State Theory, the US constitution is used as the greatest example of a Liberal Constitution. John Locke, one of the fathers of liberalism, preached basically the same thing right-wingers do.

The only possible explanation for this is the US education system being extremely flawed, and people using the words "liberal" and "liberalism" don't know what they mean. Liberalism is pure right-wing.

Do no confuse the Liberal Party with liberalism. Do not confuse the Democratic Party with democracy. Do not confuse the Republican Party with republic. Or are members of the Republican Party anti-democracy? Are members of the Democratic Party anti-republic?

Considering how often and loudly people talk about politics, one would expect they would take the time to at least study it a little bit.

Maybe you should say "Some members of the liberal party seem to (...)", or "Some left-wingers seem to (...)". Even if you say "socialists", which would still be wrong, wouldn't be as wrong as saying "liberals".

That's it right. Because religions is all about hate. So making comments about them will, obviously, draws the hate.
When you talk about religion in any critical way, you can expect nothing else: only hate.

Is that what you are saying?

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians keep trying to coopt stuff. Now people can't even make posts on Dec 25th, because that date belongs to zombi-jesus. How probably never even existed.
Issac Newton, on the other hand, certainly existed.

How odd. Someone posting as AC saying someone else is a coward.
Typical religious apologist.
Don't you have a clinic to bomb? Or maybe a soldier's funeral to picket?

Isn't Comcast already doing exactly that?