[quote=So Boerd]Here we go again with that whole making claims without showing evidence. Your priest of science would be proud.Why should that matter? You make decisions with serious, tangible, consequences on much shakier testimony, or testimony that says it has evidence. This decision has no consequences and stronger proof. Go up to a mathematician and say the Riemann hypothesis is false because no one has proven it. Watch them laugh and ask to see your proof.[/quote]

We've provided many evidence/logical reasoning in this debate, you've brought up none.

Just because when we showed you the evidence the first time and you chose to ignore it doesn't mean we're owed to re-cite the same evidence 10 times over because you just don't want to hear it.
And your example there is terribly flawed, if something has no proof it means just that. No proof, it doesn't exist. We have no more reason to believe it than invisible pink unicorns. And unless you want to argue that people will be laughed at for "not providing proof that the invisible pink unicorn is false" (and if you do, go to a mental hospital... like now) you have nothing to stand on in ridiculing people for needing proof or evidence to believe something.

[quote=So Boerd]
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values? You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.
[/quote]

It's giving people the right to being taught proven fact and be able to think for themselves.
You 'morals' is basically indoctrination/in-slavement of the human mind to raise them to think like you do without ever getting the chance to think for themselves or question outside it.

And the ability to think for one's self... Well let's just say it's kind of an ability you need in order to get by in life.

Also, I can't say if Hitler was Christian, Pagan, Atheist or anything. But there is definitely more proof pointing towards him being religious than non-religious, now may he have been quoting religions just to gain power? Yes, he could of. But many religious people will lie about a religion to gain influence over others, Hitler being caught claiming to be members of several different religions doesn't mean he's atheist, it means he's a con artist.

And we've already addressed your Communism claim, it's a dictatorship where they simply adopted the name Communism.
But I already know you're not listening to that, you haven't listened the past several times. So until you actually start listening to other points I'm listing this as a battle you lost.

[quote=Vortex]I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a AthiestsI highly doubt "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME. It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.[/quote]

Good point, and combine this with the rapidly increasing human population as well with far more being alive today than in the past.
It would probably be more accurate if we looked at the genocides through a population percentage rather than a flat out number.

[quote=William Draconius]it does seem odd to me, that if you have a room of 300 Christians, and one atheist, and if the one atheist is offended, the other 300 have to stop praying....where's the logic in that? if it works that good, does that mean if I go to say, California, everyone there has to become Christian? Don't see it happening.*smiles*[/quote]

If they're praying in an area that's meant for something else such as education, and said pray is either

a) Forcing/Trying to make everyone else pray
b) Halting everyone else from following with the purpose of being there (Such as say, being taught if prayer is in a classroom)

Then it's a problem, it's Religion halting/stopping everyone else's day and routine for their own sake. But no one is going to go around and say "Do not pray around me", they just don't want people forcing it on others and/or stopping everyone else from what they're doing for it.

Also not praying doesn't mean being an atheist.

So your example of expecting 300 people in California to become Christian doesn't match at all.