And apparently you won’t stop spewing your shameless bigotry either. Doesn’t change the fact you’re the real asshole here.

It absolutely can work both ways, because as I explained that is the natural and logical progression of religion and any ideas for that matter. A person creates a recipe, they write it down on a book to preserve the experience and knowledge. That person dies, but thousands of years later their written recipe is still…

Wrong again, dumbass. I didn’t say religions are not based on a text, I said the text doesn’t come first. You continually fail to comprehend simply stated words.

Can I please hear from a reasonable person who is not a politician, just why we must insist guns are the problem and also insist radical Islamic terrorism is not the problem?

That’s completely unrelated. Those people are irresponsible and should be charged to the fullest extent of the law. What they are doing is illegal and is not supported by the 2nd Amendment.

No, you’re just a complete fucking idiot. I am truly amazed you failed to comprehend what were quite simple words.

There really is no other RPG that quite captivated me like NWN. Oblivion was more visually immersive, but NWN made me feel like I was contextually inside a fantasy world and could make my own choices that had impacts.

It’s quite simple, you’re either being willfully ignorant or just dumb. A religion is formed, with beliefs, doctrines, and a theological premise, then the originators of the religion write down their beliefs and theological premise so it can be historically recorded. Because historical documentation is how we remember…

I hope you realize the redundancy of your statement. Christianity also existed before the Bible did. It’s still based on the Bible. Islam also existed before the Koran was finished. When one creates a religion, their doctrines and premise has to be recorded. It’s not just magically written by the universe. Judaism…

Religious texts are open to interpretation in the same sense that you can call a cow’s tail a leg. They weren’t written as abstract texts, they can be metaphorical in some sections but nevertheless have specific context and meaning to their teachings. Sometimes the context is hazy, and therefore we have little to go…

And religions are based on their religious book. Which does not line up with he author’s personal beliefs, hence it makes no sense for her to be a part of that religion. Nor does it make sense for her to twist its words so that she can sleep at night calling herself a Muslim.

I’m not being close-minded, I’m simply not accepting your incorrect redefining of terms. Words have meaning, concepts matter. “Finding moral value” in a religious text is not equal to accepting the text as true. We’ve both established all this time that atheists can pick out secular moral values of a religious text…

No, you’re being an asshole, fuck you. I see another weak-minded person who apparently has no rational response to my opinion other than to tell me to stop talking.

And here is where you’ve revealed your misconception.

I’m not making anything complex. In fact as I have repeatedly explained, what you regard as two different entities is in fact the same entity of an atheist. It’s that simple, yet for some reason you don’t want to acknowledge that.

You have no idea what intolerance means. I don’t have to like someone’s beliefs, nor do I have to refrain from criticizing said beliefs or from pointing out the idiocy of said beliefs. Demanding someone to stop holding said beliefs is intolerance. And...did I do that?

I’m telling nobody what to do. You are redefining the concept of what “telling someone what to do” means. I gave an opinion, I think it’s stupid for a gay woman do be a Muslim, but I did not tell her to stop being a Muslim. She’s free to make her own decisions, however foolish. Pointing out the idiocy of one’s beliefs…

You’re the asshole. I didn’t tell anyone what they can and cannot do, I simply stated why I think this woman’s irrational to be a lesbian Muslim.

That’s not what I said. I’m saying I don’t care if an atheist follows the moral lessons of a religious text if they are rejecting it’s theological premise and deity. To me that’s the same as rejecting a religious text altogether.

I do get it, I just don’t regard that as anything distinct from the simple label “atheism.”