If the crusaders and their moslem foes had possessed 20th century weapons, with 20th century population densities, the ‘numbers ‘ would be a lot closer to Vox’s claim of atheist-driven carnage.

Not unlike the theists with their dogma, Stalin established himself as a man-god and his marxist ideology as his catechism, demanding total obedience. Stalin merely killed disbelievers, while theists condemn those who don’t accept their dogma to eternal torture. So it is the rigid dogma, whether manipulated by atheists or theists, that must be avoided at all costs.

Ah, but I forgot - Hitler’s repeated assertion that he was a defender of Christian civilization had no relevance to his political behaviour, while Stalin’s rejection of Christianity was the determining factor in his evil antics.

Voxy boy is indeed a believer in miracles - he believes that all his readers are as intellectually dishonest as he is.

The same cannot be said of religious beliefs many of these books have written ideals to be observed and followed , many having suggestions of some quite nasty acts although flavored in places with suggestions of love .In my opinion it is much easier to see how situations of nasty practices could evolve out of these beliefs ,whether it be through wrong translation or following the book to literally.The fact still remains, unlike atheism the written belief is there to be read and is interpreted in what ever way it is.

Where as thoughts that atheism leads to nastiness relies on the belief that all without faith are bound to be naturally immoral and nasty .
Something that seems strange to believe when the opposite does not cancel this natural immorality out .

Your discussion pits two under-educated persons against one another. Nothing emerges but confusions, long cleared up over the last 150 years in the foundations of mathematics and formal logics.

Here’s an appropriate quote (rather than a vanity quote) from Einstein: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

Put differently, mathematics applied to nature provides models of nature (”are not certain”). Not unassailable descriptions of nature as it is; even less ontologically irreplaceable explanations of nature. Mathematical theorems supply so-called irrefutable truths (”are certain”) since they may be derived from a distinct, coherent, and finite set of axioms.

The geometry of Euclid and that of Riemann differ over the famous “parallel postulate (axiom).” There are no dogmata at issue concerning the axiom sets; the road divides over the status of parallel lines — either they are or they are not.

Each axiom set gives rise to a perfectly sane (self-consistent) idealized space. As alternative geometries, they rest comfortably side by side. But they can’t both be representations of space-time; they offer incompatible models of the world.

By definition, we can’t win this one. When a Christian does something evil (i.e. church deacon and sunday school teacher: BTK Killer), their side simply defines themselves away from any culpability by saying, “If he did those things, he really wasn’t a Christian.” So, they are never guilty. . . of anything.

Regardless of the merits of each argument from Chapters 11 and 12 as they stand on their own, this is a pretty glaring contradiction in its own right.

I’m currently reading God Is Not Great, incidentally, and finding it pretty good - funny, erudite, perceptive and extremely well written. Confronted by someone world-class like Hitchens, poor little Voxy must feel terribly inadequate as a writer - though of course he’d never admit to envy as a motive for writing his screeds.

I love it. It belongs on a t-shirt or something.