2) Did I claim their lack of belief was the main cause? I definitely contend that their rejection of traditional religious mores was complicit to their ability to kill so freely. But answer me this: Why is it so coincidental/i> that all the major communist states were also de facto atheist and rabidly persecuted religion?

4) All three citations in the Wikipedia article are shallow and border on nonsensical. The first never mentions that the virgins marry the groom too. The second and third condemn polygamy! What kind of standard of argument are you putting forth here? And do cite your alleged contradictions. I have experience in debunking alleged contradictions. But do it by hand – no mass copy pasting – so I know you have actually read and understood each accusation.

5) See point 3.

6) If I am guilty of generalization, I apologize. But my point is, when there are atheists who object to such-and-such, what is their basis?

7) What I am unaware of is what particular wrong notions you have about Christianity. Cite them and I will attempt to clear up your misunderstandings.

8.) Such things are already being argued for! It’s no longer theoretical or rhetorical discussion. And what analogy with science? You mentioned science once, without explanation. Please elaborate.

9) What I mean to say is, religious folk claim to have an absolute source of their morality – which I still maintain. But after much debate, a commenter persuaded me that when it comes to actual practice, even religiously-derived morality is relative in practice, by the mere fact that religious folk have to read their holy texts and each will have their own, relative interpretation of those texts. Btw, your use of the f-word got your comment held for moderation. Was it really necessary to use it? At least bowdlerize it with a star, as in f*ck.

I conclude by noting that I have personal experential evidence of this ‘magical man’, that might not convince you, but certainly I cannot honestly dismiss. But feel free to unilaterally claim victory and disappear, it’s not like you’d be the first to do so.

2) Again MASSIVE failure of knowledge in history. The reasons as to why all those dictators killed are massively complex. Sure Stalin, Pot and others might have been non religious. But to claim that their lack of belief to be the primary cause for all those atrocities is just dishonest. Those dictators did what they did due to incredibly complex socio-economic reasons. It is quite like saying the United States waged a war in Iraq because George Bush was a christian. It is just pure idiocy.

3) Again I don’t know where you are going with this sin argument. No 2 people can ever come up with the same list of sins. That in my opinion again stands as evidence of relativism based on personal sensibilities, or lack thereof.

4) I am purely pasting a wikipedia article link. But knowing the sheer number of contradictions that I am aware of in the bible, I wouldn’t be surprised the bible crossed itself yet again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#New_Testament_perspectives

5) I merely pointed out that different cultures believe in different things. And just because of you interpretation of your arrogant religion might say so, that doesn’t mean they have no right to believe in different morals.

6) No all through your senseless discourse you seem to put forth ideas which most atheists would probably disagree with. Yet you allege as though they believe in such ideas.

7) I am sorry you are unaware of the very religion that you preach. There are many abhorrent ideas fronted in the new testament.

8) “How long before all the taboos that current atheists deride – incest, necrophilia, bestiality – become acceptable?” Again, just because morality can be relative you seem to be under the assumption that suddenly people will start to commit atrocities? Did you not understand at all my analogies with science.

9) Now what the **** does that even mean? You are refuting yourself. And why does that not surprise me?

It is rather evident that you are too stuck in the fundamental nature of your religion. I would prefer that to leave things to rational argument than a figment of deluded imagination. You believe in a magical man in the sky who keeps score, and I see no evidence in the need to. End of.

1) The name doesn’t carry the same connotations as it does on teh Internets.

2) I can’t say what happened before JudeoChristianity came along, but I know what happened in places it was taken away in the 20th-Century.

3) Sin is basically defined as going against God’s will. God may have permitted some things due to the hardness of men’s hearts (as specifically stated in the Bible), but that doesn’t make it ideal.

4) I have never seen arguments that the New Testament permits polygamy. Homosexuality sure, which I have debunked, but how about some citations or fleshing out your premise?

5) Your point on child marriage is for what now? It reinforces my point about moral relativism.

6) Did I make the case that atheists do not believe in morality? I simply argue that their morality is relative to the culture of the times.

7) Actually, it is Bible bashers who cherry pick things out of context. To wit, what you cite is all from the Mosaic Code in the Old Testament’s law – but you neglect to mention the New Testament’s replacing it with grace.

8.) Hah, great the way you look down on polygamy and child marriage, but laud homosexuality! How long before all the taboos that current atheists deride – incest, necrophilia, bestiality – become acceptable? After all, it is ‘accepting people for who they are’ as you say. NOW THAT IS MORAL RELATIVISM! Get it?

9) In any case, I have previously been convinced by a commentor that whether or not religious morality is based on an absolute source, in practise it becomes relative due to needing to pass thru the filter of mere human interpretors.

Christians often conveniently forget the roots of their religion in the old testament. Polygamy was very much part of ancient Judaio-Abrahamic cultures. It still exists in the islamic culture till this day. So are you telling me that those people who practice it are committing an absolutely sin just because your new bible doesn’t agree with it? In fact many people even interpret the new testament in ways which would allow polygamy. Ah the wonders of the ever contradictory book which claims to have a strong hold on everything. And traditional christian values forbid forced adoption of religion? Did you ever read history? Forgot about the Pope attested Crusades? Proselytizing isn’t exactly forcing, but my these bible maniacs who come to my door often are annoying as heck.

Now moving on, child marriage was very much a part of Indian history for a long time until it was abolished around a hundred years ago. So the people who indulged in it very much thought of it as being moral and acceptable, before rational debates changed opinion.

Moving on to my biggest point of all. I love how you misconstrue relativism. Sure many people believe that morals are relative and not absolute. That does not imply that those people think of acts like murder, rape and other such ideas are acceptable. It is akin to asking a scientist if proof for gravity is absolute. Any reasonable scientist would answer saying no, as science says nothing about absoluteness. It only gives you the most likely answer based on evidence. But if you were to imply that statement as saying “scientists don’t believe in gravity”, well that is plain stupid and you are taking words out of context.

Finally, I love how Christians spin the words in their own wise book. They pick some verse and say “Ahh there, the book condones a particular act.” But the bible has allowed many things which would be considered as atrocious by today’s standards, such as slavery, patriarchy, child abuse, stoning and other such heinous acts. Religion has only ever played catch up to existing secular morality. A good example would be today’s debate of homosexuality. Religion is only opening up its gates and slowly accepting people for who they are.

Stating that evolutionary theory played a ‘major role’ in shaping communist bloc social engineering shows a woeful ignorance of political history – Joe the Plumber

I knew it, those rumours of Karl Marx readin’ and lovin’ Darwin must be falsehood spread by them lyin’ fundies!