the good book reaffirms what my heart already feels..I dont see a reason in the world to 'ditch' it anymore than most americans would 'ditch' the constitution and just live life by their 'clean thoughts'

Proliferation-"The continuous development of cells in tissue formation; cell formation".What this has to do with anything I have no idea.

Genocide-Normally produced by moraless Atheist.Nearly always stopped by Christian nations.


the Holocaust, caused by atheists,resulted 6 million deaths

respectively,whereas the Spanish Inquisition resulted in 3,230 deaths in three and a half centuries. And then,in the single year of 1936,Spanish atheists murdered 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy -- "more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition."

Summing up,52 atheist rulers in the 20th century, from 1917 to 2007, were responsible for a body count of around 148 million dead.

Poverty-Christian churches all over the United states and the world feed the hungry.The Red cross was started as a Christian origination.

I could not find a single non-profit organization formed by atheists that feed to poor or to help those in need.

In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Islamic Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Peace Prize.


One day the Christians will be gone and you will be left with this.

Finally! a man who speaks the truths.

I would like to come over to your house and shake your right arm, for you are not afraid to speak the truth. The truth that are supported by hard facts. The problem is, your hard facts are wrong, but nevertheless.

Regarding genocides not committed by Christians, this is a complete falshood. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centruries European Christians killed almost 90 percent of the inhabitants of the entire South American continent. The death toll amounted in absolute numbers to less than those of the Great Leap, but to more than those of the Jewish Holocaust. Roughly 10 million South and Central Americans were killed, murdered, slaughtered by Christians, and exactly for the reason that the Native Americans were not Christians. Where was the Red Cross then.

Translated to modern terms, if 90 percent of all South Americans were killed today, that would mean over 300,000,000 million lives. Bit bigger than the 148 million, no? Not even counting that your 148 million murders were mostly committed by Christians.

Regarding the genocide of the Holocaust: It is NOT true that the perpetrators of that killing spree were atheists. No, they were very believing, serious, God-fearing, devout, some even fervent Christians. The entire murder machine was designed by Christians, from collection of people, to transportating them to the death camps, to the design of the showers, to the design of crowd control so panic and madness would not destroy or even just hold up the operations. Logistics, supply lines, psychology, and biochemistry was all invovled, and all were made possible, operational, and operated, by Christians.

Your saying that the Holocaust was not made by Christians is a very understandable and desparate try, identical to that of any group in the world for their members, to disengage Chistians and Christianity from their involvement in the Holocaust. The Holocaust, and partaking in it, is not a hot way to gain popularity. Go figure, man.

It is true that the Holocaust employed no Americans, but nevertheless it was made possible and it was executed by Christians. Hell, man, in those days there were only a handful of non-religious atheists, and almost all of Europe was Christian, everyone was a practicing, believing, God-fearing Christian. Saying that it was not that way, is the statement of a man who desparately tries to change and re-write history for the sake of proving his own weak and ridiculous point.

Christians, by and large, never shied away from genocide -- look at Australia, look at the conquest of Europe by early Christianity when they made all of Europe believe in Christ.

Christians, by-and-large, are not too queasy to spill the blood of many other Christians, either. In the 2000 year old history of Christian Europe more people were killed by fellow Christians at war with each other than by Vikings, by Huns, by Mongols, by disease, by the Black Plague, by the Moors, by the Turks -- indeed, if you add up the headcount of the dead, Christians killed ten times as many Christians than all of the above mentioned other killers. Don't make saints of entire Christianity, of every Christian, when only about a thousand or so, in that order of magnitude anyway, saints have ever lived among us.

Erm... the poverty question. It is true, that non-profit firms in America turn billions over to fight poverty; but the for-profit non-Christian firms in America and all over the rest of the world turn over a hundred times more than that. I don't know how you can ignore that, and how you can claim victory for fighting poverty on the side of non-profit evangelical organizations.

Your arguments are strong and convincing... but your premises are weak, furthermore, they are false, no more than fantasy.

I don't buy what you are trying to prove, and I hope you can see the truth that you have many-many erring in your ways of thinking.

I would like to reiterate this:


VERY IMPORTANT: It is not against Christianity I fight. I don't have a problem with Christians and Christianity as such at all. In fact, I do strongly beleive that church-going people are easier to get along with, they are generally better behaved, commit less crime, and they don't even cheat on their taxes if they are true believers (since all authority derives from God.)

I have a problem, however, when someone defends their ilk with COMPLETELY false claims, not lies, but false claims. Lies are usually intentional, and I believe, Thomas, that you originally believed the things you said were true. But you, like every man, woman and child, regardless of being Christian or otherwise, must NOT argue with points that are not true. If you argue with points that are not true, you only put your side at a disadvantage, once someone comes along and shows everybody how untrue the points you made were.

Again, it's not a fight; all people should co-exist, regardless of relgion. But I, for one, do not condone making claims by anyone when those claims are made with false support and supported by completely false evidence.

That's all.

That's a bit dicey, to equate and propose to keep all crowd control social devices, and to threaten to ditch all if one is ditched.

I say this because the constitution is relatively modern, it has been designed to crowd control the population in ways that are appropriate for our ages. Most religions teach crowd control with features that are archaic, so much so that they are useless.

Furthermore, the designers of modern crowd controls, such as the Founding Fathers, have realized, probably by looking at the scriptures, that the present conditions are apt to change over time too. So -- here's their genius kicking in, placing the Constitution in a quantum leap superior position over the scriptures -- the Founding Fathers made the constitution so that it allows changes to be made to itself. Amendments.

Who can amend the Bible? Nobody. So it is cast in stone, and try to use a cast stone mill in a modern paper mill or even wheat mill. It will be heavy, bulky, it won't fit the surrounding machinery, and it will be completely useless eventually for the purposes of production.

Religions fill a multitude of purposes in societies' lives and in the lives of individuals. The sad truth is that individuals don't need religion that much at all any more, since other human endeavours took over an overwhelming amount and scope of fhe functions of religions. The remaining truly useful features of religions are infinitesimal for an individual, so we mostly have decided to discard it in industrial societies.

But with the advent of changeable crowd control, religions lost a huge are of their usefulness.

So no, discarding a religion is not at all the same as discarding the Constitution. Discardig religions would not disrupt the lives of an overwhelming majority of Americans, but discarding the Constitution would mean destroying America.

That's a bit dicey, to equate and propose to keep all crowd control social devices, and to threaten to ditch all if one is ditched.

I say this because the constitution is relatively modern, it has been designed to crowd control the population in ways that are appropriate for our ages. Most religions teach crowd control with features that are archaic, so much so that they are useless.

Furthermore, the designers of modern crowd controls, such as the Founding Fathers, have realized, probably by looking at the scriptures, that the present conditions are apt to change over time too. So -- here's their genius kicking in, placing the Constitution in a quantum leap superior position over the scriptures -- the Founding Fathers made the constitution so that it allows changes to be made to itself. Amendments.

Who can amend the Bible? Nobody. So it is cast in stone, and try to use a cast stone mill in a modern paper mill or even wheat mill. It will be heavy, bulky, it won't fit the surrounding machinery, and it will be completely useless eventually for the purposes of production.

Religions fill a multitude of purposes in societies' lives and in the lives of individuals. The sad truth is that individuals don't need religion that much at all any more, since other human endeavours took over an overwhelming amount and scope of fhe functions of religions. The remaining truly useful features of religions are infinitesimal for an individual, so we mostly have decided to discard it in industrial societies.

But with the advent of changeable crowd control, religions lost a huge are of their usefulness.

So no, discarding a religion is not at all the same as discarding the Constitution. Discardig religions would not disrupt the lives of an overwhelming majority of Americans, but discarding the Constitution would mean destroying America.

The population of North America prior to the first sustained European contact in 1492 CE is a matter of active debate. Various estimates of the pre-contact Native population of the continental U.S. and Canada range from 1.8 to over 12 million. 4 Over the next four centuries, their numbers were reduced to about 237,000 as Natives were almost wiped out. Author Carmen Bernand estimates that the Native population of what is now Mexico was reduced from 30 million to only 3 million over four decades. 13 Peter Montague estimates that Europeans once ruled over 100 million Natives throughout the Americas.

European extermination of Natives started with Christopher Columbus' arrival in San Salvador in 1492. Native population dropped dramatically over the next few decades. Some were directly murdered by Europeans. Others died indirectly as a result of contact with introduced diseases for which they had no resistance -- mainly smallpox, influenza, and measles.

Later European Christian invaders systematically murdered additional Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. They used warfare, death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, destruction of their main food supply -- the Buffalo -- and poisoning. Some Europeans actually shot at Indians for target practice. 14

Oppression continued into the 20th century, through actions by governments and religious organizations which systematically destroyed Native culture and religious heritage. One present-day byproduct of this oppression is suicide. Today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide rate of any identifiable population group in the world. Native North Americans are not far behind.

The genocide against American Natives was one of the most massive, and longest lasting genocidal campaigns in human history. It started, like all genocides, with the oppressor treating the victims as sub-humans. It continued until almost all Natives were wiped of the face of the earth, along with much of their language, culture and religion. http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm

Finally! a man who speaks the truths.

I would like to come over to your house and shake your right arm, for you are not afraid to speak the truth. The truth that are supported by hard facts. The problem is, your hard facts are wrong, but nevertheless.

Regarding genocides not committed by Christians, this is a complete falshood. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centruries European Christians killed almost 90 percent of the inhabitants of the entire South American continent. The death toll amounted in absolute numbers to less than those of the Great Leap, but to more than those of the Jewish Holocaust. Roughly 10 million South and Central Americans were killed, murdered, slaughtered by Christians, and exactly for the reason that the Native Americans were not Christians. Where was the Red Cross then.

Translated to modern terms, if 90 percent of all South Americans were killed today, that would mean over 300,000,000 million lives. Bit bigger than the 148 million, no? Not even counting that your 148 million murders were mostly committed by Christians.

Regarding the genocide of the Holocaust: It is NOT true that the perpetrators of that killing spree were atheists. No, they were very believing, serious, God-fearing, devout, some even fervent Christians. The entire murder machine was designed by Christians, from collection of people, to transportating them to the death camps, to the design of the showers, to the design of crowd control so panic and madness would not destroy or even just hold up the operations. Logistics, supply lines, psychology, and biochemistry was all invovled, and all were made possible, operational, and operated, by Christians.

Your saying that the Holocaust was not made by Christians is a very understandable and desparate try, identical to that of any group in the world for their members, to disengage Chistians and Christianity from their involvement in the Holocaust. Partaking in the Holocaust in a role of furthering and helping it and making it happen, is not the hottest way to gain popularity in the world these days.

It is true that the Holocaust employed no Americans, and that half of the death- and forced labour camps survivors were freed by Americans, but nevertheless it was origianlly made possible and it was executed by Christians. Hell, man, in those days there were only a handful of non-religious atheists, and almost all of Europe was Christian, everyone was a practicing, believing, God-fearing Christian. Saying that it was not that way, is the statement of a man who desparately tries to change and re-write history for the sake of proving his own weak and ridiculous point.

Christians, by and large, never shied away from genocide -- look at Australia, look at the conquest of Europe by early Christianity when they made all of Europe believe in Christ.

Christians, by-and-large, are not too queasy to spill the blood of many other Christians, either. In the 2000 year old history of Christian Europe more people were killed by fellow Christians at war with each other than by Vikings, by Huns, by Mongols, by disease, by the Black Plague, by the Moors, by the Turks -- indeed, if you add up the headcount of the dead, Christians killed ten times more Christians than all of the above mentioned other killers. Don't make saints of entire Christianity, of every Christian, when only about a thousand or so, in that order of magnitude anyway, saints have ever lived among us.

Erm... the poverty question. It is true, that non-profit firms in America turn billions over to fight poverty; but the for-profit non-Christian firms in America and all over the rest of the world turn over a hundred times more than that. I don't know how you can ignore that, and how you can claim victory for fighting poverty on the side of non-profit evangelical organizations.

Your arguments are strong and convincing... but your premises are weak, furthermore, they are false, no more than fantasy.

I don't buy what you are trying to prove, and all I hope and pray for is that you can see the truth that you have many-many erring in your ways of thinking.

VERY IMPORTANT: It is not against Christianity I fight. I don't have a problem with Christians and Christianity as such. In fact, I do strongly beleive that church-going people are easier to get along with, they are generally better behaved, commit less crime, and they don't even cheat on their taxes if they are true believers (since all authority derives from God.)

I have a problem, however, when someone defends their ilk with COMPLETELY false claims, not lies, but false claims. Lies are usually intentional, and I believe, Thomas, that you originally believed the things you said were true. But you, like every man, woman and child, regardless of being Christian or otherwise, must NOT argue with points that are not true. If you argue with points that are not true, you only put your side at a disadvantage, once someone comes along and shows everybody how untrue the points you made were.

Again, it's not a fight; all people should co-exist, regardless of relgion. But I, for one, do not condone making claims by anyone when those claims are made with false support and completely false evidence.

That's all.

I am an atheist and contribute to charities and help people. I don't do it in the name of god though, I do it because I am human and living.

Religion doesn't make one more moral, considerate, effective, kind, correct, etc.... As a matter of fact religion taken too seriously actually terrorizes humans. It makes humans ugly and arrogant. Self righteous and hypocritical. Tyrannical and dictatorial.

Religion actually brings out the worst in humans for the most part. It promotes passive aggressive behavior. It promotes hypocrisy. It promotes superiority.

I am speaking of the major religions here of course.

Most atheists I have known were more moral than the religious I have known. Because atheist really truly do believe in self responsibility. They do not have invisible entities to blame for what they do and how they act.

Excellent point. Somebody finally found the words that describe my feelings to a tee.

Thank you.

Thomas, you make no sense whatsoever. You become literal when you so desire, you become a boneheaded idiot when you so desire, and above all you are full of hate, these are my opinion.

1. Try to google "Holocaust was done by atheists" or "no Christian ever got the Holocaust bug". See how many hits you get.

2. If you think Hitler single-handedly made 60 million soldiers and civilians die in the second world war, then yes, you have the right to think that atheists alone are the sole cause of the Holocaust, the invasion of Iraq, the genocide in South America by Cortez et al. In my opinion you are a flaming idiot, and you can't stand anyone who opposes your views. I am different, because if someone opposes my views and convinces me with logic and facts, I easily adapt and change my views as needed. But you twist words, you play dumb, you play "statistics", you deny the truth, you do anything, to save yourself from having to say "I was wrong".

3. Your personal attacks are well noted -- I'll never talk to you again, whether provoked or not. It's not about personal egos, but I am convinced now that that's the only tool you can use, beside falsifying facts, ignoring true facts and downplaying them by pretending to have looked for them in earnest, whereas you just made a mockery of research. I don't for one moment believe that you never heard of Cortez, Pizzaro, and the other conquistadors. You only choose to downplay that, by publically declaring that you believe it never happend, because at the moment it serves your purpose to protect your point in the argument.

4. You know what? In my opinion you are a despicable, ugly-minded, hateful little cockroach-type person. It is not a fact, it is only my opinion. But I guess you are entitled to have your opinions (Christians never took part in the Holocaust; there was no genocide in South America within years of Columbus' discovery of the new lands; Christianity has a different type of accounting system and a superior one to everyone else's; history, as it is written, is wrong, because it does not always support your picture-perfect view of Christians and Christianity; it is perfectly acceptable to play dumb when it's for the advantage of your argument) and, conversely, therefore I am entitled to mine (you are a flaming idiot; an unreasonable person; a good-for-nothing thinker; a values-shifted shiftling middler; an emotional and spiritual embezzler; a blinded and self-aggrandizing flaming idiot.)

5. Go and google "a values-shifted shiftling middler" and report what you found.

6. While you're at it, ask your son in grade three to please explain to you the difference in meaning between "crowd control", "population control" and "birth control".

7. "Relatively" is a long word, but it is a valuable one, rather useful at times, so I suggest you familiarize yourself with it: its spelling, its meaning, its pronunciation. Modern as a thing, trend or concept not older than five years? I guess you are a modernt thinker then, because in my opinion you have the emotional and mental maturity of a five-year-old.

8. I apologize to the by-standers of this conversation, for my perhaps stornger and more forceful style than what is usual and customary by me, but this Thomas guy really rubbed me the wrong way. Thomas, go look up "wrong way". Or if that's too complicated, just look up "wrong". Oh, what the hell, don't bother... just look in a mirror.