Whilst I don’t agree with gender fluidity, to call it evil, coming from a cult that worship a God that called upon the deaths of millions (read the old testament) is something ridiculously hypocritical.
Evil? How about telling the people of Africa that AIDS is bad, but not as bad as condoms?.
How about the evil of the Catholic Church signing a concord with Hitler?
You two faced weasel.
Do you think that the parents of the 20 children who died in Sandy Hook, the families of the17 kids who died in Parkland, or the parents of the 19 kids who died in Uvalde would think that these deaths are trivial?
As for LGBTQ people . . . they are no more (or less) likely to molest children than straight people.
The pedophilia canard is similar to the assumption that Jewish people lack generosity, or that all Black people have an overwhelming addiction to watermelon.
The religious opposition to LGBTQ people is similar to the religious opposition against lightning rods or hand washing.
Chem Eng has been relocated to anywhere but here because his/her only apparent purpose for being here was to throw shade and for making homophobic comments.
Coming into someone else’s house and starting to lay word turds and spewing rape allegations doesn’t constitute playing well with others.
Who knew? 
As for the deaths caused by the AR-15 rifle, please consider the below photo:
This person is the sister of Victoria Soto, when she’s hearing about the shooting. Ms. Soto was a 27 year old teacher who died protecting children with her body.
If anyone says that Ms. Soto’s death is trivial . . . then I have nothing to say to them. Such a person can take up yoga so that they can go fuck themselves.
Good, I was hoping they all demand you justify your bullshit as well.
Yes it is hard to listen to the same unevidenced superstition over and over, and offered with the usual sententious air, as if bullshit about unevidenced magic is profundity.
Fnarr, two l’s in travelled champ…
Sorry but I can make no sense from that disjointed whining rant.
No worse than the barbaric mass murdering amoral sadist depicted in the bible I’m sure…
@cyber 
Fucking asshole can bitch someplace else. To his community of bigots 
… his support system for the delusional.
Ah there’s the Christian love look, mass murder is relatively trivial if it involves the kind of weapon you favour, what a contemptible thing to say.
Sorry, couldn’t hear that as it was all muffled coming out of your arse:
No 1, USA…
So the country with highest number of privately owned guns has the second highest number of gun deaths, if only we could piece this together.
They also made freedom of and freedom from religion a basic right. They also allowed rich white Christians to own slaves of course.
I’ve been a member of TST for years now, and even if I don’t agree with all of their tenets, I support what they’re trying to do to get equal application of the law.
Actually my mother did, and then the schools I went to did, until I was old enough to no longer even pretend I as indulging their magic sky fairy.
Yeah my mother did, but I got big enough to say no.
That was meant as irony right? If so kudos, I dribbled some wine out there.
I know, maybe I could join your death cult, and see if pissing and moaning about every fucking thing you don’t like or agree with would cheer me up?
That was an unwise choice of words, though to be fair you’d have to be pretty stupid to imagine it was meant literally rather than as irony, so it fooled you uh? Oh dear…
Aw, say it ain’t so, ah well I guess the search for objective evidence of any deity goes on then.
Are you really as stupid as you sound? TST(The Satanic Temple) don’t worship anyone or anything, they’re simply Atheists using the same arguments that you clowns do for equal representation in everyday things.
If it’s permitted to have an after school christian group in a public school, then an after school Satan club must be allowed as well.
You don’t get to have it both ways. You’re not any better than anybody else on this forum.
Who’s miserable? I fucking love making theists have to defend their reasons for believing in an imaginary friend in the sky.
Great, now we’ll never get his answer to this question.
Oh that was never happening anyway, he was clearly here to troll from the very first minute.
There are currently over 45k different christian sects and denominations, not that it matters as this is a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Like most theists who visit here, you seem to have a poor grasp of logic. If the majority of people thought rationally, we’d hardly have needed to create a method of reasoning that adhered to strict principles of validation in order to achieve this, now would we?
However this is very simple, just explain what principle of logic you are claiming I am violating by withholding belief from a claim that you can’t demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for, after hours of petty tedious whining rants? Like I said, theists come here and use words like logic and rational, and like you they don’t seem to have a clue what they’re talking about.
I’d love to see the research about charitable donations as well, as they are usually distorted by not taking into account that most religious people donate directly to their churches, and they count these as charitable donations.
"“Three quarters of people in living in England who practise a religion (77%) have given to charity in the past month. This compares to only two thirds of English people who do not practise a religion (67%).”
What the poll does not tell us is what the religious people donated their money to.
This is important because a similar poll in America ran with the headline that the Southern States of the USA (the ones shown to be most religious) gave significantly more to charity than the Northern States (least religious). But when you took out the donations given directly to churches rather than to humanitarian charities, the figures reversed. "
That article illustrates how religions often try to distort these statistics. Though of course even were this claim true, it would not remotely evidence the religion or any deity. So one wonders what his point was really?
Of course there are many other factors to consider in why people are inclined to give to charities.
"new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.
Study finds highly religious people are less motivated by compassion to show generosity than are non-believers
In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.
The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.
“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”
If Bullwinkle had been here for genuine debate, instead of juvenile trolling, this topic might have yielded some interesting discussion.
Chem got something even better, to him: a way to rationalize going back to the forums on jesusismyboy.com to continue moaning about how atheists are all angry and officious meanies.
Sad.
Keep in mind that the users on this forum come from all around the world, not only the US. So “founding fathers”, SCOTUS, POTUS, money with religious mottos on them fall kind of flat as arguments. There is an entire world outside the US, you know. Or perhaps you don’t. In any case, what kind of relevance has the superstitious rituals of the SCOTUS and POTUS have regarding personal non-belief? And is using money with “in god we trust” an acceptance of the existance of a god? Don’t think so.
You are admitting here that you have not been outside the US, and you are also claiming that other members of this forum have never been outside the US and made financial transactions (as in buying stuff). Now this is factually and logically false for the non-US subjects here, and also for any US subjects that have spent time outside the US, or are living outside the US.
And how do you think the ‘Criminals’ got it on the currency? It was first made the official motto in 1956, replacing ‘Out of many, one’ (Which is a far superior motto.) It was snuck into a secular government by the religious during WWII.
What is of interest to your points is that even rats show empathy and generosity.
A rat will free another restrained rat and give them food. See below:
No religion needed.
Absolutely, and it’s not hard to see the survival benefit of altruism among animals that have evolved to live in societal groups. I think often the idea is rejected simply because it would necessarily precede religion.
