“… Religion is mostly used to get the warriors in there, happily fighting and killing and dying. Usually on both sides… It works, too, which is probably why the Soviets were so lame in Afghanistan: atheists simply lack the proper religious zeal to be effective killers.”

Not entirely, patriotism and economic necessity coupled with intense small group bonding and superior firepower is what actually works on most people here in the USA. I doubt very much if any of the christian- religious folks you cite on your lists would be actually be effective warriors if the blood was theirs. Religious zealotry is not universal among the religious, which is why they have a different word for it.

Anyway, my comments were specifically on the genocides perpetrated by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and asked why you ignored so many posters claiming these as evidence that non-believers, in the right situation, were just as capable of mass murder as religious ones. Coupled with the historical fact that professed non-believing societies were pretty much non-existent before the 20th century, the fact that three have turned in pretty large genocides in less than a hundred years says to me that the capacity is a human one, and has a significant probability given the right circumstance, regardless of ideology.

Putin scares the shit out of me, Haught not so much.

It's true that I'm an atheist. What you don't know is precisely which god I'm an atheist about.

Would you care to guess? For all you know, I could be an atheist about all of them.

You're entitled to believe what you like, no matter how ambivalent to facts and reasoning.

This is a discussion of religion, after all, is it not?

Much more evidence that people got under yours.

Me:

Personal attacks, false characterizations of peoples arguments, lying, straw men arguments, logical fallacies.....

Is that all you got?

You:

For you? Its all you merit

Thanks for conceding the controversy. I appreciate that.

Got under your skin, didn't I?

So Walter wants evidence of his trollishness. Note he cites one example of me making a personal comment- but only at him. So here's your evidence Walt. Enjoy the crow.

"The religious typically resort to insults instead of valid argument because, after all, they lack any valid argument."-Walt

So he starts off stating this. Immediately in the next post he writes

"Ya gotta be careful about challenging the weak-minded with questions like that-Walt"

and

"Here ya go:

Schizophrenia Symptoms

Learn about Schizophrenia Symptoms and Schizophrenia Diagnosis"

So immediately he's resorted to insults, thus by his own standards he has no valid argument.

More

"Apparently not very well, Tenderloin"

"Universal illiteracy, poverty, starvation, superstition, and desperation. Exactly what you need to promote religion.

You'd be right at home."

Here he is promoting violence by quoting Diderot ""Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

--Denis Diderot"

"You, sir, are no professor of physics at Harvard University. You, sir, are a lying fraud"

In response to a man who never claimed he was a professor, but did have a degree and was faculty at Harvard. Then when shown he was wrong

"I suspect the right-wing religious hacks have come out because Haught's take on religion been so thoroughly discredited here today. And that you're one of them." Note the paranoia and continued character assasination without any evidence, and to the contrary, just proven wrong. He also cites no evidence for this claim. The paranoia thing comes often as you'll see.

"Is that what you call it? Thinking?"

Remember that thing about insults earlier on? They keep coming.......

"I submit to you that Christians aren't afraid of death because they're Christians, but are Christians because they are afraid of death."

His evidence? None, his opinion here is stated on fact. Yet every word another utters he cries for evidence. More...

"The atheist has more courage"

no evidence.......

"I am under no obligation to address your entire statement."- how can one understand a statement fully except in its entirety? You can't, but Walter has Magic Powers of Knowing..

"I don't think you're an agnostic at all. I think you're a 'Christian' dishonestly pretending to be an agnostic for the purpose of giving some credibility to your thinly-veiled cheap shots against unbelief, and that your platitudes to the contrary are just a cover."

here comes the paranoia again. And the personal attacks and accusations. He says this with , surprise, no evidence at all.

"I don't think you can do it, because I don't believe it's true."

This is Walt in his real persona. He doesnt BELIEVE its true, thus the persons claim is false. So following that logic anything he believes isnt true just cant be.

"You don't lie well, 'Christian', no matter how much practice you get.

But thanks for demonstrating once again the immorality of 'Christians'."

Here he is again calling me a liar- a personal attack, although he's been corrected- notice the continuimng paranoia?

"I asked you for evidence that these people were unbelievers. I don't think you can do it, because I don't believe it's true." here he asserting yet again that what he believes MUST be true. Also note the "prove a negative" fallacy?

"You're lying again, 'Christian'. I didn't say it was 'the' cause. I inferred that it was a primary motivation." here he is again calling me a christian despite being corrected- count em - three times. The world according to Wlat- what he believes, as he says, must be true.

"By the way, I don't believe you're "non-religious"" here he is calling yet another poster a liar and branding them a christian.

"And in what way is "religion under assault"? You're perfectly free to practice your religion any way you please, short of human sacrifice" here he is dishonestly portraying the persons stated position. Theres more, but i got tired and chose the strongest examples.

Well Walt, i think this is more than enough evidence that your a troll. You will have to admit way more evidence than you will get about me. Enjoy the crow. Unfortunately, you'll just hand wave it all away.

Have fun

"You're definitely religious" continuing to insist that i'm religious though he's been corrected four times now.

"What you don't know is how to spell." Here he is attacking grammar. As we all know, the truth of an asertion can be argued by spelling errors. BTW, english is my second language, i think i do pretty well.

And finally the reason i'm responding this way.......

"Cite examples.

You can't. You're just annoyed because your position is so easily discredited.

I can cite examples of your bad behavior, though:

thats all you merit- the internet troll treatment.

your either emotionally weakminded, immature, or just having fun provoking others.

Don't know, and don't care. What i do know is that your a waste of my time.

Yes, in this club, Walter gets to completely make up reality as he goes, freely censoring what people say through his small little cognitive filters, then dishonestly project them back out into the world.

Thus Walter is a liar that will rationalize his lies with atrocious reasoning- all in defense of reason and the higher character of atheists. Hypocrite much?

-

You don't back up any of your accusations here.

Because you can't."-Walt

So here you have it. I have provided ten times the evidence against Walt as he did against me. I also showed that he did it to many people, his only example is me calling HIM out on his tactics. Now, if he goes by evidence, i clearly have alot more evidence than he does. But don't hold your breath, Walt is always right. Because, as he says, he doesnt think so because he doesnt BELIEVE so.