Hostile Atheist.

nozzferrahhtoo

Thank you for the apology, that is very handsome of you and I appreciate it.

I would never harrass anyone into debate. If they don’t want to talk then that’s fine.

It is the people who WILL talk but with NOTHING to say that I can not abide. They hide their lack of anything to say behind lies, misrepresentations and making stuff up about you. “You wrong because…. Well because you seem so _hostile_”.

I appreciate your attempt to change what you are saying but the line below still is not even close to the position I hold on this:

"I have strong faith and don't have to explain myself to you so don't be so hostile" you'd describe them as "weak minded".

This really is still not what I said. At this point I am not sure how to clarify what I AM saying any further. Maybe you can help me and try and identify just where I am not coming across clearly.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I appreciate your attempt to change what you are saying but the line below still is not even close to the position I hold on this:



This really is still not what I said. At this point I am not sure how to clarify what I AM saying any further. Maybe you can help me and try and identify just where I am not coming across clearly.

A common reaction by the weak minded in ANY realm of discourse is to call the vocal person “Hostile”.

To me, when I hear this, I actually hear them saying “I have no good arguments to counter your position so instead I will attempt, quite badly as it happens, to attack your reasons for saying it”.

In essence I have NO time for this and I have no reason to expect I ever will.

It really is just a case of me misinterpreting the above quote. I jumped the gun and assumed what I wanted you to say. I'm not religious, it was just a case of the defender of the little guy that's within me jumping to conclusions!

nozzferrahhtoo

Fair enough. Thank you. I hope neither of us make the mistake again… you for interpreting it wrong and me for not wording my rants well enough so that I allow such mis interpretations to occur.

Here’s to us BOTH doing better next time.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Further, I think this quote is relevant, its from the "militant atheist" thread, but I've seen it elsewhere also:

Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics.
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.
Militant atheists write books.

Number of people killed by anti-abortion protestors? 7
Number of people killed by Muslims flying planes into buildings? 2,974
Number of Christians killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution for refusing to convert to atheism? 400,000

Having enough of a brass neck to post the above quote about militant atheists writing books? Priceless.

sink

PDN wrote: »

Number of people killed by anti-abortion protestors? 7
Number of people killed by Muslims flying planes into buildings? 2,974
Number of Christians killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution for refusing to convert to atheism? 400,000

Having enough of a brass neck to post the above quote about militant atheists writing books? Priceless.

If your really want to play the historical numbers game don't forget to factor in the crusades and inquisitions. But lest we not forget that the biggest mass murderer of all time has to be nature (aka god in some circles).

Anyway most wouldn't have a problem with Mao being described as 'militant', but we do have a problem when the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are described as 'militant'. You're basically building a straw man.

PDN

sink wrote: »

If your really want to play the historical numbers game don't forget to factor in the crusades and inquisitions. But lest we not forget that the biggest mass murderer of all time has to be nature (aka god in some circles).

Anyway most wouldn't have a problem with Mao being described as 'militant', but we do have a problem when the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are described as 'militant'. You're basically building a straw man.

I've never failed to factor in the crusades & the inquisitions. I've always said that atrocities have been committed by believers and unbelievers alike. So don't pretend that it's me who's making out one side to be whiter than white.

And I'm not building a straw man, I'm pointing out the fundamental dishonesty of that quote which itself creates a strawman. A 'militant Christian' to compare with Hitchens or Dawkins would be some Christian author or apologist such as CS Lewis, or an evangelist like Billy Graham.

Anyway, sorry to encroach on your smugfest. I'll withdraw and you can go back to telling each other how violent Christians are and how atheists are all gentle writers of books.

lostexpectation

Christopher Hitchens is paid bull****ter what can you do.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Number of Christians killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution for refusing to convert to atheism? 400,000

Number of christians here who, for the umpteenth time, can't see the difference between political and religious loyalties: 1

sink

PDN wrote: »

I've never failed to factor in the crusades & the inquisitions. I've always said that atrocities have been committed by believers and unbelievers alike. So don't pretend that it's me who's making out one side to be whiter than white.

You dragged the point of the post off it's intended meaning.

PDN wrote: »

And I'm not building a straw man, I'm pointing out the fundamental dishonesty of that quote which itself creates a strawman. A 'militant Christian' to compare with Hitchens or Dawkins would be some Christian author or apologist such as CS Lewis, or an evangelist like Billy Graham.

You are correct that CS Lewis and Billy Graham are comparable but I don't recall them ever being described as 'militant'. That term is generally reserved for terrorists or other users of violence and disruption when denoting the religious. However throughout the media it is common to find the same term applied to atheists who campaign and write books when the Christian equivalent would rarely be described as militant.

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, sorry to encroach on your smugfest. I'll withdraw and you can go back to telling each other how violent Christians are and how atheists are all gentle writers of books.

I'm not being smug I'm just pointing out a common hypocrisy.

Phototoxin

Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics.
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.
Militant atheists write books.

I'm agnostic/atheist and I would happily bomb an abortion clinic (assuming no one was inside) if I thought it would save lives. I don't see how sweeping generalisations of religions help.

That said I see the point of 'militant' atheiests being peaceful in their 'evangilisation' which in itself is a good thing. Also I like reading

OK-Cancel-Apply

Atheism is becoming more popular, and I think it's only a matter of time before some idiot detonates a bomb or something in the 'name of atheism'. But this is possible with anything where you can say, "I am an X". I never like to say 'I am an atheist' - I leave it up to religious people to label me. I do make my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) clear though. If someone ASKS me whether I'm an atheist or not, I might say, "I suppose so..."

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Number of christians here who, for the umpteenth time, can't see the difference between political and religious loyalties: 1

If you think I'm doing something for the umpteenth time then humour me by clarifying how this distinction works.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. If a bunch of atheists kill Christians for refusing to convert to atheism, but do it as part of a political movement (even a political movement that claims to be atheistic) then it is unfair to refer to the killings as the acts of militant atheists. Is that your position? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

sink

PDN wrote: »

If you think I'm doing something for the umpteenth time then humour me by clarifying how this distinction works.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. If a bunch of atheists kill Christians for refusing to convert to atheism, but do it as part of a political movement (even a political movement that claims to be atheistic) then it is unfair to refer to the killings as the acts of militant atheists. Is that your position? Or am I misrepresenting your view?

Just to be clear, I do agree with you on this point. Mao definitely carried out mass killings of religious believers precisely because they would not give up their faith and can justly be described as a militant atheist.

chris.henshaw

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Atheism is becoming more popular, and I think it's only a matter of time before some idiot detonates a bomb or something in the 'name of atheism'. But this is possible with anything where you can say, "I am an X". I never like to say 'I am an atheist' - I leave it up to religious people to label me. I do make my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) clear though. If someone ASKS me whether I'm an atheist or not, I might say, "I suppose so..."

One cannot reason with the irrational. People have and will kill for all sorts of reasons. Someone likely will kill in the future for the sake of non-belief just as believers have killed for their belief. Politically, there have been secular countries that have been tyrannical and some that have been free. Both have bombed other nations. Hitchens calling himself a Hostile Atheist means nothing, unless he decides to strap C4 to his chest and run into a church. Non-belief should not have anything to do with irrationality like that.

PDN

sink wrote: »

You dragged the point of the post off it's intended meaning.

No, Goduznt Xzst's quote did that. You can't allow one person to post dishonest inflammatory crap and then complain that someone else is going off topic when they respond.

I'm just pointing out a common hypocrisy.

Me too.


For what it's worth, I think that applying the label 'militant' to Dawkins and Hitchens is a bit OTT. I would see Dawkins as no more militant than CS Lewis, and Hitchens as no more militant than Jerry Falwell.

My objection was solely to that one particular quote.

sink

PDN wrote: »

My objection was solely to that one particular quote.

Then I think you misunderstood the point of the quote.

Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics. (i.e. Christians who bomb abortion clinics are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.(i.e. Muslims who fly planes into buildings are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
Militant atheists write books.(i.e. Authors of books promoting atheism are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If you think I'm doing something for the umpteenth time then humour me by clarifying how this distinction works.

No problem. Briefly rephrasing a response to a similar post of yours a few weeks back:

me wrote:

As you're aware, China is a one-party state. It does not tolerate underground mass-movements, such as non-state-controlled christian churches, Falun Gong movements and so on, because such movements have a habit of rising up and consuming the administrations that ignore them. The Chinese Communist party is well-informed of world history and clearly recalls how it acquired power within China itself, political power it has no intention of losing.

Distasteful and all as your friend's persecution is, it's not done on account of the state's atheism, but on account of his own refusal to provide what the state to demand from him -- his undivided loyalty.

I trust this clears it up?

.

sink

robindch wrote: »

No problem. Briefly rephrasing a response to a similar post of yours a few weeks back:I trust this clears it up?

.

Just to point out, if there was a similar political movement which had Chistianity at it's core somewhat like a very extreme version of neo-conservatism. Which believed that loyalty to the state could only be guaranteed if you are Christian, and went about executing non-Christians for political aims, I don't think you would think twice before labelling it as religiously motivated. In fact the medieval crusades were driven more by political ambitions rather than religion.

Whether atrocities past, present or future can be attributed to atheism has no bearing on the fact that there is no god, or even that atheism is amoral. It is a pointless argument and one that is very hard to defend.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

No problem. Briefly rephrasing a response to a similar post of yours a few weeks back:I trust this clears it up?

.

No, actually it doesn't.

You are accusing me of failing to see the difference between religious and political loyalties because I equate three kinds of actions.
a) The deaths caused by bombing abortion clincs were the actions of professing Christians who belonged to, and were motivated by, white supremacist political organisations which claim to be Christian.
b) The deaths on 11th Sept 2001 were caused by professing Muslims who were members of, and motivated by, Al Quaeda - a political organisation that claims to be Muslim.
c) The deaths of Christians during the Cultural revolution were caused by professing atheists who were members of, and motivated by, the Chinese Communist Party - a political organisation that claims to be atheist.

Why do you ignore the political component of the white supremacists, ignore the political component of Al Quaeda, yet make so much hay (or straw) out of the political component of the Chinese atheists?

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Number of Christians killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution for refusing to convert to atheism? 400,000
Having enough of a brass neck to post the above quote about militant atheists writing books? Priceless.

The more I read your posts PDN, the more I see a very small troll who extols Christian virtues yet consistently makes puerile and sly, acerbic and derisive comments. You tend to take threads off topic by making veiled insults about the individual posting, getting the expected angered reply and then running with it. Quite sad really.

You know full well the purpose of that quote. For the majority, militant Atheists are known for their writings, not their violence. Can the same be said of the majority of militant Muslims and Christians? Quoting the deaths caused by one person you believe to be a Militant Atheist is a logical fallacy, as his actions are not indicative of the majority of individuals who would assume the same title.

If you want to play the game of tarring people with the same brush, and counting up the death tolls of Atheists versus Christians then by all means lets.

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, sorry to encroach on your smugfest. I'll withdraw and you can go back to telling each other how violent Christians are and how atheists are all gentle writers of books.

HA! If you want to witness shameless displays of hypocritical backslappery head back next door.

PDN wrote: »

For what it's worth, I think that applying the label 'militant' to Dawkins and Hitchens is a bit OTT. I would see Dawkins as no more militant than CS Lewis, and Hitchens as no more militant than Jerry Falwell.

Who here has called Dawkins 'militant'? Dawkins would refer to himself as hostile towards religion, but not Militant.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

as his actions are not indicative of the majority of individuals who would assume the same title.

In fairness, you are dealing with a fairly loose term when you apply 'militant' to anyone or any group. In my experience, the term 'militant Christian' is often used to describe people who feel particularly strongly about their faith - often going against the societal grain in the process - and not those few who happen to blow up abortion clinics.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, you are dealing with a fairly loose term when you apply 'militant' to anyone or any group. In my experience, the term 'militant Christian' is often used to describe people who feel particularly strongly about their faith - often going against the societal grain in the process - and not those few who happen to blow up abortion clinics.

Really? Well then you are the first person I've ever heard say "Militant Christian" in that fashion. Growing up as a Christian I've heard people of strong faith called "strict" or "devout", but I'd imagine calling Mary, the woman that religiously counts her rosary beads and always attends every Church occasion a "militant" would be an insult. Would you call a Nun a militant Christian? She would fit the definition you have given above.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The more I read your posts PDN, the more I see a very small troll who extols Christian virtues yet consistently makes puerile and sly, acerbic and derisive comments. You tend to take threads off topic by making veiled insults about the individual posting, getting the expected angered reply and then running with it. Quite sad really.

As compared to your reasoned debating style evidenced in the above quote?

You know full well the purpose of that quote. For the majority, militant Atheists are known for their writings, not their violence. Can the same be said of the majority of militant Muslims and Christians?

I realise that I probably angered you by raising facts rather than what 'the majority' believe.

Quoting the deaths caused by one person you believe to be a Militant Atheist is a logical fallacy, as his actions are not indicative of the majority of individuals who would assume the same title.

It would be a logical fallacy if Mao was one militant atheist acting on his own, but maybe you are unaware that Mao was not a turbo-charged serial killer? He had a whole Party of accomplices who also happened to be militant atheists.

If you want to play the game of tarring people with the same brush, and counting up the death tolls of Atheists versus Christians then by all means lets.

That sounds fun! However, to be statistically accurate we would have to allow for the fact that the number of Christians that have ever lived is many, many times the number of atheists. So a fair comparison would be to add up all the victims of Christian killers and divide them by the number of Christians. Then we could add up all the victims of atheist killers and divide them by the number of atheists. Still want to play?

Even better - let's add up all the Christian kings, rulers etc and see how many people on average each ruler killed. Then we could add up all the atheist rulers there have ever been (shouldn't take too long) and see how many each of them killed on average. I think those results would be very interesting, wouldn't they? In fact, I wonder why no militant atheist author has bothered to do that yet? Why would they miss such a golden opportunity to convince us all of how benign militant atheism is?

HA! If you want to witness shameless displays of hypocritical backslappery head back next door.

Way to go! That kind of intelligent debate really demonstrates your superiority to a very small troll who extols Christian virtues yet consistently makes puerile and sly, acerbic and derisive comments.

CDfm

sink wrote: »

Then I think you misunderstood the point of the quote.

Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics. (i.e. Christians who bomb abortion clinics are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
Militant Muslims fly planes into buildings.(i.e. Muslims who fly planes into buildings are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')
Militant atheists write books.(i.e. Authors of books promoting atheism are described in the media and popular terminology as 'militant')

It depends on what you want to participate in.

Atheists have lots of different raison d'etre - but some who debate do so practically on how it affects their lives -a lot of atheist scientists have an interest in that area. The debate will be on practical issues often from the ethical issue point of view and none the worse for that.

Schuhart

sink wrote: »

Just to be clear, I do agree with you on this point. Mao definitely carried out mass killings of religious believers precisely because they would not give up their faith and can justly be described as a militant atheist.

I don't know enough about Mao to recognise whether the specific fact you state is valid, but I do want to express a general acceptance that Marxism is an atheist doctrine generally hostile to religion.

I really think we have to own up to this. I actually cannot see why we feel a need to deny it. I mean, we don't expect PDN or Fanny to take personal responsibility for people who invoke religion as a motivation to engage in terrorism. In the same way, if we state there is no god that's not an expression of support for Mao.

Just to cover the angles, Marxism has also influenced some Christians. But that's hardly a one-way street, as similarly some atheists will acknowledge that they've internalised some concepts that come from religion.

But I think the key point is that atheism, in the form of Marxism, did try to construct the Best Society Ever based on what seemed to be objective principles , and it wasn't an unqualified success.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Why do you ignore the political component of the white supremacists, ignore the political component of Al Quaeda, yet make so much hay (or straw) out of the political component of the Chinese atheists?

Because, in terms of body count, your original post made 134 times more hay about the actions of the chinese atheists than the actions of the WTC terrorists and 57,000 times more than the abortion clinic bombers. Let's try and sort out the big problems first, then, when these are sorted out, we can move onto understanding the others.

On the one hand, your post implied that chinese authorities murdered 400,000 christians because the authorities were atheist, or were motivated by atheism. Can you back up this with some documentary evidence? What laws or foundational texts were used to justify this persecution?

On the other hand, Mao's personal doctor, Li Zhishui, was a christian and Mao didn't seem to have much trouble with that. Also, we know that the current chinese government permits christians to practice freely, as long as it's within the ambit of the above-ground christian churches. This implies fairly clearly that the government's problem is not with christianity per se, but with the way in which some churches -- notably the underground ones -- require loyalty to the church over and above loyalty to the one party in the one-party state.

Finally, looking through Mao's immensely long and tedious output, the almost complete absence of any mention of religion is really quite striking (in the 2,200 pages of his collected works, he refers to it at most in passing six times, and christianity only three times). Perhaps of most interest is this quote from page 319 of volume 3, especially the bit in bold:

Mao wrote:

All religions are permitted in China’s Liberated Areas, in accordance with the principle of freedom of religious belief. All believers in Protestantism, Catholicism, Islamism, Buddhism and other faiths enjoy the protection of the people’s government so long as they are abiding by its laws. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe; neither compulsion nor discrimination is permitted.

It's clear enough from the above passage that the party running the one-party state demanded loyalty to its intention from its citizens and any deviation from this was treated harshly and irrespective of the reason for disloyalty to the one-party.

BTW, I recall that the The soviet constitution had a similar phrase that freedom of speech and belief were guaranteed, provided that "such speech and belief were directed in the greater cause of socialism", of which the Soviet Communist Party was the one and only channel.

To believe that the Chinese Communist Party kills christians simply because they're christian and the government is "officially atheist" is to fail to understand how loyalty works in a one-party state.

.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Really? Well then you are the first person I've ever heard say "Militant Christian" in that fashion. Growing up as a Christian I've heard people of strong faith called "strict" or "devout", but I'd imagine calling Mary, the woman that religiously counts her rosary beads and always attends every Church occasion a "militant" would be an insult. Would you call a Nun a militant Christian? She would fit the definition you have given above.

Well, we obviously read a different internet because countless times I have seen certain types of non-violent Christians referred to as 'militant Christians'.

It seems perfectly reasonable to try to define a word that can best be applied to those who engage in acts of violence predicated on a particular belief system. As I said, in my experience, the term militant can often be applied to any Christian that holds very strong views and who are often pushy in their opinions (which certainly fits the definition of the word). If you don't believe me then try do a google search under something like 'militant Christians'. Most of the results appear not to be discussing those who blow thing up.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

As compared to your reasoned debating style evidenced in the above quote?

I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.

PDN wrote: »

It would be a logical fallacy if Mao was one militant atheist acting on his own, but maybe you are unaware that Mao was not a turbo-charged serial killer? He had a whole Party of accomplices who also happened to be militant atheists.

... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism? He killed a lot of people that he viewed as threats to his agenda, regardless of their faith or lack of. Pinpointing his Atheism as the source of all his actions is ludicrous.

It holds about as much weight as the logic in this comic:

PDN wrote: »

That sounds fun! However, to be statistically accurate...

To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point? I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I wasn't starting a debate, I was making a statement extraneous to it on my observations about your approach to argument. If you are going to reason, then reason, veiled insults and diversionary impromptu linguistic and literacy lessons are not needed.



... and I'm sure none of these "accomplices" where acting without any fear for their own lives should they object :rolleyes:

Seriously, I think it's about time that you started adding some credence to your claims. Where is it said that Mao killed religious people with the purpose of furthering Atheism?


To be statistically accurate, we could both make up ways to weight the numbers in our favour, but what would be the point? I doubt the atrocities caused by any of your fellow Christians has any bearing on your faith in Gods existence, in fact it probably strengthens it.

Good to see you post.

Surely this was part of the political aghenda that Mao espoused as a Marxist. Can anyone say when it became acceptable to kill Christians or was this the plan all along-did Marx or Lenin invisage this.

nozzferrahhtoo

I personally hate this argument and it is one that I do not stock in my own arsenal. My interest is in religion being true or not. People who kill in its name or against its name is irrelevant to whether it is true.

The fact is that on both sides the killing was done by people who wished to enforce their view on others forcibly. This, for the most part, is not the position of atheist I know, have met, or are present on this forum.

PDN can talk rightly of Mao killing or even Stalin, and maybe he is even right that one of the groups he wanted to kill were people who would not convert to atheism. I do not think this was because of his atheism but because the theism they were trying to kill was presenting a conflicting dictator (god) with which our dictator (Mao or Stalin) did not wish to compete.

This is mute however, like I just said, as they are men who not ONLY think they are right, but think it justifiable to kill to enforce that right and this is abhorrent to Atheists and Theists alike which is why both sides scramble over each other to try and get it like grubby handed street urchins scrambling for a dropped fifty.

So yes, both sides of this debate, theist and atheist contain people who think in this way. People who think that killing to enforce an idea is right. When you run the numbers you will find that the people doing it were atheists and they killed a LOT more people. Mao and Stalin for example.

This statistic is horribly skewed however as it is painfully relative. The more our technology and knowledge increases the more people are becoming atheist. They are the fastest growing minority worldwide. However our ability to kill is also increasing. Someone needs to rework these numbers to account for not only the increase in atheists but also the increase in their technology and killing ability. I think you will find that having accounted for the difference both sides are closer than you think.

The question for me therefore does not come down to some pointless navel gazing and looking back into the past creating some “My side is better than your side” self masturbatory lists of “Have atheists or theists killed more”.

No… the question for me is which of the two positions is more likely to lead a person to think killing in the name of an idea is all ok, regardless of what that idea might be. When I look at the two sides I see a VAST disparity in this light.

Where in the statement “I see no reason to think there is a god” can you find a mandate or a motive to kill? I do not see it. I really do not. Nor has anyone yet given me one. I can not see why my lack of belief might lead me to kill and I have never in my life had the urge to kill anyone.

However if you really and truly believe in the tenets of religious discourse then motivations to kill are clearly there. Maybe not all theists are affected by them, but they are there. I could come up with 100 examples but I will use 1 as sufficient for now….

If you TRULY believe in Hell and that unbelief or false gods risk (or even in some peoples mind guarantee) a passage to its halls then of course you will be moved to kill in its name.

You would attack and maybe even kill those who harm the people you truly love. Imagine someone doing something as transient as beating up your child or as awful as raping your wife. What would you do? What would you do if you walked in on that man in the act? Hell I have read what people do walking in on the act when the wife is a WILLING partner, let alone being forcibly taken!

Those around you disseminating the ideas of a false religion or even no religion are not just beating up your child which he will recover from next week or raping your wife which, hopefully, she will recover from with some good counseling and the passage of time. No they are quite literally condemning your child or wife or other loved one to an _eternity_ of the most vile and awful tortures _without end_ from which a good beating up or a nice raping would be a pleasant holiday.

If I really…. really believed this stuff…. And someone put the girl I love more than anything else in the world at such risk…. I tell you now I would kill them…. I would kill them good…. And I would do it in such a way involving pain and agony beyond compare so as to make an example to any and all who would presume to do the same. The tortures of the inquisition would look pleasant compared to what I could dream up. What is even worse is I wouldn’t feel guilty about it, I would feel perfectly justified in doing it. It is, after all, self defence of me, my family and my loved ones and a righteous act in the protection of them and the Word Of My God.

Now I am NOT saying that all people who believe this stuff will be lead to this. So any response saying “But I believe it and I don’t go around killing atheists” is mute to me. My point is that I care not for pointless p**sing contests of “Your side have killed more”. MY concern is SOLELY to do with which side is more likely to lead to people reaching a position where they feel justified in committing such acts.

Try as I might I cannot find anything within the tenets of atheism, humanism and common human solidarity which could lead me to thinking in this way.

To close I will borrow heavily, in fact completely, from Christopher Hitchens on this one. Stop looking at dictatorships in this fashion when looking back on the killing of the past. If you REALLY want to enter this p**sing contest and you REALLY want a level playing field to do it, then find for me a society that has degenerated into famine, misery, fear, murder or totalitarianism because it has adopted the teachings of Spinoza, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein and Lucricious.