I`m not going to start a religious debate here, but it`s not true that religious people are free as birds to live their faith as they want. You will probably find countries where that happens.

Please, don`t take religious views as they are after you or anyone else. It`s not like that. Try to understand that it`s not personnal, it`s a result of a religious mindset and the defense of values in such mindset.
You spoke of homosexuals and stem cells.
About stem cells, i`ll admit i don`t enough about them to make a statemente, but according to this article (http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/p/Stem_Cells.htm) the Catholic Church, for example, is not against all stem cell research.
About homosexuality, please, let me make it clear, the Church is NOT against homosexuals. It`s against what it calls a sin - an action or acceptance of a life perpretated by someone. Therefore, as Church defines matrimony or the sacrament of matrimon, as between only man and woman, it natural opposes unions of the same sex.

All of what you wrote above about judging and insulting, you know that that does not speak for religions themselves and should only speak for those who, wrongly, do those actions.

I get what you're saying, but I like playing devil's advocate with it because (a) your proposition ultimately implies that your feelings, experiences and beliefs are meaningless, (b) it usually shows that the avowed atheist (please note I'm not putting you in this bracket) is as guilty of hypocrisy as a theist, and finally that it's so much fun.

All in all I have no problem with your post (not that my opinion means anything in the grander scheme of things), but I certainly do have a problem with the majority of posts that come from that camp.

Ultimately it's not what you believe, but how you believe... And those that say they don't adhere to beliefs need to go to a mental institution - we all do.

EDIT: I find it VERY amusing that my ''bracket''+''c''+''bracket'' ended up being a '' '' considering what my point  'c' turned out to be.

You please tell me what motivation is there for a person who has adopted the non-theistic world view to have any morals at all?

I like my children, wife, pizza and video games. They help me lead a well balanced and happy life.

Science itself is a disappointment if one is looking for a coherent explanation of the universe and life. It's quite simply not a proper explanation.

I prefer the explanation, "god did it". I find it brings so much closure to questions about life, the universe and why your brain doesn't function. It's relatively short and you don't have to think about anything. Science is hard and you have to spend so much time observing stuff.

''Yes it is a gross misrepresentation because you equate areligiousness with strict mechanical automation.''

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

''You asked how a person without religion could have motivation for morality, then pointing out that the areligious follow cut-throat instincts. You talk as if they're a separate species.''

Yes I did ask that, but I didn't 'point out' what you are saying there. You are building a nice straw man there yourself aren't you?

''So don't lie. That's what you actually think. Otherwise, the whole reasoning for your psot makes no sense.''

No. I believe in a different source of man's desires. There is no point in trying to cram it in here, but it is also not required for me to explain my beliefs in this context at all. I understand why you would think that the 'reasoning behind my post' doesn't make sense based on my statements before. In fact, you have seen a subtlety in my reasoning and made a rather valid assumption. Unfortunately, your assumption is wrong - my motivation stems from the fact that I cannot tolerate seeing someone being religiously against religion. ESPECIALLY if this person loses logic and common sense along the way. That is why I attack such a person, even if my method of attack seems to insinuate beliefs that are not my own.

''People do the right thing because we are social creatures, and are guided by a conscience to ensure group survival rather than individual domination. There are variances here and there, but for the msot part it is true. We are designed to work in a social environment. Even the lawless barbarian hordes are a group of brothers, no? Evil people are still morally good to their brothers. It's just the scope that's different. They have no outside morality, but in their group, they do. ''

I get this evolutionary idea, I really do. I once had to sit through 50 excruciating minutes as my computer science proffessor went on and on about the evolutionary origin of love. Yes, an explanation of the origin of these things has been found. But it's not the only explanation, and I certainly do not think it is a very good one. For me to be convinced you need to simulate the evolution of these things - that would certainly constitute proof. Anything less and you can keep your hypothesis and I'll keep my eastern philosophy (which I consider much superior).

''Again, it is a straw man argument because you turn humans who disagree with you (areligious) into heartless robots, and then attack a heartless robot's motivation for doing good. That is case in point, a strawman argument.''

No. Because you are explaining here that I'm presenting the person in a certain light - NOT his proposition. Therefore, not strictly a straw man argument.

I'm enjoying this very much btw - and I'm editing out that nasty last comment I left - it was uncalled for, and, in hindsight, possibly inaccurate.

I don't deny that my life is ultimately meaningless (in a sense). But what I do now, with this life, is meaningful to me.
Yup, unless you're a robot, you have beliefs. I know atheism is a belief, but I think it's a rational and defendable (is that a word?) belief to have, and in my case I can confidently say it's well thought-out. 

Although it may not seem like it right now, I actually don't give too much of a shit about these debates. And I just get on with my life and not worry about it most of the time, whilst still being a decent person, this is why it angers me when people like padib tell me I'm immoral and my atheism is immoral, and he really has no justification at all. Like most people, I'm good for the sake of being good, not because I think I'll be ultimately judged, he just can't accept that. 

What's your point of view on all this?

When the laws of material nature are all there is then how can this not be true?

Because you don't understand the laws of nature. You misrepresent it. If your version was true, then your description would be true, but it's not, therefore neither are you.

You might have to explain that one to me. I haven't read anyhting that makes me think that the US went to war for any other reason than to defend itself or its neighbors. The goal was to eliminate a threat that possessed WMDs and was willing to use them. The only other goal was regime change, hence, why I said the other main justification for going to war was the nature of Hussein's regime.

As I said, this is the justification the US gave for going to war. The claims of WMDs turned out to be false, but that doesn't change the fact of why the US went to war. To simplify, the main reasons the US went to war was:

1. Defense

2. Regime Change (Democratization)

Now, whether or not these justifications turned out to be true, worthy of achieving, or successful is a whole different debate, and it doesn't change the initial justification for going to war.

If being against something it considers a sin, is the same as being against the person who commits a sin, then the Church is against every single man and woman. Do you see that happening?
There is a difference: "hate" the sin, not the sinner.