Bold - No, no it is not.  Religion is only about what an individual wants it to be about.  for some it's about controlling others through fear or desperation. for some it means justifying evils.  for some it's the unbridled truth in their eyes.  For others it's just another way to segregate us.  Since Religion as a whole has so many denominations, sub-groups, and variations (has to be up in the millions by now), there's absolutely no way you could possibly claim that you know what each and every facet of each and every variation is about.  If that's what it means to you, then by all means please do continue to preach love and tolerance and understanding and kindness, but don't dare think that just becuase you want to believe something (Religion is about Love) that it's true.  that's kind of what this whole discussion is about.  

And I'd say dedicating 7 years of my life to fighting off logical fallacies, aggressive ignorance, and constant judgement-based harassment is a pretty good amount of time dedicated to the craft of fighting religious ignorance and intolerance.  

I've had people tell me that my relationship with my girlfriend was an affront to God becuase homosexuality was a Sin.  When I asked for proof, all they were able to bring up was a quote from Leviticus where Jesus said something about it being Wicked for a man to lie with another man (citation Needed.)  I countered it saying that nowhere in there did it say that homosexuality was a sin and that it was a very vague statement up to an individual's personal judgement and interpretation.  I was once again told I was ignorant of the subject since I had the devil in me.  No refute to my point, just a casual dismissal becuase they had nothing to say.  

When people make faulty points regarding religion, science (especially evolution), and society in the name of religion, it's not hard for me to go through a list of logical fallacies and pinpoint exactly why their argument fails.  Back it up with science, back it up with history, back it up with logic and rationale and even explain the behaviours with even the most basic of human psychology, and you will not convince a religious person that they're wrong.  I quoted House earlier and I stand by my assertion that rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.  I'm not saying all religious people are dumb or ignorant or stupid, but the very concept of religion has about a dozen logical barriers to overcome.  The entire thing is based on faith, faith above all else that people aren't lying to you.  Faith that the bible (or whatever holy scripture you believe in) was written by the hands of god, that it was never tampered with, that the people telling you about it don't have an agenda, that something that was relevant over a millenia ago is still relevant today, that in spite of hundreds of doomsday rapture threats that never came true, that there's an afterlife.  

Every religious argument is inherently faulty becuase it's based on assertions with no backing evidence.  you can believe anything you want, and you can even debate philosophies with ease, but once you start making assertions about the genesis of the world, our place in it, and the existence of beings and their supposed judgements, you need more proof than any religion can offer.  

It can't be done, yet religion still gets to control the world.  I have a real issue with that.  And being critical of it and demanding it play by the same rules that anything else in the world has to play by is met with aggressive hostility mixed with the symphonic blubbering of zealouts unable to support their claims, collectively resorting to a base 'freedom of religion' clause.  

I really wish I had my big list of different ways to debunk religion on me.  it would be fun to copy and paste the lengthy explanations as to why each and every pro-religion argument can be effectively debated and crushed with simple logic, historical proof, and above all else, science.  

Wikipedia may be a credible source with your buddies, but not in any formal debate, scholastic paper, scientific paper, etc. I will allow other sources, not necessary scholarly articles, but wikipedia. Come on.

The mere fact that you are arguing that the Crusades weren't about Religion speaks volumes to your nescience of the topic. 

Nothing futher need be said. Feel free to argue with others.

people should believe or not in whatever they want,but it is pretty simple.

If you take a look how complex the dna is_this could never happen by coincidence.And even if this happen by coincidence,this dna structure would't evolve and reproduce itself,because the structure would never know what it is and never know how or why to reproduce itself.As soon as the first life started it already had the code for reproduction.how could both things happen at the same time and why,and where does the urge came from to live and reproduce and the selforganizing and selfrecognizing knowledge to analyze the own structure and to built a code for reproduction,a code that is not just reproducing but recognizing what is good and not for improvement of its own structure and the ability to recognice mutations eliminate the bad and reproduce the good ones?
life would be the same ad a computer programm,with no one to code and start the programm nothing would ever happen.a primitive binary code would remain primitive for all time without being able to analize itself ,to improve itself,to reproduce even if it is a complex binary code nothing would happened because there would be no need for the programm.

"Bold - No, no it is not.  Religion is only about what an individual wants it to be about."

Are we talking all religions or  just Christianity because so far this  horrible response to what he  was asking.

"Religion is only about what an individual wants it to be about.  for some it's about controlling others through fear or desperation. for some it means justifying evils.  for some it's the unbridled truth in their eyes.  For others it's just another way to segregate us.  Since Religion as a whole has so many denominations, sub-groups, and variations (has to be up in the millions by now), there's absolutely no way you could possibly claim that you know what each and every facet of each and every variation is about.  If that's what it means to you, then by all means please do continue to preach love and tolerance and understanding and kindness, but don't dare think that just becuase you want to believe something (Religion is about Love) that it's true."

Everything you said has nothing do with what bible says therefor your point is just how people react to Christianity in which case has no effort on the true value of the bible. Please tell me were it says to these people  do x from the bible because if anything I could say the same for anything. But all in all you have a problem with how people react in certain religions but not the actual religion itself in which case means your arguing from stand point personal bias not from a objective stance.

I want take a certain part from the paragraph

"If that's what it means to you, then by all means please do continue to preach love and tolerance and understanding and kindness, but don't dare think that just becuase you want to believe something (Religion is about Love) that it's true"

You gave no reason to why under christianity what he said was wrong but only just said your wrong because I personal believe your wrong. All you done so far was give subjective reactions and not attack on did the bible legitimentally said to do x. With you saying anyone can twist anything and make it true shows you have no clue what your talking about and only replying to fundamentalism with fundamentalism. If someone makes a claim about bible saying x we have data in bible and background to show what these people were saying and doing. Its called scholars and books.

"When people make faulty points regarding religion, science (especially evolution), and society in the name of religion, it's not hard for me to go through a list of logical fallacies and pinpoint exactly why their argument fails.  .  "

Why evolution? The Catholic Church accepted evolution day one. Ironic darwin was a Christian only after his child died a painful death in which case he couldn't understand why God did that to him. You say " list of logical fallacies and pinpoint exactly why their argument fails. "  but as you done so far I'm willing to bet even if you did have this list it would itself be based on fallacy and misinformation. 

"Back it up with science, back it up with history, back it up with logic and rationale and even explain the behaviours with even the most basic of human psychology, and you will not convince a religious person that they're wrong.  I quoted House earlier and I stand by my assertion that rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.  "

There is the cosmological argument  and  teleological argument in which uses the facts of science in deductive arguments. We can can even go into Historial case for Jesus Resurrection. If you feel like debating me in this please do so because I will show you that do back up what I say. "religious person that they're wrong" You can say the same thing about atheist which I have done before many times some which didn't have a basic ability to read. " I quoted House earlier and I stand by my assertion that rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people. " Well I guess you can say the same for atheist :/ so I guess humans in general? Your arguments are in gerenal arguements from ignorance and nativity. You could use your examples almost exactly for atheists.

"I'm not saying all religious people are dumb or ignorant or stupid, but the very concept of religion has about a dozen logical barriers to overcome.  The entire thing is based on faith, faith above all else that people aren't lying to you.  Faith that the bible (or whatever holy scripture you believe in) was written by the hands of god, that it was never tampered with, that the people telling you about it don't have an agenda, that something that was relevant over a millenia ago is still relevant today, that in spite of hundreds of doomsday rapture threats that never came true, that there's an afterlife.  "

So, atheist don't jump over logical barriers you really want to do this? Just give me a go and I will write some down for you to read. Oh let me write down some of atheist quotes in which are so dumb it makes fundismentalist look educated. I already talked about faith and what is was described in bible as loyality based on evidence has shown by Jesus. By the way I don't have worry but someone lying to me as I actually read books on this which you haven't done mostly on anything on Christianity." that the people telling you about it don't have an agenda, that something that was relevant over a millenia ago is still relevant today". Lol here comes the conspicaries already? Why do people talk about logic then later talk bring up everyone has agenda stuff like this discredits anything you previous said and contradicts what you practice/believe. Oh again using the fallacy of time in which because x was founded in x time then x is wrong is one of the illogical arguments there is. This argument is commonly used by people who don't know history and haven't studied it and think there smart making arguments from ignorance."spite of hundreds of doomsday rapture threats that never came true, that there's an afterlife.  ""  Where are you even  getting this from? People always pre-claim doomsday Christian or atheist and were does it say any date for a the end of times why are reaching for something that isn't there? Are you just trying convince yourself with this weak arguments that you defeated the Christians? Most of your points are against non-educated Christians and generalizations.

"Every religious argument is inherently faulty becuase it's based on assertions with no backing evidence.  you can believe anything you want, and you can even debate philosophies with ease, but once you start making assertions about the genesis of the world, our place in it, and the existence of beings and their supposed judgements, you need more proof than any religion can offer.  "

What assertions you just saying this in claim format and expecting the person to just agree with it with no questions. This isn't even coherent because it doesn't tell anyone what your responding to just seems your attacking air. And are you saying science doesn't use philosophy? Do even know what your talking about at this point have you even read a book on philosophy do you even know what your addressing?

"It can't be done, yet religion still gets to control the world.  I have a real issue with that.  And being critical of it and demanding it play by the same rules that anything else in the world has to play by is met with aggressive hostility mixed with the symphonic blubbering of zealouts unable to support their claims, collectively resorting to a base 'freedom of religion' clause.  "

What did you even do to show your right besides grouping people and attacking the uneducated/ easy targets? You haven't made on logical point and have to say to far it's been all incoherent and dodging the issue.

"I really wish I had my big list of different ways to debunk religion on me.  it would be fun to copy and paste the lengthy explanations as to why each and every pro-religion argument can be effectively debated and crushed with simple logic, historical proof, and above all else, science.  "

Ok I'm here bring it on crush my arguments with your "logic" and I hope you come with the good ones because far it's been pretty weak. Actually weak would be a understatement.

I seriously wouldn't be surprised if you just copy and paste some random site or use wiki in which someone else did and was shown quickly how that will not fly. So,please why not destroy the arguments that I mention and please stop attacking easy targets because of your lack of ability to take on the actually issues.

people should believe or not in whatever they want,but it is pretty simple.

If you take a look how complex the dna is_this could never happen by coincidence.And even if this happen by coincidence,this dna structure would't evolve and reproduce itself,because the structure would never know what it is and never know how or why to reproduce itself.As soon as the first life started it already had the code for reproduction.how could both things happen at the same time and why,and where does the urge came from to live and reproduce and the selforganizing and selfrecognizing knowledge to analyze the own structure and to built a code for reproduction,a code that is not just reproducing but recognizing what is good and not for improvement of its own structure and the ability to recognice mutations eliminate the bad and reproduce the good ones?
life would be the same ad a computer programm,with noone to code and start the programm nothing would ever happen.a primitive binary code would remain primitive for all time without being able to analize itself ,to improve itself,to reproduce even if it is a complex binary code nothing would happened because there would be no need for the programm.

Because he was:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."  –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."  –Adolf Hitler, 1922

 "But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord…  Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed.  Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men."  -Adolf Hitler, 1938.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.  We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, 1933

There are plenty others

You are correct, the Gervais quote is not meant to imply that atheists have never threatened those with religious beliefs.  I shouldn't have said "no need to feel threatened" as a blanket statement as if all atheists are peaceful and incapable of causing harm to others.

I'm related to Bill Nye, and I also love science. Heck I built my first Tesla Coil in 8th grade.

I like this from other forum post but I will call someone out when there wrong and don't know what there talking about.

"Thats why it is also named belief or faith."

In the bible in reference to faith it was loyality based on the evidence.

When Jesus told his followers have faith he always referenced his works  in which the followers have seen. Jesus was the number one person when it came to saying have faith on me because of the evidence and not based on me just making claims.

"But most religions can in their core not be proved or disproved."

Here you give a very native response in not responding to our factors such as history or creditablity based on sources. Your respond is one of someone who clearly didn't read anything and just thinks combining random religions makes all religion false. 

""All I want is to stop the exaggerated hate against atheism and to counter some strange arguments, that seem to prove religions"

Here you sneakly try to run away from the arguments by discrediting them without addressing them in which case your point/sneak in is nothing but an avoiding the argument based on lack of ability to do so. This is called passive atheistism in which you have no ability to attack the arguments so you just makes claims like this to avoid the problem of answering them. Just saying they hold no ground doesn't mean its true its just a fallacy.