De Maria posted in the now closed "WHERE in the Bible are the scriptures about homosexuality?" :

Rev Phelps? I've never heard of him
I reacted with the following comment :

... And I assume you also never have heard about the intolerance of the RCC with it's inquisition
De Maria reacted with :

Anytime you want to debate about what you perceive was wrong with the Inquisition, start a thread on the matter. But I imagine, you're really not interested in truth or in details. You're just taking another opportunity to throw darts at religion
No, I do not throw darts at religion. That is an unfair accusation. All I do is pointing out that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of "God", and for "God" being the "Creator", and that any religious statement is based on subjective belief only.

I like to address the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition, and De Maria's suggestion that it is only my perception that the Inquisition was wrong.

As early as 430 AD church leaders declared heresy punishable by death. Pope Gregory IX went one step further and established in 1233 the Inquisition, it was intended to combat and/or suppress heresy. Soon however it became an organization that tried to enforce the RCC doctrines on to all people, regardless if they were Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Atheist, or other.
This continued to deep in the 18' century, and all over the world. Many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were murdered in the most terrible ways to the greater glory of the "God" the RCC claimed to exist and to serve.
People got murdered for their beliefs. Scientists were murdered and/or jailed for the results of their research. People were murdered for failing to believe. Women and men were murdered accused of being witches (not only by the Inquisition, but also by the Protestants).

All I suggested was that De Maria never had heard about the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition. And from his reaction it became clear that he rejects that the RCC's Inquisition was based on intolerance.
Well, if it was not intolerance and bloody murder of innocent people, how do you want to name these despicable actions otherwise?


Anyone ?

·

Yes, it was a bad time for religion because the church leaders were not basing their rule on real religiion but were using the power of the church for their own self interest over any real religion.

It was also a good example of why Christ taught that his world is not of this world. The church is combined their belief with worldly government power. This was an example of two things, how bad man can be, and the fact that God's word is true and that his church will always come back even after it wonders. This is shown time and time again in the Old Testment how the Church wondered and came back

I would tell you in no uncertain terms what was wrong with the Inquisition, however, it would be heresy on my part. I can't piss off the Pope one more time without facing serious retribution... but... I will give you a thumbnail sketch.
It had something to do with complete control over the masses of sheeple and the money they bring. Any other open minded view of the world, the universe and GOD could endanger that control.
Did I say too much?

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence. Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident? That in itself is a great leap of faith. In fact, it is a great leap of denial. As for intolerance, the atrocities committed by rationalists are just as numerous and despicable as those committed by people of faith of whatever stripe.

It is a common misconception that "religion is the cause of all wars"
God does not cause wars (well, except in the old testament kinda)
It is peoples misinterpretations and manipulations that cause trouble, they are just often using god as an excuse to justify murder and discrimination

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence. Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident? That in itself is a great leap of faith. In fact, it is a great leap of denial. As for intolerance, the atrocities committed by rationalists are just as numerous and despicable as those committed by people of faith of whatever stripe.

Keep scaring me like that George and I'll personally ask the Pope burn you at the stake in the next Inquisition.

Shun the unbeliever! Shun!
;)

I ain't never been shunned before... actually, I kind of like it. Gives me time to get my laundry done and my toenails clipped. You know you always put off clipping them toenails till they finally get hung up in the carpet and you nearly break your neck trippin.

Eeww I can't stand it when my nails get too long but I always put it off because I'm lazy lol :s
Though... if you like being shunned... I can shun you some more... maybe I can spit on you and rough you up a little if you like that kind of thing ;)

You can rough me up all you like but if you spit on me I go midevil on yo azz.

Lol

The inquisition was an incident of Christianity wandering? No, it was clearly about authorized murder to facilitate the gathering of land, wealth and control. Sure, innocent people have been killed in the name of rationalism as well as religion. It's about money and power, and the fear of lack of them. Hate and intolerance is based on fear. Any system that teaches tolerance and love is potentially a cure for this fear.

However, don't the main religions on this planet teach their followers fear? Fear of going to hell. Fear of association with "sinners" and "devil worshippers." Fear of punishment by a creator that loves them conditionally. But then, if you follow Christianity, you can be a complete jerk and still go to heaven. You can tell me that it is not fear... well it sure isn't love.

We feel that something is wrong, or at least some do. That wrongness causes us to fight the ideology of the faithful. Some, like Cred, fight it with implacable rationalism. Sometimes, the fight is just arguments going in circles. When scripture is quoted, does the quoter take into account that the reader feels that the quoted source is worthless? For the unbeliever, scripture is not "The Truth!" How can there even be an intelligent discussion when this premise is not agreed on?

I cannot be rational and believe things when I see them. My faith in whatever is unshakeable. There cannot be a belief system for me that excludes any living thing. Everything in the world as we know it has value. The most logical rationalist has as much value as the most devout Christian. We don't see or know enough to judge. Yet we do know enough to choose to act through the opposite of fear.

Jumping Gee Wilikers! I agree.

A christian can be a complete jerk yes, but they are forgiven.
Forgiveness, compassion, tolerance, they are a part of love yes?
We all sin, so it would be unfair for god to allow (not send) us all to damnation? That would not be love, it would be justice yes, but not love or compassion.
God does not use fear tactics as such, he just tells us where we are headed, and offers a better destination.
Well, that's just my opinion, pick it apart as much as you like :)

http://luciferknight.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/spanish_inquisition.jpg

Lol! Good one curly :)

Cal, I have no desire to pick apart anyone's belief system. You have as much value as anyone in my mind and heart. Even if we are in total disagreement, we are part of one another. I choose to not fear our differences, how about you?

There is as much objective evidence for the existence of God as there is for God's nonexistence.
There is no need at all for objective supported evidence for God's nonexistence. Specially as there is no single iota of objective supported evidence for God's existence in the first place.


Are you saying that you, the planet, the galaxy, and the universe are an accident?
No, these are not "accidents". They came into existence or were born. But that provides no logical support and/or objective supported evidence for the religious claim on the existence of some supra-natural entity...

·

Some, like Cred, fight it with implacable rationalism .... When scripture is quoted, does the quoter take into account that the reader feels that the quoted source is worthless? For the unbeliever, scripture is not "The Truth!" How can there even be an intelligent discussion when this premise is not agreed on?
I see it more as impeccable rationalism. :D

Note that it is hardly ever the nonbeliever who tries to force his/her views onto others. My problem with theist activists is that they do not try to "spread the word", but try to force "the word" though the non-believers throats.
And how can there be an intelligent discussion, when one side bases it's views on empty non-objective supported claims? That has to end up with the non-believer "fighting" hot air, lot's of it!

:rolleyes:

·

For anyone on ANY side, here are some helpful articles:

An Inquisition Primer (This Rock: September 2007) (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp)
Secrets of the Spanish Inquisition Revealed (This Rock: November 2007) (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711tbt.asp)
The Inquisition (http://www.catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp)

For anyone on ANY side, here are some helpful articles ...
"For anyone on ANY side"?? No not really!! All three links refer to www . Catholic . Com : the RCC's own website defending it's own faults, outrages, and cruelties.
That is similar to asking a butcher to check and judge the quality of his own products !

:rolleyes:

·

What do you disagree with in any of those articles?

What do you disagree with in any of those articles?
The (lacking) historic accuracy and the self-evident glossing over of it's own cruelties.
As I stated : you do not ask a butcher to check and judge the quality of his own products !
The least you could have done is supply different websites from different perspectives.

:rolleyes:

·

No, these are not "accidents". They came into existence or were born. But that provides no logical support and/or objective supported evidence for the religious claim on the existence of some supra-natural entity ...

·
Uh-huh; was is 'abracadabra' or just 'poof!'?

Uh-huh; was is 'abracadabra' or just 'poof!'?
Neither. All that was required was time, lot's of time...

:rolleyes:

·

The least you could have done is supply different websites from different perspectives.

:rolleyes:

·

Oh, you mean like you have for your statements? ;)

Neither. All that was required was time, lot's of time ...

:rolleyes:

·
I like that: "In the beginning, there was time; lots of time...." I can almost hear Carl Sagan now: "Billions and billions of years...." Which is just a huge, blank check; and a lot of faith. :)

I like that: "In the beginning, there was time; lots of time...." I can almost hear Carl Sagan now: "Billions and billions of years...." Which is just a huge, blank check; and a lot of faith. :)
No, not faith at all. If you would be aware of the latest astronomical and cosmological findings, you would know that a huge amount of scientific evidence from different directions and sources is available, supporting the present general scientific views on the process that was at the basis of the origin of the universe, solar system, earth, etc. I will be the first to admit that the objective evidence is not covering 100%, but how could it, approx. 14.300.000.000 years after that happened ?

The same goes in a similar way for biological findings supporting the Evolution theory, though there we talk approx. 3.500.000.000 years !

That you perhaps refuse to accept any such findings because of your religious views does not lower the scientific value and correctness of many of these findings.
I note that the objective evidence supporting religious claims never ever has exceeded 0% !

:rolleyes:

·

Couldn't resist this just to remind everyone what we are talking about:

CSe38dzJYkY

Couldn't resist this just to remind everyone what we are talking about
You mean what we are NOT talking about!
This You Tube is funny. The real Inquisition was not...

:rolleyes:

·

You think that was not horrible? I could not bear to watch it again.

You think that was not horrible? I could not bear to watch it again.
I mean that the Inquisition was a horrible and atrocious demonstration of religious intolerance by the RCC and of fanatic, complacent, and often self-interested behavior by it's followers, who often had more interest in their own personal gain, instead of in the Christian basic : love and forgiveness for others.

:rolleyes:

·

So, we can surmise from the evidence that, after all, things haven't changed much?
Tell me this then, could George Bush's actions of today be classified as a sort of Inquisition?

And what does any of the previous few posts have to do with the subject.

Nada.

Any comment, Cred.. . or are you just ranting? And by the way, ranting is just fine on these "Discussion" boards...

...

And what does any of the previous few posts have to do with the subject. Nada.
Neither had several of your rather biased posts with links to one-sided RCC sites and with English black humor anything to do with the core of the subject question, being : "What was wrong with the Inquisition?", and with as focus of that question the atrocities that were carried out over many centuries by the RCC against humanity.

:rolleyes:

·

Well, Cre, you should be fair; the RCC has done much good in the world as well. Isn't the RCC entitled to claim success for defending Poland against rationalist communism? The rationalists did all they could to stamp out the bourgeoisie, but were unable to finish the job.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9572&stc=1&d=1214260507

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9573&stc=1&d=1214260615

Isn't the RCC entitled to claim success for defending Poland against rationalist communism?
You mean that a religious organization that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ (being love and forgiveness) can for many hundreds of years just murder hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings for no reason at all other than self-interest, if supporters of that same religion in Poland hundreds of years later stand up against the communist invader from the east?
What strange argument is that, George?

:D

·

A picture says more than a thousand words, magprob!
So you just said more than two thousand words...

:D

·

Satan has his main headquarters in the basement of the Vatican. I wish people would wake up, renounce the dogma, the lies, and become the rulers of their own lives. That is the only reason for the Inquisition, to keep people in bondage to the "Masters."

magprob, your rotating can of Spam is hypnotizing, sort of like FrChuck's praying nuns. I hope you two don't end up near each other in the same thread. I think I need a cookie.

I have been joking with some fellow priests, when we talked about what was wrong with the Inquistion, well their final thought was what was wrong was the Church lost, had it won, the entire world would be under control of the Catholic Church and the Pope would be king and ruler of the entire world. I guess one has to look that perhaps all things good and bad have different ways to look at it.

Like our discussion of Benedict Arnold or George Washington, who is the hero and who is the traditor, sort of depends on whose side won and who is writing the history.

Personally, I like Piers Anthony's take on the whole thing in "For Love of Evil". Granted it's fiction, but the best fiction has a kernal of truth in it.

The idea is that the man who STARTED the Inquisition had very very good intentions... but you know very well that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Anyway... that priest, with that great idea, ends up becoming the next Satan, and spends the next couple thousand years ruling Hell.

I guess one has to look that perhaps all things good and bad have different ways to look at it ...... sorta depends on whose side won and who is writing the history.
As I already stated to George_1950 :
The essence of the teachings of the RCC should be based on the teachings of Jesus Christ (being love and forgiveness). How can that combine - whatever way one like to look at it - with many hundreds of years of murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings for no reason at all other than religious intolerance and self-interest?

:rolleyes:

·

No, they should only be based on what they want to bas them on, if you don't believe there was a Jesus or don't believe there is a God, You then believe they only use religion as a method of fear to control their people,
So would not physcial fear of death be a stronger control factor ?

If you are correct ( which I don't agree) but if you are correct and they are merely a group using their "beleifs" . And the church of that time were not following the bible for its teaching but were using their power and authority in a ability to control the earthly government, then that was their purpose, since bibically there is no earthly kingdom.

No, they should only be based on what they want to bas them on, if you don't believe there was a Jesus or don't beleive there is a God, You then beleive they only use religion as a method of fear to control thier people, So would not physcial fear of death be a stronger control factor ?
It is not about what I or anyone else believes Chuck. It is about the RCC and it's atrocious non-Christian behavior for over 1200 years, during which - as the worldly leaders within Christianity - they tried to enforce their RCC interests at the expense of all involved (even killing hundreds of thousands of people), instead of following the line of love and forgiveness instructed by JC.


... And the church of that time were not following the bible for its teaching but were using thier power and authority in a ability to control the earthly government, then that was thier purpose, since bibically there is no earthly kingdom.
That is your opinion, Chuck.
But for a religious organization that suggests (or even better : tries to force and/or convince) all it's believers into following JC's instruction to "love and forgive", it is an impossible argument. The RCC has - whatever it's previous secular function - lot's and lot's of intolerance and self-interest based blood on it's hands. And what about the resulting total lack of credibility ?

Your argument may have some validity for any secular organization. But NOT and NEVER for the self-proclaimed one and only representative of the Christian God on earth, the RCC !

:rolleyes:

·

And some people just argue in circles for sport. Being "more correct" means that you are superior. Superior-feeling people do the most atrocious things.

We are all one. Ours is not a better way, just a different way. When I remember that. The argument is like quicksand. I think I'll just to stand on the rocks.

Cal, I have no desire to pick apart anyone's belief system. You have as much value as anyone in my mind and heart. Even if we are in total disagreement, we are part of one another. I choose to not fear our differences, how about you?
:)
Didn't mean it in a challenging or "attack my beliefs" way
Nice of you though :) you have some good point there:)
I feel that there should never be a single idea that all subscribe to, because we need diversity.

De Maria posted in the now closed "WHERE in the Bible are the scriptures about homosexuality?" :

I reacted with the following comment :

De Maria reacted with :

No, I do not throw darts at religion. That is an unfair accusation. All I do is pointing out that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of "God", and for "God" being the "Creator", and that any religious statement is based on subjective belief only.

I like to address the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition, and De Maria's suggestion that it is only my perception that the Inquisition was wrong.

As early as 430 AD church leaders declared heresy punishable by death. Pope Gregory IX went one step further and established in 1233 the Inquisition, it was intended to combat and/or suppress heresy. Soon however it became an organization that tried to enforce the RCC doctrines on to all people, regardless if they were Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Atheist, or other.
This continued to deep in the 18' century, and all over the world. Many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were murdered in the most terrible ways to the greater glory of the "God" the RCC claimed to exist and to serve.
People got murdered for their beliefs. Scientists were murdered and/or jailed for the results of their research. People were murdered for failing to believe. Women and men were murdered accused of being witches (not only by the Inquisition, but also by the Protestants).

All I suggested was that De Maria never had heard about the intolerance of the RCC with it's Inquisition. And from his reaction it became clear that he rejects that the RCC's Inquisition was based on intolerance.
Well, if it was not intolerance and bloody murder of innocent people, how do you want to name these despicable actions otherwise?

·


ANYONE ???


·

I see it more as impeccable rationalism. :D

Note that it is hardly ever the nonbeliever who tries to force his/her views onto others. My problem with theist activists is that they do not try to "spread the word", but try to force "the word" though the non-believers throats.
And how can there be an intelligent discussion, when one side bases it's views on empty non-objective supported claims? That has to end up with the non-believer "fighting" hot air, lot's of it!

:rolleyes:

·

Wow! The Atheist comes to a religious discussion voluntarily and then says religious people are trying to force their beliefs down his throat! Now that's REALLY rational!

Impeccably so.

Wow! The Atheist comes to a religious discussion voluntarily and then says religious people are trying to force their beliefs down his throat! Now that's REALLY rational!

Don't you love the irony!

Wow! The Atheist comes to a religious discussion voluntarily and then says religious people are trying to force their beliefs down his throat! Now that's REALLY rational!
If you use quotes, at least specify to what you refer (reply number), if it is not against of one of the last posts. I just restated the topic question, but your post does not refer to that.
Is that your standard approach ?

:rolleyes:

·

Cred, go back and read it. I quoted you in the post, first paragraph, I think.

Cred, go back and read it. I quoted you in the post, first paragraph, I think.
If you are too lazy to re-quote that , why should I bother to find it again ?

:rolleyes:

·

Wow! The Atheist comes to a religious discussion voluntarily and then says religious people are trying to force their beliefs down his throat! Now that's REALLY rational!


Lol... lol... :D :D OMG I so agree with you! Isn't it the funniest thing you have ever seen. I thought I was the only one who found that rational twisted and delusional.
Apparently Athiests can't stay way from religious forums then they have the nerve to CLAIM we are trying to shove our beliefs on them. Especially Credo.. he is on this religious forum day in and day out. I wounder how many other religious forums out there he is also terrorising. :rolleyes:

Yep waste time on something they don't even believe in... maybe I'll take up discussing deeper the idea of the spagetti monster after all and see if I can figure out what is gained by discussing something I don't believe in.

yep waste time on something they don't even believe in......maybe I'll take up discussing deeper the idea of the spagetti monster after all and see if I can figure out what is gained by discussing something I don't believe in.


LOL.. yes maybe I will spend 60% of my free time arguing about the existence of the boogey man

LOL.. yes maybe i will spend 60% of my free time arguing about the existance of the boogey man
I actually thought that as a creationist you were already doing precisely that!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

LOL.. yes maybe i will spend 60% of my free time arguing about the existance of the boogey man

Maybe you would if there were people who claimed to know what the boogey man wanted and were hell bent on carrying out what they see as his will, even if his will includes torture and murder in his name.

Maybe you would if there were people who claimed to know what the boogey man wanted and were hell bent on carrying out what they see as his will, even if his will includes torture and murder in his name.

I wouldn't even waist my time with such lunacy.


I actually thought that as a creationist you were already doing precisely that !!!!

·

Apparently you have dedicated your life's time to arguing about something you find as ridiculous as the boogyman. I wonder why? Lol I find it amusing. :p

Apparently you have dedicated your life's time to arguing about something you find as rediculous as the boogyman. I wonder why? lol i find it amusing. :p

Amusing AND sad that they can't seem to get that!!

Like I said I am contemplating dedicating my free time to check out the spaghetti monster and the boogey men that I do not believe exist.

I wouldnt even waist my time with such lunacy.


Ignoring the events of 9/11 over 3000 people killed in the name of the boogey man. How about this article.
Newsvine - Murdered for being an Atheist (http://vassleer.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/03/504714-murdered-for-being-an-atheist)
Or how about this quote from George Bush
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God. "

I agree though it is lunacy to believe in supernatural beings. I just wish I could afford the luxury of ignoring those who do. However my rights and safety are on the line everyday.

Ignoring the events of 9/11 over 3000 people killed in the name of the boogey man. How about this article.
Newsvine - Murdered for being an Atheist (http://vassleer.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/03/504714-murdered-for-being-an-atheist)
or how about this quote from George Bush
"No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God. "

I agree though it is lunacy to believe in supernatural beings. I just wish I could afford the luxury of ignoring those who do. However my rights and safety are on the line everyday.

So you think you are doing some sort of service to society by harassing religious people on religious forums day in and day out?. lol how's that working for you? Are making any progress? :rolleyes:

More people in history have been killed by athiests that any religion's killings put together. For example Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people. So if anyone should be affriad it is us theists considering the mass murders done by many athiestic regimes.

it is a common misconception that "religion is the cause of all wars"
god does not cause wars (well, except in the old testament kinda)
it is peoples misinterpretations and manipulations that cause trouble, they are just often using god as an excuse to justify murder and discrimination

A lot of this thread is just the usual pro/con propaganda thrownb out on either side. But I had to comment on this post from early in the thread.

I very much agree with what cal is saying. But I think cal is missing the point. I have said before that more people have been killed and abused in the name of religion than for any other reason. Almost every religion has had its holy wars to be ashamed of. But I do believe that the RCC, especially citing the Inquisition and the Crusades have accounted for the worst if it.

But most religions do try to portray their main deity as beneficent and promoting peace, yet they belie that portrayal in the justification of forcing themselves on others.

Frankly, we all have to start somewhere. An internet revolution is as good a place to start as any. I also have lengthy discussions with the people who knock on my door to spread their religion as well and I work for an agency that came into existence because of religious extremism and whose purpose is to prevent it from occurring again. So yes I do feel I'm doing some sort of service the society as a whole but pointing out how wrong you are at every turn.

Joseph Stalin was a product of a christian upbringing and he even almost became a priest himself. He also built up churches after Hitler invaded because he thought the churches would help. Even if he was an atheist though he didn't kill in the name of atheistism or for atheistism. Not a single person who was killed in his regime was killed because they wouldn't give up their religion. There is a difference from being an 'ism and killing for your 'ism. It's like if Stalin liked the color pink, he didn't kill because he liked the color pink and just because other people like the color pink doesn't mean they are going to kill millions of people too. Correlation does not always equal causation.

I agree 100% with what Cal is saying (100 million greenies!)
I have said it again and again people call themselves Christian when their heart is far from God just like the Bible says.
People like that give real Christians a bad name!

http://www.wayofthemind.org/images/atheismcruelty2.png

I believe there is a difference between 'religion' and Christianity.

Frankly, we all have to start somewhere. An internet revolution is as good a place to start as any. I also have lengthy discussions with the people who knock on my door to spread their religion as well and I work for an agency that came into existence because of religious extremism and whose purpose is to prevent it from occurring again. So yes I do feel I'm doing some sort of service the society as a whole but pointing out how wrong you are at every turn.

Joseph Stalin was a product of a christian upbringing and he even almost became a priest himself. He also built up churches after Hitler invaded because he thought the churches would help. Even if he was an atheist though he didn't kill in the name of atheistism or for atheistism. Not a single person who was killed in his regime was killed because they wouldn't give up their religion. There is a difference from being an 'ism and killing for your 'ism. It's like if Stalin liked the color pink, he didn't kill because he liked the color pink and just because other people like the color pink doesn't mean they are going to kill millions of people too. Correlation does not always equal causation.


Of course there is a correlation, Starlin was an athiests when he started murdering people. Probably because he didn't believe in God anymore so felt no need to obey his comandments "thou shall not commit murder"
Hiltler was an athiests who also was raised Christian and decided to become an athiests and mudered Jews for their religious beliefs and their ethnic heritage. :rolleyes:

The Christian-haters like Michaelb should turn their attentions to militant Islam and Atheism as the most serious dangers to the world.

The fact is that while religious wars have been fought for centuries, militant atheism has slaughtered more people than religious zealots ever have. The greatest mass murders in history have been committed not by Christians but by Communists Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. More than 100 million have died at the hands of these militant atheists since the early 20th century.

The Inquisitions and the Salem witch trials (less than 25 died) are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Many of these conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? NO The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land.

So the bottom line is waaaaaaaaay more people have died at the hand of athiests than they have from Christians. So don't even go there

This thread has veried way off the OP so it is now closed.