Its teachings are of interest only to its followers, but if we are to judge a religion (and, we are), we need to see just what it makes people do. The Holy Text may sound lovely, but turn people into psychopaths, or vice-versa.

It is not fact, it is quite clearly false, and I'd like to request some supporting evidence if you wish for it to remain.

Juxtaposed to your conjecture, whether abortion is equivalent to killing a person or not is a fact-based debate. Under the definition of a human being, abortion is not killing one.

Obviously there would be the same restrictions as are on alcohol. No driving, operating heavy machinery or working while high.

As an occasional recreational user, I can confirm that it makes me highly productive, and very creative. Granted, given a laborious task I would struggle, but when creativity is key, such as writing a novel or composing music, Marijuana is a brilliant light in the gloom.

Well, agnosticism is really sitting on the fence. If you don't know anything about either side of the fence, that would make you an atheist, wouldn't it? I get your point, though.

Well, in the eyes of reality, you were born an atheist just like everyone else. You weren't undecided, you were atheist.

What do you mean by "the movement"?

No, you were not undecided, you were atheistic.

You display a basic misunderstanding of the term "atheist". It does not mean that you are sure, merely that you do not follow any set religion.

You were born atheist, as was every human being since theism has existed.

To be fair, atheists are a fairly new group

Though it is no major crime, I feel obliged to inform you that this is incorrect - every child is born atheist, and has been since there have been humans. In fact, atheism has been around since the moment theism bloomed into the picture.

What you meant to say was - "Atheists have only recently been able to profess their lack of faith without being murdered for it."

Again, religion did not and has not caused wars.

This is a point to which you cling mostly dearly, but it is of no worth - religion can only exist in human minds, which are fallible, so saying that the problems are caused in human minds is obvious, but, where else can religion exist?

Religion has caused wars. Furthermore, Sharia law does in fact permit the killing of various infidel groups, and thus religion in itself causes war. The rest of the time, yes, the humans themselves err in the name of religion, but can it not be said that without religion, these wars would never have happened?

I care not for why, but for what shall we do to end this problem. A solution can be found in the banishment of religion - and for this, I am.

I've seen Gimp being used, apparently that's the best alternative. The name is amusingly suspect, but I assure you it's an entirely legitimate program for image editing... nothing else.

I don't think there is a difference. That's the same thing as giving a mental hospital full of psychopaths an assault rifle, and then saying;

"It's not the guns that are the problem."

I'd say that taking the guns away would solve the problem, and this analogy translates across to religion. If it weren't here, there wouldn't be any more religious war (obviously).

"Religion has not caused wars!"

It's odd that you'd tell me to get my fundamentals correct, after saying that yourself.

What about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and the Crusades? The Holocaust? These are but a few I could name off of the top of my head. Every single one of those was a war, or a one-sided conflict on purely religious reasons, or, would not have occurred without religion.

People have caused wars!

It's hard to see a war starting without any people involved.

Indifference has caused wars!

I am not sure how that's possible. War is a struggle, brought about by differences. How many wars were started because, on a particular issue, a political leader said; "On that subject, my country isn't terribly bothered. TO ARMS, MEN!"

Religion has caused war in the past, most of it, in fact.

Atheists have yet to start a war with atheists because of atheism -> if Atheism could become a majority, religious wars wouldn't exist.

If a friend invited me to their wedding, I'd attend unless I couldn't. I see no reason for there to be a distinction between the sexuality of those being married - they would be my friends, that's the only relevant factor.

Nope. Therefore, I am a fish, definitely a fish, and no other explanation is valid. < Theist logic.

Atheism cannot be disproven. It's a lack of belief, not a statement of different belief. Get your definitions right.

Giving someone condoms does not mean that they must use them.

What it means is - they get free condoms.

Disestablishmentarianism is a belief we both hold.

Please specify, which right exactly would be infringed upon?

Fear not, for the soothing light of counsel has come. In your predicament, this is what you should do;

1) Learn to read and spell correctly.

2) Stop trolling this site, where people want intelligent debates.

3) Find something more productive to do with your time.

4) If all of the above fail, castrate yourself (to prevent pollution of the gene pool) and play with traffic.

Profuse apologies, I didn't realise that I had argued against it, my mistake. I'm absolutely pro-legalisation.

ChuckHades answered this side of the argument perfectly. Up-vote and Kudos to you, Sir.

Society is the wall that holds back social Darwinism, I'm currently writing a novel with that as a theme. I wish.

Ah, Quantum Entanglement. It is proven, and it is a favourite concept of mine.

It is not an underlying force or 'energy', but rather a law that guarantees symmetry. This no sane person could refute, and I don't.

However, the idea that human beings' thoughts affect each other is ludicrous. It's not impossible, but I find it extremely improbable, to such an extent that I dismiss it.