St Augustine’s words:
“From the body itself arise so many diseases that not even the books of doctors can contain them all . . .(and) the treatments and drugs themselves are painful. Thus, men are rescued from a penal destruction by a penal remedy.”

Pope Gregory in 604, blamed the great plague on Sin instead of the rise of ascetisim enforced almost solely on Augustine’s other off hand comments. The Roman and Greek baths either fell by the way side or were actively destroyed as sinful enjoyments of the body.

It took until 1215 for King Phillip the II to declare the first medical college separate from the Catholic church’s domination. Before 1215, the church forbade dissection of any kind! It was a micro-schism that allowed the king to protect surgeons who read translated Muslim texts for the ressurection of Aristole held beliefs in the separation of diseases of the mind, body and soul. These aren’t the works of Draper and White, these are the words of history. Facts.

The destruction of cats expanding the plague… FACTS
Witch burnings… Facts

To the second major point. I have faith, but I do not subscribe to a particular “organized religion.” I hold that there is no intercession between me and Christ, and thus I do not need religion to have faith. To that end, I think someone can have religion and have no faith. Religion is a communal acceptance of beliefs and modes of conduct, faith is a fidelity of purpose and loyalty. You conflate the two, religion and faith, into the same being. Pope Alexander the IV was a syphillitic mass murderer, who bought the papal head of the Catholic and only church in the Western world. He by definition was a part of and the leader of a religion, but I doubt his faith. Adolf Hitler used religion and even established himself the head of a state religion that attemtped to assume and absorb both Lutheran and Catholic offices as subject to his Fuherers. He may even have had faith of a kind, but it was not loyaly processed and his obeyance to religion was transformative.

I reject and indict most religion, not out of atheism in an attempt to tear down, God, Christ, his Angels and prophets, but in an attempt to disrobe and expose the churches who have attempted to insert themselves between God and man. The actions of men are easily circumspect, obviously in violation and with historical accuracy are responsible for the slow recovery of medical concepts known to the Greeks, Romans, and Jews centuries before the birth of Christ. There’s a long history of people attempting to disrobe the churches and becoming religious leaders themselves (Martin Luther comes to mind), but my rejection is for the crushing blows to science and the lives that should not have been lost.

“…Christianity because of the moral prohibitions it makes on our sexual lives…”

I’m happily and monogamously married for 3 years and 3 days today.
My initial discomfort with the church comes instead from growing up in the southern United States, where some churches are used as meeting grounds for members of the Ku Klux Klan. I do reject “the perversion of homosexuality” as a religious tenet because it comes from the laws of leviticus and later from Paul, despite Christ’s forgiveness of the Adulteress. My older brother, after my religious transformations, came out and later married monogamously another man under Canadian law. He’s a successful Aerospace Engineer, his husband a successful writer and editor, and their newborn adopted daughter a joy to the world. My mother serves as a live in grandmother to help reinforce any feminie roles. The child will not lack for “faith” but will probably not lack for the absence of religion. My younger brother ascribes to different beliefs still and has sought a church to reaffirm his beliefs. I instead choose personal study as my outlet for faith.

But I’m pleased with the points that I’ve expressed, and will gladly give you the last word as this is my last response in this thread.

Do you realize how many internet arguments fail to end on this same expression?

While you may be troubled by some of the things I’ve said about your arguments and may wish to continue the debate, I really don’t have a desire to.

You never managed to debate. It’s a real shame actually.

I’ll advise you, however, that this is not my relinquishing of my beliefs on these matters.

Given that the only way to have a civil debate is through formalized concession, I doubt you ever had any beliefs you ever felt you could concede on. That’s an unreasonable effort to try to overcome.

That would be a foolish conclusion on your part, if so.

There’s this passage in the bible about calling other people fools you should perhaps consider sometime when you ever get down to reading the bible cover to cover.

Thanks for incorporating on your side due civility in discussing these matters, I’ll trust you can recognize civility on my part as well.

You saved the Ad hominem for the last two posts. I appreciate that, but you never managed to escape the straw man or respond in a way that answered the logical fallacy. I didn’t presuppose White or Draper, I called them a Straw Man, in a formal debate, you’d have had to address that and call that a false conclusion. You ignored it like you never read the words.

Safe travels.

And to you. Sorry for any typos… These HTC phones are harder to type on than I’d choose.

You say that you have faith. I am confused by this. You hold on to non-historical facts about the religious-motivation of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others that even predominant, vocal modern atheists don’t believe as fact, and repeat them with a vehemence that even the sternest, devoutest atheists of today like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris don’t possess–and they would have vastly more to gain by reporting them if they were true in their best-selling books. That Hitler was actually motivated by religion, or that Stalin was actually a Christian and thereby religion is responsible, not only leaves us Mao to deal with–who still killed 70 million people–but it is not a responsible conclusion based on the facts. The culpability of a religion resembling Christianity and Catholocism within the acts of these men is a view that is held by only a fringe group of radical atheists, and these are statements that surely brilliant atheist authors today would report only at their peril of saying things that aren’t so. They don’t. The best they can do is to exaggerate the crimes of religion, as you have done, and then when it comes to Hitler and the other atheist regimes they prevaricate as to the real cause and express bewilderment at why atheism would cause anyone to act in that way. Perhaps you should contact them about this; it would really help their cause!

The arguments you put forth are not based on miscontrued facts as much as they are on misplaced emotion–emotion that religion must be the true cause of history’s most horrendous crimes in some way, whether it is factually viable or not. I suspect this anti-religious bias is the result of a widespread discomfort or disapproval that our modern culture has with Christianity because of the moral prohibitions it makes on our sexual lives, the perversion of homosexuality, and other difficult matters usually labeled as hate-speech. That’s something I can do nothing with. A great man once said, “If it weren’t for the 7th commandment, Western man could be a Christian again.”

But I’m pleased with the points that I’ve expressed, and will gladly give you the last word as this is my last response in this thread. While you may be troubled by some of the things I’ve said about your arguments and may wish to continue the debate, I really don’t have a desire to. I’ll advise you, however, that this is not my relinquishing of my beliefs on these matters. That would be a foolish conclusion on your part, if so. On the contrary, the end of civil debates usually comes when the two involved have reached a stopping-point as to what they wish to express. For me, that’s here; for you, maybe not. Thanks for incorporating on your side due civility in discussing these matters, I’ll trust you can recognize civility on my part as well. Safe travels.

I’m out of town this weekend, so will be unable to respond in full, unless I respond to your post before it’s unmoderated.

1. It is true that as the Nazi’s stressed their power there was a transformation from Religious support (one of the changes Hitler made was to collect taxes for Church support in the beginning that later allowed him to control the churches and the vicars who preached at them) to eventually a profession that Hitler was another coming of God himself. That his word was Godlike. If allowed to continue, the goal would have been this, but to call that atheist is dishonest.
2. The suspension of Christmas was actually connected to the holiday commemorating the burning of the reichstag, which occurred shortly before Christmas and is the pivotal moment in Hitler’s assumption of power.

3. Fascism as a movement extends first from Mussolini, the father of modern fascism. His support and connections were anchored with the Catholic church, and Hitler borrowed heavily from Mussolini’s model. Again, denying this is ridiculous.

4. My point, which you continue to ignore and have never addressed was the proscriptions against anatomy and human dissection that Davinci overcame and received special license to perform only because of his celebration as an artist.

5. A continuing point is the Church’s consistent attacks on bathing practices that had allowed the Romans and Greeks to resist cholera.

6. The whole sale death of cats is a leading cause of the rapid and pervasive spread of the Black plague. The church sponsored the killing of cats.

7. It is extremely likely that Pope Borgia (Pope Alexander the IV) was an Atheist as well. It does not mean he was not the head of the Catholic Church. He was one of the causes for Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis and the Protestant reformation. It does not make the Catholic Church not a religion, if Borgia was an atheist in his heart or private, even if the church did sponsor slavery in the New World under his edicts or effect so many sins. Soviet Russia was a Christian nation during its formation and brutal, brutal transformation. Stalin’s last acts were done as an apparent Christian, and people still died under his efforts at this time.

Again, my point remains, Religion is responsible for crime through its conscience substitution capacity. It is the element used to destroy. The combined sins do calculate over a billion deaths, especially in the combating of disease, the suppression of local medicine and the destruction of Hellenistic hygiene.

To Stalin and various other Communists, Stalin was trained by the church in theology, administrivia and the practices that helped to organize religious control of a mob. The inspiration assisted him in his campaigns and pograms just as the Church assisted the Reich. While the goals of Marx were to “free man of all of his masters,” and he considered religion to be one of these, not all communists are atheists. To equate the two so rabidly shows you have neither read the manifesto or considered the political realities. Absolute capitalists could not believe in an economic safety net, a social safety net or a host of other details, but yet a small taint of social democracy or democratic socialism does not miscegenate with a single drop into full blown communism.

60-100K dead to witch trials in the 30 years war, 20 million dead in North and South America, 100 million dead in one 70 year period of the Black Plague, these are also facts.

Organized religion killed these people with policies and dogma that weren’t scientifically sound.

As much as 70-85% of Germany was killed off during the 30 years war. Look it up. Look at the causes of the conflict, look at the papal decrees, the cause of the reformation and the actions that make this happen.

But allow me to do a little bit of historical whitewashing of my own. Of course, the whitewash I choose to slather on is the whitewash of historical fact. I am speaking, of course, of the atheist, Communist regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others. Can one really deny that Communism is an atheist ideology? Well, let’s see. The ideology was born of the mind of Karl Marx, a devout atheist. In fact, atheism was the central part of Marxist thought and, by extension, Communism. If we take a quick look at Communism, we see that it seeks to remove the “exploiting class” and empower the “proletariat.” It also believes in an atheist utopia, and says violence is just a really fine way to get done what you wish to. And this violence was called upon by the Communist leaders I mentioned above to achieve what they wished. Where is religion in all of these ideas and praising of violence? It’s nowhere. Unfortunately, there were quite a few people in the way of the atheist utopia they wished to achieve, so Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others resorted to violence quite a bit. Mao resorted to violence—namely killing someone—to the tune of about 70 million people…uh, 50 million or so if you’re a liberal historian. Mao, by the way, closed churches and murdered clergy and followers of Christianity systematically. As did Stalin, who resorted to the type of violence known as murder to the tune of about 20 million people to establish his atheist, Communist utopia. Pol Pot of the Khmer Rouge—the Communist Party that ruled Cambodia—killed 1.5 to 2 million people to establish his atheist utopia. Let’s not forget Hitler, a herald of Nazism a lot like Communism—which instead of exalting the proletariat seeks to empower a master race—and his resorting to murdering about 10 million people, 6 million of them Jews.

As for Stalin, it is preposterous to say that the Russian Orthodox Church he may have grown up in was actually responsible for murders that were motivated by atheist Communism. And if he “softened” toward religion and eventually opened some churches and attended church near the end of his life? Big deal. Too little, too late. The damage of his atheist, Communistic political ideology was done by that time. It is just as ridiculous to say that Mao, raised as a Buddhist, would have resorted to the Buddhist religion for motivation to murder. The central doctrine of the ideology of Stalin’s Russia–when all the genocide and Gulag arrests were made–was atheism. In China, the official doctrine was—and still is today—atheism. The motivation for these crimes against humanity in their respective places was atheist Communism that seeks to create an atheist utopia where true religion or Christianity have absolutely no place at all—and this last not by popular choice or referendum, but by absolute governmental violence against religious people of all kinds.

So as for the tired, anti-religious rants that bemoan the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings as the true crimes of history, I have this to report. Historians estimate that these three combined killed about 200,000 people over half a millennium—over 500 years. That’s just dandy with me. I’ll wear that. Religion will have to wear that, too. In fact, if someone wants to exaggerate these killings to 1,000,000 people over 500 years, that’s just fine, too. Facts won’t allow it, but I will.

But I’m keeping score. And atheist Nazi or atheist Communist regimes who are pathetically or falsely aligned with religion of any kind still tip the scales enormously in their direction. Atheism, in other words, just leaves religion and Christianity in the dust in the race of murder, tyranny, and genocide. It was the driving force in the murder of about 75 to 100 million people in just 50 years. Religious people, if they wish to compete, really have their work cut out for them.

75,000,000-100,000,000 > 1,000,000

Bravo, atheism. Bravo.

Oh, boy. Well, I was hoping to not have to quote the man, but it looks like I’m going to have to. Behold the contents of the book, “Hitler’s Table Talk,” assembled by a close aide of Hitler himself that chronicles the conversations of Hitler with his leading advisers. Therein Hitler calls Christianity one of the great “scourges” of history, and says of the Germans, “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.” He also promises that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.” He also blames the Jews for Christianity. He also condemns Christianity for opposing the theory of evolution the way it did, a scientific theory important to Hitler—as he was a National Socialist acting upon Social Darwinism. In “Mein Kampf,” one finds Hitler himself saying that his public statements lenient or indicative or religious ideas should be understood as propaganda that is not truth but designed to makes the masses follow his lead.

True, Hitler said a few things in the presence of Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans like, “I am doing the Lord’s work.” Well, to say that this is proof of his religious motivation is to confuse personal conviction with political opportunism of getting his tyrannical work done. The Nazi’s put forth the idea of an Aryan Christ who cleanses with violence the Jews from the earth, or what Hitler called “Positive Christianity—“ but this was a radical idea and not even close to traditional Christianity at the time, and Pope Pius XI condemned it as false at the time. Furthermore, Hitler’s opposition to the Jews and the others he killed was secular, not religious. If you were in his prison camps you couldn’t get out of them by saying “I don’t practice the Jewish tradition anymore, I’m an atheist.” Or “I have converted to Christianity.” To Hitler, the people he eradicated were from inferior races. Their religion had no bearing at all on why they were to be eradicated. Nor did his “religion” because he didn’t have a religion—unless of course the “law of nature” that provided for the “elimination of the unfit” that the Nazis extolled and admired Darwin for in their own words was a religion. It wasn’t though. Again, atheism.

Hitler was averse to religion and churches, and though he may have veiled his rhetoric in religiosity, Hitler and his cronies knew that churches and their millions of members were their biggest opposition ideologically. As such, he and his administration did things right away to weaken it. Once 1937 rolled around, the Nazis didn’t celebrate Christmas anymore. The Hitler youth canted prayers of thanks to Fuhrer for the blessings he had given them, not to God. The Nazis labeled certain clergy-members as “troublemakers” and they weren’t allowed to preach, or were thrown in prison, or were simply murdered. He censored religious newspapers, began surveillance of Churches by the Gestapo, fired civil servants who practiced Christianity, and transferred ownership of church property to the state. These are hardly the acts of a man who seriously considers “himself to be a Roman Catholic.” He never considered this. He hated the ethics of Christianity like compassion and equality, as he saw them as weakness, and were averse to his atheist, social Darwinist worldview and regime. I hope this dispels the rumors that all I can do is “excommunicate Hitler after the fact.”

If you look at the facts and what really motivated people–not what they were nominally or who they sought and gained approval of or where they went to mass a few times–has killed countless more people than religion-bearing people ever have or ever will. Only a skewing of the facts and heaping onto religion or Christ more blame than history actually shows it deserves will allow you to arrive at the other end of the spectrum.

What people “really want” is not the danger of Religion. The danger of religion is it is so readily a tool to reject personal inhibition and follow a leader who claims religious power or insight into mass killings or prophesy divinely inspired mayhem. I have no problem with faith, and I possess it, but I do feel religion is rightfully indicted as the multiplier of death and the motivation of those who follow a cause not necessarily inspired by religion but married to it. It was an institutionalized effort to prevent bathing and mark those who bathed regularly as prideful that set hygiene once common in Greece and Rome back for centuries. It was blaming the burning of the Reichstag on Atheist Communists that put Hitler more securely into power. It’s not Christ himself that is indicted, but the Church used to harness his message that is indicted.