Sorry, IME, we are nice people…the ones I know personally anyway. Sorry, I thought that was implied. My bad.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if there were a god who “lets” people die of terminal illnesses, why assume that it’s because he “hates” them? Wouldn’t it just be part of the supposed plan, perhaps to have a set time to recall the person into that really awesome place that believers say exists?
The people? No. I hate that they all too often let unfounded religious beliefs change them for the worse. I hate that their beliefs get legislated into law. I hate that they are willing to accept a book written 2000 years ago by people dumber than the people today over modern science. But I don’t “hate Christians.” Just some of their actions.
The last time I did anything significant with a group of Christians was a retreat a year and a half ago. They were all very nice people. That includes the legally married gays and lesbians in the congregation.
But if that’s the case, why bother praying? His plan isn’t going to change or be altered by a few people asking him to heal a disease.
Ah, so you hate the sin, not the sinners. 
Yes, fine, there are some wonderfully progressive churches throughout the world, but as a whole, in general, it’s religion that is preventing gays from getting married and you know it. I don’t want to get into a debate over same-sex marriage or rights here, but it’s certainly not atheists who are proclaiming themselves as the morality police and pushing people to vote against equal rights for homosexuals.
That’s utterly nonsensical. Let’s take California as an example.
Proposition 8 passed 52-48. So we have 48% of the population supporting gay marriage.
Sourcing from Pew Forum (which I’m getting by way of Wikipedia) says that 21% of California claims to be non-religious, 79% religious of all kinds. Presuming (in your favor) that the religious and non-religious voted at the same rate as their incidence in the general population, even if EVERY SINGLE non-religious person in California was pro gay rights, that means that 27% of voting religious Californians are pro-gay-rights. 1/4 is not a “vast minority”.
For Arizona, same assumptions as to voting rates. Vote was 56%-44%. Religious/non-religious is 89%-11% Therefore at least 33% of Arizona’s religious people are pro gay marriage. 1/3 is not a “vast minority”.
Want to maybe put up some actual facts? Or can we retire the strawman to the cornfield?
No, let’s not hijack the thread. But I would think that it’s social conservatives that are spearheading the anti-gay movement. There just happens to be a lot of overlap between social conservatism and today’s religion. I’m sure that if we shook a few trees, a few homophobic atheists would fall out.
Oh, so you’re debating the word “vast” now? Fine, 25% and 33% of religious people in those states are pro gay marriage. You’re still proving my point here, and that is the majority of religious people are against giving gay people equal rights because they are intolerant of that lifestyle. And why? Does their [homosexuals] choices affect them [religious people] in any way? No. Yet those religious people want to impose THEIR morals and THEIR beliefs on other people, and that’s been happening since the beginning of religion.
Yes, I agree, which is unfortunate because wasn’t one of Jesus’ teachings to be tolerant and nonjudgmental of others? It seems all too often that many Christians follow the old testament rather than the much more pleasant (though still out-there) new testament.
Hey, I thought we were against posting illogical and unprovable statements, is all. I’ll certainly agree that a bare majority of the citizens in the US are anti-gay-marriage, and unless you can prove to me that my minimum cites are in fact correct, I don’t see how you can reasonably assert that the religious are any worse or better than average–I know rabid atheists who think gays are unnatural and should be discouraged/eliminated, and I know of at least two entire denominations of Christianity that are effectively pro-gay.
Or possibly that they get all the press?
Well sure, there’s always going to be people on the fringe within any set of beliefs (or lack thereof for atheists). It only makes sense to talk about the people on average, then. I’m not going to sit here and judge Christians based on the actions of Fred Phelps, but my point was as a whole, religious people are some of the least tolerant people around (whether against gays, people of other religions, or atheists especially). Which is why I found it quite funny that a religious person was calling me intolerant, when in general, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact me, I could care less what others do or say. Of course I can criticize it (free speech and all), but I’m not going to actively try to stop you from doing it (whatever it may be)…
Ahh, yes, so the issue has been marketing all along. 
And I repeat (cause it seems you missed it).
Jesus went out of his way to spend time with the outcasts and “sinners” of his day, but I don’t recall him teaching his followers to be tolerant an nonjudgmental of others. In fact Jesus was quite judgemental of others. “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”-- Jesus
In anycase, this is far afield of the OP. People should post whatever the hell they want on their Wall without worrying about your sensibilities.
Just because something is highly unlikely or not easily explained does not make it a miracle. What makes something a miracle? It’s hard to define that, when even trying to prove that they exist is futile. If you want to define a miracle as “something really, really incredible that we can’t even begin to understand” fine, just don’t define it as proof that God was intervening.
Equally great theologian Jim Carrey responded with his seminal work, Bruce Almighty, in which he portrayed how poorly things might go if you just give everyone what they pray for.
I’ve blocked a few facebook friends because their output was so glurgy that I couldn’t stand it, but, generally, what I want is a selective (smart) filter. Most of my religious friends post items of legitimate interest to me interspersed with (or, interwoven with) items of annoying jesuslove. I don’t want to block them completely; I just want to be spared the religiosity.
Perhaps I should write a greasemonkey script…
Oh I agree completely! For the record, I’m as atheist as they come… I just thought it worth mentioning that if one believes a person is “leaving this world”, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the person is despised by the very being they’re supposedly about to become one with.