in order for Atheism to 'succeed', Atheism has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style, i.e. "A perfect atheist is one for whom god never comes up. They never talk about it, they don't go to meetings or read books about it, they never use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, and they aren't rebelling against anything." Your thoughts on this

Not in Nigeria or even the US. When you live in a society dominated by religion you have to be an "Antitheist" or whatever. You can be your so call perfect atheist in a truly secular nation.

mumumugu:
in order for Atheism to 'succeed', Atheism has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style, i.e. "A perfect atheist is one for whom god never comes up. They never talk about it, they don't go to meetings or read books about it, they never use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, and they aren't rebelling against anything." Your thoughts on this

Sure....just keep quite while theists grow strength in numbers and then start enforcing "god's law" and other laws that permit them.....
keeping quite is the worst thing to do in a nation ruled by dogma.

Imagine if galileo kept quite while the "flat earthers" spreaded their pseudoscience.
Imagine if louis pasteur kept quite while people claimed "demons" and "bad blood" for the causes of diseases.
Imagine if einstein kept quite while people believed space and time were abstract entities.
Imagine if abraham lincoln kept quite and said nothing about slavery.
Getting out there and chatting,debating...even holding meetings is a positive step towards any progress..
we can't fly planes into towers..nor hold killing crusades but we can present our voices...and that is our strength and right.
Better to speak now,before keeping quite turns nigeria into a dictatorship.

the dead keep quiet.

davien:
Sure....just keep quite while theists grow strength in numbers and then start enforcing "god's law" and other laws that permit them.....
keeping quite is the worst thing to do in a nation ruled by dogma.

Imagine if galileo kept quite while the "flat earthers" spreaded their pseudoscience.
Imagine if louis pasteur kept quite while people claimed "demons" and "bad blood" for the causes of diseases.
Imagine if einstein kept quite while people believed space and time were abstract entities.
Imagine if abraham lincoln kept quite and said nothing about slavery.
Getting out there and chatting,debating...even holding meetings is a positive step towards any progress..
we can't fly planes into towers..nor hold killing crusades but we can present our voices...and that is our strength and right.
Better to speak now,before keeping quite turns nigeria into a dictatorship.

Stop the revisionism of history.

Religion, at least Catholicism never stopped those men from pursuing truth. In fact, it helped them do so.

Catholicism invented, sponsored and nourished science...and many other human disciplines. In short, Catholicism built the western civilization you now hold so dear and benefit from.

The crusades were a good thing...to defend people being raped, plundered and killed by Muslims, just like ISIS is doing now.

Atheists have held 'killing crusades' countless times in history. E.g Soviet Union Atheist govt killed millions in an attempt to stamp out religion. Albanian Atheist govt did same. China and North Korea continue to do same now.

italo:


Stop the revisionism of history.

How am I? You seem butturt...

Religion, at least Catholicism never stopped those men from pursuing truth. In fact, it helped them do so.

really...so galileo wasn't threatened by the church then? or Copernicus wasn't burnt alive then?...
You can put your fingers in your ears all day long...catholic history was filled with the blood of innocents killed unjustly.

Catholicism invented, sponsored and nourished science. ..and many other human disciplines. In short, Catholicism built the western civilization you now hold so dear and benefit from.

You are the one giving a revisionism of history here....
Science is the search of knowledge...so you mean greeks,jews,egyptians,muslims didn't search for knowledge before catholicism existed?
For your information...western civilization owes itself to greece and the western roman empire....before medieval christendom it was also nurtured by the Mediterranean.

The crusades were a good thing...to defend people being raped, plundered and killed by Muslims, just like ISIS is doing now.

You can give as many apologetics as you can...
This is the historian raymond of agiles describing the first crusade of 1099
" Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them
with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them
longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet
were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick
one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small
matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a
place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What
happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief.
So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and
portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle
reins."
And they also raped women...the same way military men rapes women at times of invasion.

Atheists have held 'killing crusades' countless times in history. E.g Soviet Union Atheist govt killed millions in an attempt to stamp out religion. Albanian Atheist govt did same. China and North Korea continue to do same now.

You can call the Soviet union and others an "atheist movement" all day long..the fact remains that nobody kills for atheism because a disbelief in "god/gods" tells you nothing about how to to treat religious people.

davien:
How am I? You seem butturt...
really...so galileo wasn't threatened by the church then? or Copernicus wasn't burnt alive then?...
You can put your fingers in your ears all day long...catholic history was filled with the blood of innocents killed unjustly.

Show us evidence that Copernicus was burned alive.

What was Galileo threatened for?

Who was killed unjustly?

Catholic history is far more just than the rest of human history. The Catholic Church is the biggest charity organization the world has ever seen, giving life to billions since inception.

davien:
You are the one giving a revisionism of history here....
Science is the search of knowledge...so you mean greeks,jews,egyptians,muslims didn't search for knowledge before catholicism existed?
For your information...western civilization owes itself to greece and the western roman empire....before medieval christendom it was also nurtured by the Mediterranean.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.

Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes). During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization
The role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling and medical care; inspiration for Western art, culture and philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture.

While the West is no longer universally Catholic, the Catholic heritage remains strong in Western countries: festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD (Anno Domini, and not year "0" which doesn't exist in this system).

The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of Rome. During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. The Reformation brought an end to religious unity in the West, but the Renaissance masterpieces produced by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael at that time remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Catholic sacred music by composers like Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Shubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.

The papacy has been intricately involved in European politics: Pope Leo the Great met Attila the Hun in 452, and persuaded him to turn back from his invasion of Italy; Pope Leo III proclaimed Charlemagne as King of the Romans at the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire; Pope Clement VII refused to annul the marriage of Henry VIII, thus prompting the English Reformation; and Pope John Paul II is widely credited as having hastened the Collapse of Communism in Europe. Rivalry between princes and popes and theological disputes contributed to several political conflicts in Western history, but the papacy also acted as peace broker and arbiter between rival rulers. Many have criticized actions of the church that had a profound effect on Western society; of particular note are the harsh practices of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, the suppression of the ideas of Galileo Galilei, and the church's historical treatment of women. Into the modern era, the church has remained prominent in topical debates: from the 1839 papal condemnation of slavery, to 1937's papal attack on Nazism, to Pope John Paul II's condemnations of the Iraq War of 2003, the church has tried to fulfill a compassionate role in the world.

The Bible and Catholic theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Catholic teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been both influential and (in recent times) controversial.

Catholicism played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[1] infanticide and polygamy.[2] Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity.[3] While official Church teaching[4] considers women and men to be complementary (equal and different), some modern "advocates of ordination of women and other feminists" argue that teachings attributed to St. Paul and those of the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians advanced the notion of a divinely ordained female inferiority.[5] Nevertheless, women have played prominent roles in Western history through the Catholic Church, particularly in education and healthcare, but also as influential theologians and mystics. The important status of the Virgin Mary gave notions of maternal virtue and compassion a place at the heart of Western civilization.

While the Church has clashed throughout history with rival Western forces such as paganism, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism, and communism and its influence is much diminished from its zenith, the immensity of the Catholic contribution to the West's heritage is undeniable. Catholicism is still the majority religion of several major Western countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Italy, France, Spain, and Poland and it is the religious affiliation of a significant and growing minority in countries like the United States and Australia.

And these are coming from secular sources o.

Go on and deny what the whole world knows.

davien:
You can give as many apologetics as you can...
This is the historian raymond of agiles describing the first crusade on 1099
" Some of our men cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them
with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them
longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands and feet
were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick
one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small
matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon, a
place where religious services ware ordinarily chanted. What
happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief.
So let it suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and
portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle
reins."
And they also raped women...the same way military men rapes women at times of invasion.

1. You are yet to provide evidence of rape

2. Even if a few soldiers did wrong during the crusades, it wouldn't mean the crusades was not a good thing meant to liberate people from the ISIS of that time. The Allied forces did a good thing by fightin Hitler but were all Allied troops well behaved? Think well, for once.

3. Is this the same "Raymond d'Agiles" that other historians see as a dubious historian? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_D%27Aguilers

davien:

You can call the Soviet union an "atheist" movement all day long..the fact remains that nobody kills for atheism because a disbelief in "god/gods" tells you nothing about how to treat religious people.

The Soviet, Cambodian, Chinese, Albanian and N Korean govts were Atheist govts and they persecuted religion and killed tens of millions. There are many more examples.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

The evidence is overwhelming! Only a lunatic will deny it!

mumumugu:
in order for Atheism to 'succeed', Atheism has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style, i.e. "A perfect atheist is one for whom god never comes up. They never talk about it, they don't go to meetings or read books about it, they never use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, and they aren't rebelling against anything." Your thoughts on this

For the millionth time, atheism is not a goal, and does not have goals worth succeeding in.
It is simply an individual choice to reject the idea of god.
Education, enlightenment and economic empowerment are the reasons most people begin to reject stone-age ideas and ideals.

Poorer countries are densely religious because because poorer countries are densely less enlightened, less educated, less technologically advanced, and have less freedoms and a lot more social anxieties and unrest.
Have you noticed that, sir?

Atheism is not a competing philosophy that challenges religion.
No.
Atheism is the rejection of the unproven idea of god.

Your job is to show that your god exists, not to challenge those who reject it because you have not proven it.

It is 100% inevitable that more people, your children and grand children will relegate your god and your religion to the dustbins historical myths, just like Zeus, Apollo and the rest of histories dead and forgotten gods.
And humanity will be better for it.

plaetton:


For the millionth time, atheism is not a goal, and does not have goals worth succeeding in.
It is simply an individual choice to reject the idea of god.
Education, enlightenment and economic empowerment are the reasons most people begin to reject stone-age ideas and ideals.

Poorer countries are densely religious because because poorer countries are densely less enlightened, less educated, less technologically advanced, and have less freedoms and a lot more social anxieties and unrest.
Have you noticed that, sir?

Atheism is not a competing philosophy that challenges religion.
No.
Atheism is the rejection of the unproven idea of god.

Your job is to show that your god exists, not to challenge those who reject it because you have not proven it.

It is 100% inevitable that more people, your children and grand children will relegate your god and your religion to the dustbins historical myths, just like Zeus, Apollo and the rest of histories dead and forgotten gods.
And humanity will be better for it.

Stalin promised to crush religion with the Soviet Union's economic and military might, rather religion crushed Communism by the power of God.

The atheist PZ Myers declared on September 27, 2014, "I will make a prediction, right here and now.... The number of people identifying as atheists will stagnate or even shrink..."

italo:


Stalin promised to crush religion with the Soviet Union's economic and military might, rather religion crushed Communism by the power of God.

The atheist PZ Myers declared on September 27, 2014, "I will make a prediction, right here and now.... The number of people identifying as atheists will stagnate or even shrink..."

And what exactly is your point?
I have not threatened that religion will be crushed.
We are already seeing the decline of religion all over the world, except for thirldworld poor countries that have nothing but stone age spuerstions to navigate life.

Even your sect, the Catholic church, is closing parishes because of poor attendance.
In advanced countries, religion is for grandmas and grandpas.

Therefore, in about 50 to 100 yes from now, we will have far far fewer religious people, and about 90% of them will in third world basket cases and failed states.

plaetton:

And what exactly is your point?
I have not threatened that religion will be crushed.
We are already seeing the decline of religion all over the world, except for thirldworld poor countries that have nothing but stone age spuerstions to navigate life.
Even your sect, the Catholic church, is closing parishes because of poor attendance.
In advanced countries, religion is for grandmas and grandpas.
Therefore, in about 50 to 100 yes from now, we will have far far fewer religious people, and about 90% of them will in third world basket cases and failed states.

I really love how you write and express yourself, wish I could be like you. I am your fan.

dalaman:


I really love how you write and express yourself, wish I could be like you. I am your fan.

Thanks for your encouragement.

@Italo

The way you lie to yourself is simply amazing.
I guess that is what religion is essentially all about: lying to oneself all the time.

Time and time again you keep bringing up Stalin and communism as being same with atheism.
I encourage you to study communism to learn how it does not relate to atheism.

How exactly did you arrive at the death figures you keep quoting?
How were all these people killed?
Were all these millions of people killed on behalf of atheism? Were they Christians who were genocided on some kind of atheists holy war, or were political dissidents killed for challenging and even threatening the ruling class?

Could millions of these people have died because of starvation linked to bad economic policies?

From 1960, how many million Nigerians have died due to one economic policy or another?
How many Nigerian past leaders ( who have all been devoutly religious) have you accused of genocide on account of their religion?

The US sanctions and two wars against the people of Iraq since 1990 have directly resulted in the deaths of at least 1.5 million Iraqi citizens.
These policies of genocide were enacted and executed by born again Christians.

Should I remind you of the wholesale massacres and lootings by European colonialism, upholders of the Christian faith?

italo:

Show us evidence that Copernicus was burned alive.

What was Galileo threatened for?

Who was killed unjustly?

Catholic history is far more just than the rest of human history. The Catholic Church is the biggest charity organization the world has ever seen, giving life to billions since inception.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.

Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes). During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization
The role of the Catholic Church in Western civilization has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society. Through its long history, the church has been a major source of social services like schooling and medical care; inspiration for Western art, culture and philosophy; and influential player in politics and religion. In various ways it has sought to affect Western attitudes to vice and virtue in diverse fields. It has, over many centuries, promulgated the teachings of Jesus within the Western World and remains a source of continuity linking modern Western culture to classical Western culture.

While the West is no longer universally Catholic, the Catholic heritage remains strong in Western countries: festivals like Easter and Christmas are marked universally as public holidays; Pope Gregory XIII's Gregorian Calendar has been adopted internationally as the civil calendar; and time itself is measured by the West from the assumed date of the birth of the Church's founder, Jesus of Nazareth: the Year One AD (Anno Domini, and not year "0" which doesn't exist in this system).

The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of Rome. During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. The Reformation brought an end to religious unity in the West, but the Renaissance masterpieces produced by Catholic artists like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael at that time remain among the most celebrated works of art ever produced. Similarly, Catholic sacred music by composers like Vivaldi, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Shubert and Verdi is among the most admired classical music in the Western canon.

The papacy has been intricately involved in European politics: Pope Leo the Great met Attila the Hun in 452, and persuaded him to turn back from his invasion of Italy; Pope Leo III proclaimed Charlemagne as King of the Romans at the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire; Pope Clement VII refused to annul the marriage of Henry VIII, thus prompting the English Reformation; and Pope John Paul II is widely credited as having hastened the Collapse of Communism in Europe. Rivalry between princes and popes and theological disputes contributed to several political conflicts in Western history, but the papacy also acted as peace broker and arbiter between rival rulers. Many have criticized actions of the church that had a profound effect on Western society; of particular note are the harsh practices of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, the suppression of the ideas of Galileo Galilei, and the church's historical treatment of women. Into the modern era, the church has remained prominent in topical debates: from the 1839 papal condemnation of slavery, to 1937's papal attack on Nazism, to Pope John Paul II's condemnations of the Iraq War of 2003, the church has tried to fulfill a compassionate role in the world.

The Bible and Catholic theology have also strongly influenced Western philosophers and political activists. The teachings of Jesus, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, are among the important sources for modern notions of Human Rights and the welfare measures commonly provided by governments in the West. Long held Catholic teachings on sexuality and marriage have also been both influential and (in recent times) controversial.

Catholicism played a role in ending practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[1] infanticide and polygamy.[2] Christianity in general affected the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infants were more likely to be killed), divorce, incest, polygamy, birth control, abortion and marital infidelity.[3] While official Church teaching[4] considers women and men to be complementary (equal and different), some modern "advocates of ordination of women and other feminists" argue that teachings attributed to St. Paul and those of the Fathers of the Church and Scholastic theologians advanced the notion of a divinely ordained female inferiority.[5] Nevertheless, women have played prominent roles in Western history through the Catholic Church, particularly in education and healthcare, but also as influential theologians and mystics. The important status of the Virgin Mary gave notions of maternal virtue and compassion a place at the heart of Western civilization.

While the Church has clashed throughout history with rival Western forces such as paganism, Orthodox Christianity, Protestantism, and communism and its influence is much diminished from its zenith, the immensity of the Catholic contribution to the West's heritage is undeniable. Catholicism is still the majority religion of several major Western countries, including Brazil, Mexico, Italy, France, Spain, and Poland and it is the religious affiliation of a significant and growing minority in countries like the United States and Australia.

And these are coming from secular sources o.

Go on and deny what the whole world knows.
1. You are yet to provide evidence of rape

2. Even if a few soldiers did wrong during the crusades, it wouldn't mean the crusades was not a good thing meant to liberate people from the ISIS of that time. The Allied forces did a good thing by fightin Hitler but were all Allied troops well behaved? Think well, for once.

3. Is this the same "Raymond d'Agiles" that other historians see as a dubious historian? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_D%27Aguilers


The Soviet, Cambodian, Chinese, Albanian and N Korean govts were Atheist govts and they persecuted religion and killed tens of millions. There are many more examples.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922-1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

The evidence is overwhelming! Only a lunatic will deny it!

All you did was quote mine the catholic church being charitable and all the likes....then quote mined a quote linking atheism/atheists to communism....and tag it off with "evidence is overwhelming" when the majority of your posts were cherry-picked.
I could also go and quote mine the various s3x scandals of the church...and link catholicism with nazi russia.
And it was giodarno bruno who was burnt at the state for advancing a copernican system(i left that out,thinking it was copernicus)

"Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame, particularly among 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Now,how many "donations" the church makes today....makes it right to burn someone alive....?
This was ofcourse the norm for heresy....
since you,re so good at referencing wiki pages why not wiki the salem witch trials and see the evils done in the name of christianity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

[b] "And now Nineteen persons having been hang'd, and one prest to death, and Eight more condemned, in all Twenty and Eight, of which above a third part were Members of some of the Churches of N. England, and more than half of them of a good Conversation in general, and not one clear'd; about Fifty having confest themselves to be Witches, of which not one Executed; above an Hundred and Fifty in Prison, and Two Hundred more accused; the Special Commision of Oyer and Terminer comes to a period."
— Robert Calef


"When I put an end to the Court there ware at least fifty persons in prision in great misery by reason of the extream cold and their poverty, most of them having only spectre evidence against them and their mittimusses being defective, I caused some of them to be lettout upon bayle and put the Judges upon consideration of a way to reliefe others and to prevent them from perishing in prision, upon which some of them were convinced and acknowledged that their former proceedings were too violent and not grounded upon a right foundation ... The stop put to the first method of proceedings hath dissipated the blak cloud that threatened this Province with destruccion."
— Governor William Phips, February 21st, 1693


I,m sure these are the "just" acts you were talking about earlier.

And your rebuttal of raymond agiles as dubious is not regarding the events of the killings but of his accounts of various hear-say to raise up certain people.
[b] "Like many of the Crusaders and the Crusade's themselves, Raymond of Aguilers motives during the Crusade have been questioned. This is particularly true in regards as to why he wrote the Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem. Raymond of Aguilers claimed he wrote to inform the Bishop of Viviers and the general populace of the true actions in regards to crusade. This was in direct response to rumors spread by several deserters and traitors according to Aguilers. Other historians, however, contend that Raymond of Aguilers actually wrote the Historia Francorum qui Ceperunt Iherusalem to raise up his own liege Raymond IV of Toulouse. Aguilers, being the one responsible for his liege's spiritual being, could possible gain further prestige by portraying Raymond IV of Toulouse as a truly holy individual. This would further explain why during the capture of Antioch Aguilers focused heavily on the finding of the Holy Lance by Peter Bartholomew instead of focusing on the accounts of two saintly figures aiding in the battles as described in the Gesta Francorum." [/b]
So either choose to engage in an argument or we'd be going back and forth with all this.

plaetton:


And what exactly is your point?
I have not threatened that religion will be crushed.
We are already seeing the decline of religion all over the world, except for thirldworld poor countries that have nothing but stone age spuerstions to navigate life.

Even your sect, the Catholic church, is closing parishes because of poor attendance.
In advanced countries, religion is for grandmas and grandpas.

Therefore, in about 50 to 100 yes from now, we will have far far fewer religious people, and about 90% of them will in third world basket cases and failed states.

Religion and Catholicism are not declining in the world.

Catholicism is growing. For 1 parish being closed, 3 or more are being opened.

If religion were dying, you wouldn't be this frustrated.

By stone-age countries, I'm sure you mean countries like the US where bestiality is allowed and infanticide is the upcoming fashion, right?

plaetton:
@Italo

The way you lie to yourself is simply amazing.
I guess that is what religion is essentially all about: lying to oneself all the time.

Time and time again you keep bringing up Stalin and communism as being same with atheism.
I encourage you to study communism to learn how it does not relate to atheism.

How exactly did you arrive at the death figures you keep quoting?
How were all these people killed?
Were all these millions of people killed on behalf of atheism? Were they Christians who were genocided on some kind of atheists holy war, or were political dissidents killed for challenging and even threatening the ruling class?

Could millions of these people have died because of starvation linked to bad economic policies?

From 1960, how many million Nigerians have died due to one economic policy or another?
How many Nigerian past leaders ( who have all been devoutly religious) have you accused of genocide on account of their religion?

The US sanctions and two wars against the people of Iraq since 1990 have directly resulted in the deaths of at least 1.5 million Iraqi citizens.
These policies of genocide were enacted and executed by born again Christians.

Should I remind you of the wholesale massacres and lootings by European colonialism, upholders of the Christian faith?

I gave you links to educate yourself but you prefer to remain in historical illiteracy.

It is typical of you. Keep denying the obvious.


Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
State promotion of atheism as a public norm first came to prominence in Revolutionary France (1789-1799).[1] Revolutionary Mexico followed similar policies from 1917, as did Marxist-Leninist states. The RSFSR (1917-1991) and the Soviet Union (1922-1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and to stay away from houses of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle Stalinist era from 1929 to 1939. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress public religious expression over wide areas of its influence, including places such as central Asia.

Plaetton, Keep fooling yourself on something the world knows very well.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_UnionWhen the Soviet Union was established by the Bolsheviks in 1922, it was the constitutional organization which took over from the Russian Empire. At the time of the 1917 Revolution, the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply integrated into the autocratic state enjoying official status. This was a significant factor that contributed to the Bolshevik attitude to religion and the steps they took to control it.[1] Thus the USSR became the first state to have, as an ideological objective, the elimination of religion[2] and its replacement with universal atheism.[3][4] The communist regime confiscated religious property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.[5] The confiscation of religious assets was often based on accusations of illegal accumulation of wealth.

The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes.[citation needed]

State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

Marxist–Leninist atheism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and elimination of religion. Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed. Many more were persecuted


Keep denying the obvious.

Atheism and mass murder are inseparable in human history.

mumumugu:
in order for Atheism to 'succeed', Atheism has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style, i.e. "A perfect atheist is one for whom god never comes up. They never talk about it, they don't go to meetings or read books about it, they never use the word "atheist" to describe themselves, and they aren't rebelling against anything." Your thoughts on this

Some of this may be true for atheism as a philosophical position.

But I don't think it is true for atheism as a political movement.

In either case it has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style which many scientists and atheists see as an embarrassment.

One major reason atheism is failing is the tendency to argue in political mode during philosophical debate. This involves a kind of foolish hypocrisy -- foolish because it is so evident and only serves to trash the atheist's credibility. It also highlights the philosophical weakness, in that they are forced into spin to make their argument.

But atheism will never succeed, anyway. It is too narrow an outlook, usually based on fear of what it erroneously believes to be the only alternative -- religion/worship etc.

...here we go again

sinequanon:


Some of this may be true for atheism as a philosophical position.

But I don't think it is true for atheism as a political movement.

In either case it has to evolve beyond the Dawkins style which many scientists and atheists see as an embarrassment.

One major reason atheism is failing is the tendency to argue in political mode during philosophical debate. This involves a kind of foolish hypocrisy -- foolish because it is so evident and only serves to trash the atheist's credibility. It also highlights the philosophical weakness, in that they are forced into spin to make their argument.

But atheism will never succeed, anyway. It is too narrow an outlook, usually based on fear of what it erroneously believes to be the only alternative -- religion/worship etc.

Can you tell us where you got the bolded preconceptions from?
By all means....how does one "argue in political mode"?
And what do you mean "atheism" is "narrow minded" when it is merely the lack of a belief? And is the acceptance of a belief "open mindedness"?

davien:
Can you tell us where you got the bolded preconceptions from?

It is not a preconception (that was your preconception ). I got it from the various behaviours on this forum, for example.

davien:
By all means....how does one "argue in political mode"?

Examples:

You decide on the validity of an opinion based solely on which side you think the person is on, even if they are sprouting rubbish.

You regurgitate a line of reasoning that you don't even understand, for the purposes of supporting your "side".

You make posts that don't touch on the subject matter and try to hide your ignorance behind spin and ad hominem "attacks".

You are a cheerleader.

davien:
And what do you mean "atheism" is "narrow minded" when it is merely the lack of a belief? And is the acceptance of a belief "open mindedness"?

No, it is not a lack of a belief. (That is another glib phrase that people tend to parrot.)

Lack of a belief would be to say you DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

To have an opinion on the matter is to have a belief.

sinequanon:


It is not a preconception (that was your preconception ). I got it from the various behaviours on this forum, for example.

okay.

Examples:

You decide on the validity of an opinion based solely on which side you think the person is on, even if they are sprouting rubbish.

No,an arguments validity lies on its merits...

You regurgitate a line of reasoning that you don't even understand, for the purposes of supporting your "side".

Like?

You make posts that don't touch on the subject matter and try to hide your ignorance behind spin and ad hominem "attacks".

okay...you do know the difference between an ad hominem and an insult right?
The people I viewed addressed your issues with a dash of funny anecdotes and insults.

You are a cheerleader.

?

No, it is not a lack of a belief. (That is another glib phrase that people tend to parrot.)

Lack of a belief would be to say you DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

"god" has never been established to be in existence from the onset(otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist) and I have no knowledge of such,it is the claims that people attribute to and from "god/gods" that are rejected... thus I am an agnostic atheist.

To have an opinion on the matter is to have a belief.

True...although such opinions may not be justified with evidence..hence may not be constituted as knowledge but rather "make-believe"

davien:
No,an arguments validity lies on its merits...

You've lost track already.

You ask me what people are doing wrong.

Then you confuse the answer with what I think is valid.

I can't continue our discussion if you lose track.

sinequanon:


You've lost track already.

You ask me what people are doing wrong.

Then you confuse the answer with what I think is valid.

I can't continue our discussion if you lose track.

I did not lose track....you claimed many false premises about the people you argued with....of which I asked you how you arrived at those false premises,you ignored the question and instead accused me of doing so myself(below)

sinequanon:
It is not a preconception (that was your preconception ). I got it
from the various behaviours on this forum,

Then you gave "examples" of the "various behaviours" you got from this forum.
Now after analyzing those "examples" you finally claimed I "lost track"?..

davien:
I did not lose track....you claimed many false premises about the people you argued with....of which I asked you how you arrived at those false premises,you ignored the question and instead accused me of doing so myself(below)

You have already decided it is "false", so I ignored you because there is no point in pursuing it.

davien:
you finally claimed I "lost track"?..

Correct.

sinequanon:


You have already decided it is "false", so I ignored you because there is no point in pursuing it.

I explained why your notions were false several times...from you not discerning the difference between an ad hominem attack and an insult to your view that they've supported themselves a priori.

The people I viewed addressed your issues with a dash of funny
anecdotes and insults.

davien:
Sure....just keep quite while theists grow strength in numbers and then start enforcing "god's law" and other laws that permit them.....
keeping quite is the worst thing to do in a nation ruled by dogma.

Imagine if galileo kept quite while the "flat earthers" spreaded their pseudoscience.
Imagine if louis pasteur kept quite while people claimed "demons" and "bad blood" for the causes of diseases.
Imagine if einstein kept quite while people believed space and time were abstract entities.
Imagine if abraham lincoln kept quite and said nothing about slavery.
Getting out there and chatting,debating...even holding meetings is a positive step towards any progress..
we can't fly planes into towers..nor hold killing crusades but we can present our voices...and that is our strength and right.
Better to speak now,before keeping quite turns nigeria into a dictatorship.

Some people get confused between an 'atheist' and an 'anti-theist'.

To be an atheist, you simply need to lack a belief in a deity. To be an anti-theist, you need to deliberately oppose theism.


Many atheists are indifferent to God belief and some even support the belief in God or the institutions that uphold that belief because they think our society is based on religious morals, symbology etc. and may think that to get rid of religion would be dangerous, even if they don't actually believe in the truth of those religions or more specifically, their God claim.



For example, there is a line between being a moderate religious person, a fundamentalist and an extremist. There is also a difference between an anti-theist who opposes theism using words and arguments from those who would like to see state sanctioned atheism, where there is no such thing as freedom of religion.


In the extreme, both are equally dangerous and need to be guarded against - a state that seeks to enforce atheism on its citizens is as dangerous as a theocracy that tries to impose belief of a deity on its citizens.


There are a great many anti-theists who wouldn't want to force non-belief on anyone else but who also believe that society would be better off if people came to the conclusion that there were no God on their own.


Surprisingly enough, there are even theists who are anti-theists.

You could conceivably run across a theist who believes in a God or Gods but believes that a belief in God is harmful to society.

You can also find anti-theist atheists who attack other atheists when they defend religion or try to poke holes in their arguments. The anti-theist might argue that the atheist who somehow supports other theist is standing in the way of progress


A person who packs a live bomb into a church because they want to wipe all religion out is just as dangerous as someone who wishes to burn non-believers at the stake. People - whether religious or non-religious - need to work together to defend against the extremists of any ideology. .
Trying to impose your beliefs on others is the opposite of freedom and leads to tyranny.
Like I said at the beginning of this article, it's really a matter of degree.

mumumugu:




Some people get confused between an 'atheist' and an 'anti-theist'.

To be an atheist, you simply need to lack a belief in a deity. To be an anti-theist, you need to deliberately oppose theism.


Many atheists are indifferent to God belief and some even support the belief in God or the institutions that uphold that belief because they think our society is based on religious morals, symbology etc. and may think that to get rid of religion would be dangerous, even if they don't actually believe in the truth of those religions or more specifically, their God claim.



For example, there is a line between being a moderate religious person, a fundamentalist and an extremist. There is also a difference between an anti-theist who opposes theism using words and arguments from those who would like to see state sanctioned atheism, where there is no such thing as freedom of religion.


In the extreme, both are equally dangerous and need to be guarded against - a state that seeks to enforce atheism on its citizens is as dangerous as a theocracy that tries to impose belief of a deity on its citizens.


There are a great many anti-theists who wouldn't want to force non-belief on anyone else but who also believe that society would be better off if people came to the conclusion that there were no God on their own.


Surprisingly enough, there are even theists who are anti-theists.

You could conceivably run across a theist who believes in a God or Gods but believes that a belief in God is harmful to society.

You can also find anti-theist atheists who attack other atheists when they defend religion or try to poke holes in their arguments. The anti-theist might argue that the atheist who somehow supports other theist is standing in the way of progress


A person who packs a live bomb into a church because they want to wipe all religion out is just as dangerous as someone who wishes to burn non-believers at the stake. People - whether religious or non-religious - need to work together to defend against the extremists of any ideology. .
Trying to impose your beliefs on others is the opposite of freedom and leads to tyranny.
Like I said at the beginning of this article, it's really a matter of degree.

I doubt anyone does anything dangerous in the name of "atheism"...
You can't see an atheist ISIS group because atheism vouches for no position on attitudes towards theists..
Only dictatorships where people have motives to eliminate religions do such e.g nazism or communism.. people then tag "atheism did it" as though atheism is a creed.

davien:
I doubt anyone does anything dangerous in the name of "atheism"...
You can't see an atheist ISIS group because atheism vouches for no position on attitudes towards theists..
Only dictatorships where people have motives to eliminate religions do such e.g nazism or communism.. people then tag "atheism did it" as though atheism is a creed.

The only reason Atheist radical groups are not as prominent as ISIS, Al Qaeda or Boko Haram is that Atheists are in the minority so the radicals would be very few compared to the general population and would be easily extinguished. And Atheists are cowardly.

That's why the dictators do it for Atheism when they have all the powers of the State at their disposal.

Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
There Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!"

?