Hitler was not a Christian. Unitarians, for the most part, are not Christians, but attend their church-that is, believe the Bible, Christ, etc. Nobody knew what took place inside the camps until after the war, except the guards.

Abortion, since 1973, has recorded between 40,000,000 and 50,000,000 deaths. There were hardly even 50,000,000 American Indians living in those times. This is a fact.

Many people have used Christianity to their advantage, like Barack Obama does today. I'm not implying that Barack isn't a true believer, but so every candidate has said he, or she, believes in God, attends mass, has a relationship with Christ, etc. You can't believe everyone. You can believe me, though, when I say that I'm a true believer.

Have you actually been to a Unitarian church? There is no mention of the Bible or Christ as God anywhere.

For the kind of government that Hitler had, one can easily compare that with Stalin - atheists.

What did Stalin do? He broke up the church by tearing them down. Only the religious living inside Russia worshiped underground.

Just corrected my point. I ain't no writin' major. I meant that unitarians, for the most part, don't believe in Christ or the Bible. Thank you for your correction. Sorry.

I'm not perfect, but I have faith in God who is.

How you doing? Life good?

ccvasquez, please learn not to multi-post.

Even if true, this is a rationalization and cop-out that is incidentally irrelevant. The Crusades were primarily conducted by the religious, for the religious, and justified in the name of Christianity. If you seriously think the crusades were legitimate, then I think there's no hope in common ground.

Yes, even by my 'own admission', I can confidently say that Christians killed more people in a conscious effort of genocide than all of the 'atheist' leaders' combined.

First, your 'genocide' numbers are very conveniently misleading because the vast majority of them include forces beyond the control of the dictator. If these things are the basis of considering a genocide, then even these pale in consideration to the starvation caused by capitalism. Hell, by your standards I should be blaming the plague on Christian leaders.

The numbers killed in a conscious campaign by Christian leaders far outweigh any of your examples both proportionately and numerically. The Church did indeed control the writing of European history, as its very clergy were the clerics.

The reason why it is not computational is because death served as a punishment for such a wide range of different offenses as to render any kind of numerical estimation severely inaccurate. What we do know is that the continental-wide campaigns of genocide conducted by the single-handed orders of the church pale in comparison to events like Stalin's officer purge.

"This supposed source of moral values [the Bible] contains many celebrations of genocide, in which the Hebrews, egged on by God, slaughter every last resident of an invaded city. The Bible also prescribes death by stoning as the penalty for a long list of nonviolent infractions, including idolatry, blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, disrespecting one's parents, and picking up sticks on the Sabbath. The Hebrews, of course, were no more murderous than other tribes; one also finds frequent boasts of torture and genocide in the early histories of the Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and Chinese.

At the century scale, it is hard to find quantitative studies of deaths in warfare spanning medieval and modern times. Several historians have suggested that there has been an increase in the number of recorded wars across the centuries to the present, but, as political scientist James Payne has noted, this may show only that "the Associated Press is a more comprehensive source of information about battles around the world than were sixteenth-century monks." Social histories of the West provide evidence of numerous barbaric practices that became obsolete in the last five centuries, such as slavery, amputation, blinding, branding, flaying, disembowelment, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, and so on. "

-Steven Pinker, A History of Violence

Which is bound to be severely inaccurate. Zealots didn't record their beheadings, and clerics didn't feel the need to record the death of infidels. But even at those numbers I would like to see some evidence that any government consciously killed people in a campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing "in the name of atheism" such as that what happened in the crusades. Please, provide me with some evidence.

Again, you continue to list numbers that include the so-called 'failures of Communism'. This highly infantile exercise you're conducting counts deaths by drought and economic woe as a conscious genocide. They do not. And if such parameters constituted genocide, then even such numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of people that have died under capitalism due to starvation alone, and are dying today.

And, even if such numbers are granted it is still irrelevant. No one has yet been able to provide me with any numbers of people killed "in the name of atheism." According to your evidence provided so far, not one person has been killed "in the name of atheism". Nor would I consider North Korea atheist in the first place. It has its own fanatical state religion; Kim Il-Sung is a supposed link to "God and creation" itself according to North Koreans; hardly atheist.

Of course it is possible, and it is possible that he was still a Christian. Either way he never formally renounced it, and he continued into his reign to cite the Christian God as evidence for their justification of the plight of the Jew and the expansion of their borders. The latter is the very point of this debate. Whether or not Hitler was merely using Christianity is irrelevant, because Christianity was indeed used as justification to kill, and many of the soldiers who had "Gott Mit Uns" inscribed on their belts who had been doing the actual killing were believing Christians, and they partook in the Christian atmosphere of antisemitism.

"'Hitler and Stalin were atheists. What have you got to say about
that?' The question comes up after just about every public lecture
that I ever give on the subject of religion, and in most of my radio
interviews as well. It is put in a truculent way, indignantly freighted
with two assumptions: not only (1) were Stalin and Hitler atheists,
but (2) they did their terrible deeds because they were
atheists. Assumption (1) is true for Stalin and dubious for Hitler.
But assumption (1) is irrelevant anyway, because assumption (2) is
false. It is certainly illogical if it is thought to follow from (1). Even
if we accept that Hitler and Stalin shared atheism in common, they
both also had moustaches, as does Saddam Hussein. So what?"

-Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion"

Where anyone in history has ruled, people have died. And correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. More people have died by poverty under capitalism than any so-called "Communist" nation (which, even they basically constituted state capitalism, not communism).

Again, North Korea is not atheist.

There is conflict between eastern and western styles of Buddhism. Westerners see it as this pop culture following, much like they see Khabalaism?(Probably spelled wrong, so don't point it out). It is not rooted in traditional Buddhism or practices, which is why it isn't really the actual religion. Much like a buffet, it has been manipulated, favoring the loving side and discarding the stricter stuff. But I'm not defending Buddhism, so don't attempt to claim that I recognize Buddha as another deity. At his death, he said that his life was void of something.

And he includes abortions in his calculations. Do you think he knows that women have been terminating their unwanted pregnancies since the dawn of time? They weren't recorded until recent times though. And of course he fails to mention that those weren't people yet, and can't be counted in murder statistics, except by the crazies who don't want women to be the deciders of their own fates. If that is the criteria, you would have to count every woman murdered as the potential mother of, let's say, 5 kids, and then quadruple the statistics in accordance.

Your repetition of this phrase in continued avoidance isn't doing anything for you.

It is not just my opinion that your statement is false, but by definition, faith requires an absence of reason and evidence.

Oh, I don't mind discussing them, it's just that a) I'm not granting you your strawman, and b) you continue to not actually ask me what I believe about what anyway.

Where do you want me to start? Its irrationality, its shallow explanations, its violence, its worship of a deity, etc., etc.

What do you have against Zeus that you don't believe in him? Why do you feel such hostility toward Greek mythology?

Not necessarily; the religious/philosophical divide exists in Asia too. Much of 'western Buddhism' is in fact an adoption of Japanese Zen Buddhism.

But I agree that the majority of western Buddhism disagrees with the majority of Eastern Buddhism. But, there exists divides in Buddhism each time Buddhism is 'exported', hence the three main practices of Therevada, Mahayana, Vajrayana. The main reason being is that, like Christianity, Buddhism was a missionary religion; but unlike Christianity, Buddhists were taught more of a practice than a set of doctrines, and Buddhism eventually adapted to the different cultures. It is no wonder then that western Buddhism takes on a flavor of classical western thought.

This coming from a person who believes life can spawn from a mud puddle