>> When people initiate wars in the name of God, they are lying. It's that simple.

Good! glad you agree! That immediately invalidates at least all major religions then, as at some point in time all religions through their leaders have instigated or supported one or more wars.

I guess we need to decouple God from religion. I am quite happy to believe in the possibility that a God exists, however without actual evidence the question remains open. If one does exist at all then it's so remote/ineffective as to leave no actual evidence of itself, so is making itself effectively irrelevant.

Religion is man-made, there is no more proof that it's messages came from one or more gods than there is that it was all made up by someone wanting power and control. In fact there is a lot of historical evidence that aspects of at least Christianity, Islam and Judaism have been created for exactly that reason.

So there really is strong evidence for how evil religion at least can and has been, yet despite that, it's sheep-like adherents still turn a blind eye.

> That logic relies on the concept that things don't happen by themselves. Ever.

Yes they do, all the time, at least at the quantum level.

> Therefor, a creator is required because things exist.
Things can and do exist without a sentient creator.

> That to me is more logical than to say that things exist because of...nothing.
I urge you to go read up on quantum physics.

You deceive yourself when you suggest that science doesn't require faith.
Science explicitly doesn't require faith. The dictionary definition of faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Science requires the exact opposite: evidence.

>> The faith part is when you say, in the name of science, that there is no creator.

Again, that isn't what science is actually saying.
It's saying there is no evidence for a creator. It's not denying the possibility, just like it is not denying the possibility of fairies.

> You are claiming that religion is destructive and evil, and that is also not true.

You have to be kidding right?
Just off the top of my head: 9/11, the crusades, nearly all the terrorism in the world, the recent massacres between Jews and Muslims, wars between Sunni and Shia, suppression of women, suppression of free speech, religiously-justified racism...

> You take at their word, anyone who does evil in the name of religion,

Do you really not see yourself doing exactly the same thing too? Do you really not see the evil behind even having a mechanism that allows someone to blame god for their own actions?

> You have *still* avoided conceding that the Salvation Army does good, and that they do it out of their sincere religious beliefs. They aren't the only ones.

Sorry I thought I already made it clear that I agreed that the Salvation army do good deeds. But then what about the many non-religious charities? Religion is clearly not a requirement to do good deeds, so claiming any credit of doing good deeds on having a religious belief is a falsehood. That said, I do agree that good deeds are done in the name of religion. I'm just not convinced that you can equate feeding and clothing a few druggies and bums to all the serious evil that's also been and is being done in the name of religion globally.

The only explanation science can offer, is that the cause was...nothing, nothing at all.

That's not accurate. What science says is that we don't know for sure, and may never know for sure. (many scientists currently think quantum effects are likely responsible, through research and discovery of experimentally repeatable effects, and because we've literally observed that particles do pop into and out of reality even in the hard vacuum of space).

This is a lot more rational and truthful statement that saying "a) We definitely know. b) It was god, further, it was necessarily the god of my chosen religion, not any of the different gods of 4000+ other religions on the planet".

>> The Big Bang theory, as commonly believed, is just as religious as any other theory,

No the difference between science and religion is that science doesn't require faith. it requires evidence, and the whole process is based on replacing hypotheses and theories for better ones when proven wrong.
Religion on the other hand starts out by saying it already has all the answers and explanations, and requires faith of its adherents to ignore the lack of evidence.

>> YES, there are hypocrites. YES, there are people who use religion to get rich. This does not make religion, evil.

That's as subjective as it gets. There are plenty of non-religious charities doing good work too, proving that you don't need religion to have a selfless morality.
Regardless of all the wars, terrorism, control, abuse etc done in some god's name, it seems clear that at it's core, religion is entirely based on requiring people to have "faith" to believe things that someone has claimed without any actual evidence. I personally think that manipulating/brainwashing people into having faith as their decision-making mechanism instead of using logic and evidence, while also pushing unproven, usually self-contradictory (therefore necessarily) lies as ultimate truths onto society in general, is damn evil in itself.

with a law requiring a warrant to obtain - if they did accept it from a foreign government it wouldn't hold up against a US citizen on US Soil, and anything learned based on that data wouldn't be immiscible.. this should dis-incentivize even accepting information like this without a warrant.

while i agree that i'd prefer that no one track my personal info to the level that is being tracked.. that's a given.. but i'm happy they have added a clarification that the government can't dodge existing laws by just paying someone else to do the dirty work

Capitalism! seriously? name a business that would freely give information without some type of kickback.. that kickback would make it a purchase and require a warrant..

i view this a bit different - sure apps and companies can gather everything they want - but they can't put you in Jail and strip you of your rights. Government can. This ads a clear layer requirement before Government can outsource work to companies they know they are not allowed to do (which is what has been happening).

Pulling your data from app aggregators is no different than your library checkout history or your video rental history - and this finely puts a line in the sand on it.

>> you are accusing religious people of being evil. So what's your point by mentioning this?

Because religion plays a signifcant part in nearly all wars, also religion is directly peddling factually incorrect information while claiming it is the truth. Also for hypocrisy, the bible preaches peace and charity, yet the Christian church is one of the richest institutions in the world, and their investments include arms manufacturers.

>> I noticed that you conveniently avoided responding to the part about the Salvation Army.

Yes I'm happy to acknowledge that the Salvation Army do good works, however I didn't mention them because there are 2.38 billion Christians in the world and the Salvation Army reports a worldwide membership of about 1.7 million, Hardly representative of the entire faith.

>> I personally work closely with number of devout Muslims. They are good people, they care about family and about doing what is right and kind.

  I personally work closely with number of non-religious people. They are good people, they care about family and about doing what is right and kind.

The muslims you speak about above aren't by definition true Muslims, since Islam is unlike Christianity in that it explicitly doesn't permit personal interpretations of Islam or deviation in any way form the Quran.

The Quran is replete with Surahs directing its followers to violence.

Surah 3:151: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) â¦"

Surah 2:191: "And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them ⦠kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims)."

Surah 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush â¦"

Again the assumption that Christians act any more morally on average than non-religious people. Where is the data to support your position?
I've personally seen lots of counter-evidence but I agree that's subjective therefore invalid.