zapatos

Because it tastes good.

If you mean that you dislike when religion gets credit for being the source of morals, charity, etc., I agree with you. I am trying to credit the good work done in the name of religion as so many people here overlook that when condemning the bad they do and even suggest religion should be eliminated. I would do the same for the Red Cross and Salvation Army but no one condemns them for borrowing the innate human qualities of charity and empathy.

Neither was anyone here arguing that religion does not borrow things for leverage. Hence it was a bit unclear to me at least why you felt the need to point out that religion does borrow and use things for leverage. I imagine nearly every institution or endeavor does.

Agreed.

I don't think it is an atheist position that 'religion exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power'. Identifying that one negative behavior of specific individuals and suggesting it is the 'purpose of religion' tells me the views of others in religion have NOT been considered (just like many/most religious fundies). It is ludicrous to suggest that the purpose of religion for missionaries who take a vow of poverty and care for the sick and aged, is to maintain a position of power for a selected few.

No they are not, but they generally believe they know the objective truth and are unwilling to consider that the views of others may have any validity. Why do you bring this up?

No thanks. I'm tired of your insults and trolling. Be rude to someone else.

You have a real knack for coming across as an ass.

The point I was making went right over your head.

Opposite end of the spectrum, but you are no different than the religious fundamentalists.

I found phenolic resin lab benches for sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol_formaldehyde_resin

As I said, the side of the fence you reside on impacts how you view the world. Do you really think that everyone who is liberal will concede absolutely nothing negative about what it supports, and that they believe their position is absolutely, completely, and totally perfect in any way? I believe confirmation bias affects everyone to some extent.

To describe religion as mythology is equivalent to saying that science is test tubes and bunsen burners. Both are oversimplified and misleading, while completely ignoring their objectives.

Interestingly enough I often feel that way about the Right. Just look at how many people continue to find no fault with Trump. Guess it depends on which side of the fence you reside how you view the world.

That is also true of what happened in the spot your television resides during the eight hours you were at work.

I don't think Trump has any control over Republicans. They are acting in their own best interest, and their own best interest says 'don't let a Republican President be impeached'.

Sorry, but doesn't this seriously undermine what control?

Thus far, I don't believe so. Donald seems more inept and sleazy than criminal. Unless he commits an overt criminal act I don't believe a Republican controlled House and Senate will agree to any sanctions for Trump.

Thanks for the link! I watched for a while and wish I didn't have to do actual work today. Fascinating stuff. My quick impression is that Comey is professional and truthful. I also get the feeling that Trump's lack of a basic understanding of how government works is a cornerstone of his ongoing problems. He seems to think being elected President means he gets to 'manage' the US like he was able to manage his companies.

Where is this atheistic activism taking place? If it is on this site, then you may have a skewed view of how active atheists are. This is a discussion site, and this is what we do. If a theist talks about or defends religion they should expect to be challenged, just as someone who talks about or defends string theory should expect to be challenged. I cannot think of many times (or any times for that matter) that I or others I've observed have engaged with religious people on religious topics unless all parties were interested in discussing it. Edit: I don't often see atheists yelling at theists outside of churches, but I do see theists yelling at people outside abortion clinics. I think if theists left atheists alone, then atheists would return the favor. I don't feel the need to ban vegetarianism either, and I suspect nearly no one does. The problem arises when the vegetarians start telling us to not kill cattle. Those are the ones who draw the ire of the meat eaters (or atheists in the case where theists tell us to not have abortions).

Citation please.

And that's why it is a social construction. Some people base their definition of race on skin color, when you could just have easily based it on looks, height, hair color, etc. No one is denying there are biological differences, just that there is no meaningful, consistent, and widely accepted definition of what constitutes a given race.

Maybe he exists but has no interest in getting involved with our issues.

So only the same small set of genes in any person could potentially be Neanderthal? We don't find Neanderthal genes in large stretches of human DNA? Assuming I understood that correctly, why do you think that is? Why aren't Neanderthal genes found throughout our genome, but instead found only in a small subset?

Why is it likely they are the same genes?