?

For example, the Black Lives Matter protesters that were marching down the streets chanting "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" or the Feminist who likes to tweet about how we need to kill all men.

Is it morally acceptable to physically assault them because they said some exceptionally hateful things, even if they never act upon those words?

What about people who never said those things themselves, but have shown their support saying that it is exactly the kind of thing their movement needs. Are we allowed to attack them because they support hateful bigots, because doesn't agreeing with hateful bigots make you one too?

I have noticed that every so often when I go to my Saved Searches it tells me "We did not find results for Atheism." Yet if I go scroll through the categories manually I can find that there are still questions that exist.

So does that mean a disgruntled hyper-religious employee periodically alters the search code in order to prevent people from locating topics that he finds objectionable?

This year's primary elections are shifting from the usual trend of having white Christian men running for office.

Bernie Sanders is a self-described "Secular Jew" and when asked about whether or not he believes in a god has responded that he believes in people. He has the opportunity to be the first modern President who doesn't openly believe in any deities (though not the first overall as many of the Founding Fathers were Deists).

Donald Trump is a self-described Dutch-Reform Presbyterian but recently was called out by the Pope who said he is not Christian. However there are fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who don't believe that Catholics (and as such the Pope) are really Christians, so in America that endorsement may actually work in his favour.

These terms are often tossed around in arguments and descriptions, and it appears that many people either are unaware of the actual meaning of the word or have their own particular interpretation of it, so I wanted to see how others define them.

Agnosticism

Antitheism

Atheism

Deism

Dystheism

Freethought

Gnosticism

Humanism

Ignosticism

Misotheism

Nontheism

Pandeism

Pantheism

Spiritualism

Theism

If it is a term you have never heard of, then by all means skip it.

The more skeptical a person is the less likely they are to believe in unproven religious claims, but why do some people turn a blind eye to their own beliefs and accept it on faith alone?

In re-watching the X-Files it strikes me as odd the way the characters are portrayed.

Mulder is an atheist but willing to believe any story he hears about aliens, paranormal activities, and government conspiracies.

Scully on the other hand is a scientist and medical doctor who always claims there must be reasonable explanations for this supposed phenomena. Yet despite requiring evidence to verify all these other supernatural events she is a devout Christian.

Mulder is quick to ridicule Scully for her faith, but is willing to believe in all sorts of nonsense on his own with little to no evidence (granted, in their universe there really is evidence to prove these supernatural claims). Conversely Scully often treats Mulder as if he were crazy for believing in aliens and such (despite that as far as the reality of the show is concerned they have actually been shown evidence), yet more than willing to accept her own beliefs on faith.

1) "I believe there is a god."

2) "I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force."

3) "I don't believe there is any sort of god, spirit, or life force."

The books say there was nothing, then *POOF* there is suddenly a universe. There was no Earth and no sun, but *POOF* they appeared out of nothing too. And we are to believe that life just magically appeared out of mud and dust?

Atheists and Christians are always arguing about the origin of life and the origin of the universe. But it doesn't make sense to believe that something can come from nothing, so why do they insist on arguing about it?

People used these tales from the bible to justify the slave trade. They claimed the mark was dark skin and that Ham's descendants that were cursed to be slaves were the ancestors of Africans.

However, despite how whitewashed the bible has become under European influence we know that the peoples of the Middle East and Africa where these tales are set are already quite darkly complected.

So if the Mark of Cain was indeed meant to be a visible sign of skin colour wouldn't it make more sense if the Caucasians were marked by their light skin? Perhaps Europeans are the ones who were cursed.

Because the public sphere has hijacked and misused the term "theory" as if it means nothing more that a guess we have ended up with crazy people telling us things like evolution or gravity are "just a theory."

So should we adjust to the modern lexicon and find a new way to refer to scientific theories that have withstood the test of time and are supported by a preponderance of the evidence?

Are you a Theist/Deist that believes in some form of supernatural power or are you a Nontheist who does not believe in any supernatural powers?

How do you identify yourself? (ex. Theist may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc... and Nontheist may be Atheist, Agnostic, etc...)

Antitheists: What is your best evidence to prove that no gods exist?