Pot of gold? Crock of shit is more like it. Despite the outcome of the case cited, practically all readers will sympathise with the hilarious prankster and only a few demented piss-ladies will feel for the crazy gold hunting nutjob. So go ahead RA, you go and dig up that there "gold", but be warned: if it looks like shit, and it smells like shit, and if it tastes like shit and comes out of your arse then guess what? It's probably shit.

Is this a clue to RA's change of heart? He plans to dig for "gold". He also dig's jeebus. HE dig's 'em. The clue, a message from dig 'em: Give me a smack and I'll smack you back!

RA is on the horse. Chasing the dragon.

RA:
Change your online moniker now that you've succombed to delusion! Rational thinkers should not be fooled into thinking that the author of this blog shares their reason.

Lame TRA..very Lame

My respect for you, already sizeable, grows exponentially, RA. I wish you all the best. I haven't been this moved by a "'quest" since Parzival (Perceval for all you Chrétien fans).

How do you know it's exponential? It could just be a power law. You can't possibly have a sufficiently good data set to rule out a Kohlraush function.

More lies from the God squad......

However, one thing we can all agree on, RA is on an accelerating journey to Shitlordship. Quit while you still can.

Even if RA does decide to turn to theism, I'd like to know sincerely if it was that he turned, because of good humor he felt lacking from an atheistic community. Arguments for theism don't stand on their own, and rely heavy on blind emotionally pleasing people experience for support. The real issue isn't RA's theism, but lack of good natured positive atheism. It's possible, and exhibited by many; it's just not very widespread. Even though I enjoy the RA site as it currently is, I support RA if he decides to try turning the RA site into a purely positive community. It'll just be a bit of a travesty if he ultimately decides on carrying it full on into an theist site.

Goddamnit, RA, stop acting like such a Christian already!

I've been reading TRA's blog for awhile now- two years?- However long it has been makes no difference. I have been atheist since I thought about the question. I can recall feeling uncomfortable with some of the posts here because they were so ruthless, but since the anti-abortion posts started flowing I have been uncomfortable because I am reading what sounds just like some people I have known around AA who finally succumb to the fantasy after hearing the thought stopping catch phrases for the hundred thousandth time. Water cuts through granite a drop at a time. I read atheist and science books/blogs/magazines constantly and can recall times when, for a moment, I gave consideration to fantasy. I think RA got downwind of someone charismatic and was caught before he knew.

Not to pile on or anything, but it's a dead giveaway when you use the word "for" in the same way you would use "because". Sorta like using "at hand" for "near".

Perhaps TRA is being clever. I hope so.

It appears he may be hinting that the joke may be on all of those who think there will be gold in the pot...and he's helping us dig, which implies we will find out what is up.

I really hope he's just pulling a prank, perhaps as en experiment in psychology or in sociology (the treatment of atheists towards those who "fall away from the [lack of] faith"). I hope.

If I'm reading him correctly, TRA is simply taking a step back and seaching for truth. That seems reasonable to me. I don't think atheists (or Christians) have anything to fear from that if they truly believe their opinions/faiths. This fear of self-examination is strange for a crowd that prides itself on reason and truth.

I'm with Andy.

Who says searching for the truth and sarcasm have to be mutually exclusive? In any case, that's not really the point. If RA wants to "search for the truth" or whateverver the fuck you call it, why not just say so? What's the point in all this "I'll never tell, tee hee" bollocks? IT's provocative, to say the least, and also makes his retarded stance a hypocritical one, since this refusal to come clean invalidates and pretence he may have to truthiness.

All these pandering suck jobs are just as bad as the celebrating christ punchers. Fuck you all, and fuck the repentant atheist[?] as well (unless this really is a wind up, in which case, I salute you sir).

Andy + Nokol, you're absolutely right, RA shouldn't have any fear of self-examination. However, it's very clear that he does. He's afraid to be honest with us about his "search for truth" because he knows it's going to sound like hogwash and we're going to shred him.

His atheism always was secondary to his anti-abortionism, anyway. Seriously, the man's obsession with it borders on psychotic. I was just reading his earliest posts; back in 2002 is when he posted the Basic Assumptions, but before that there were already 10 posts on abortion. He does seem to have the personality type for strange, pseudo-mystical obsessions like "mathematical destiny" and now, Christianity.

Is the God with vindictive spirit the only way to see the God of the bible or can the bible show He is a God of love. Does God love everyone, even those who don't know Him?

Add me to the Andy & Nokot camp. I've got no beef with RA's search, no matter where it leads him.

And, Lily: I'll take Perceval over Parzifal any day.

I haven't been here in a while. I stopped reading recently because this blog started to suck. Apparentlly, after reading more today, this blog still sucks and will continue to do so.

RA, can you do me a favor? Either take Jeebus' nuts out of your mouth, or change the name of this blog so I don't come across it while doing a google search for something interesting.

I mean really, I could care less if you have decided to join the rank and file of the most bigoted, bass-ackward, and deluded of the sheep of this planet, just don't wast my fucking time with it.

Well, really JP - you wasted all that time bitching about it, so why stop now?

Questions are meant to find answers. That's the gold in the pot. If you're all so sure that the pot is empty, why should it bother any of you that anyone is looking for it? They'll find out in due time that what they seek isn't there and move on to more profitable ground - and be in no worse shape for the exercise. But I don't see how refusing to dig any more is the smarter move.

Oy! Enough with the metablogging. On with the show. This line of *administrative* posts is wearing *thin*.

My main concern is that he didn't mention anything about Leprechauns. Isn't this offensive to the Irish?

If atheists are really into reason and logic, then they should not be afraid to intelligently and rationally discuss and weigh all options. However, reading the comments here, I am inclined to think that many atheists have merely replaced theism with an anti-theistic religion of their own--one in which civility, and consideration and toleration for all men are considered vices, if considered at all.

As a Christian, I could respond in kind, name-calling, cursing, and using infantile bodily-function language to address some of those who have commented on this thread, but I choose not to, because we are all brothers, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. Committed atheist or seeker, I commend RA for his honesty, and his courage in stating his course here, where so few truly respect one another. Peace, RA. And may your seeking lead you to happiness wherever it leads you.

Robin L. in TX

RA - May you have strong arms, a sharp spade and great perseverance. And my you have a small child's joy in digging: Ah, the scent of fresh earth. (And worms can be rather fascinating too!)

Robin L.
You are very right. Just last night I was surfing and came upon some blogger who puts atheists into one of two camps: philosophical (those who have thought things through and come to a resonable conclusion) and emotional (those who are reacting/rebelling against the religion of their upbringing).

This particular blogger mentioned that philosophical atheists tend to be comfortable around religious people and able to talk to them. The emotional ones cannot and ... rant.

I had to laugh, it was so true to my experience here. Like all generalizations, it isn't 100% true but it seems awfully close to a number of posters here.

This being a free country, TRA has the right to hold whatever views he likes, be they religious or not. If a conversion has taken place (or is in process), I would respect his right and desire to hold these beliefs, and give reasonable consideration to his arguments, even if they disagreed with my own views.

People change, and being someone who reads and posts on their blog gives me no real claim on them, and no right to dictate their views, even if I think they're clearly wrong. If TRA gets religion, I'd probably give the site a few weeks to see if I still found it worth reading before drawing conclusions.

I'd actually rather see a religious conversion than some kind of psychology experiment. At least that would show more respect for honest debate.

But what is the point of running a blog that's been set up to argue for atheism and abruptly declaring you won't criticize religion and "if God exists" is something you won't discuss? Isn't it a bit like running a political blog where you refuse to discuss issues or candidates out of 'respect' for people who might disagree? Posting "I'm not telling" strikes me as a baffling approach to the main subject of a blog.

I also don't understand how calling someone's view incorrect is inherently disrespectful. The nature of holding opinions on anything means believing that your view is the most correct (otherwise why, and how would you hold it?) and refusing to suggest that someone might be wrong precludes serious discussion.

And to some of the theist posters, I would like to add two things. First, how is it a display of 'courage' and 'honesty' to refuse to; declare your opinion, or express disagreement with others? It seems many of the theists see a depth in the recent posts where I see a blank. Is this just the presumption that refusal to publicly disagree means increased acceptance, or is there something that I'm not seeing?

Second, posting on this blog does not make us TRA's friends. It makes us an audience. Some of the posters may be personally aquainted with the Raving Atheist, I don't know. But posting on the comments section no more constitutes a relationship to a person, than writing letters to the editors makes you the editor's new friend.

So if you want to criticize the general tone of the arguments offered by atheists, or accuse the readers of not following the deeper meaning (and I still don't see any beyond 'politeness is good') of this new direction, go ahead. But trying to inflate the negative reaction to some profound betrayal, or equating it with turning against a friend strikes me as disingenuous

ako - speaking for no-one else but me, I don't see cowardice here. I'm simply trying to take RA at his word. He's never been shy before, so I think that if he had scrapped atheism for theism (regardless of brand) he would have said so. Looks to me like he's asking questions, that's all. He may conclude that he can resume the blog as advertised. He may stick with toning down his approach without altering his philosophy. Since all I have to go on are the posts themselves I can't be certain. In any case, I think he's not telling precisely because he doesn't yet know what to tell. When he does, I'm sure we will too.

RA- Which pond would you rather go fishing in? The stagnant polluted pool of epithets, curses and malignment? Or the clear swift living waters of enlightenment and faith? Reading some of the comments on your blog, I am reminded of the former pool, where intelligent rational thought is replaced by "toilet talk". Swim with the current, in the living waters, and best wishes to you.

Well, old granny's getting sleepy now...getting bored now...z-z-zzzzzzzzzzz

This has gone on a little too long - your 'realisation' has spanned over a whole week.

There's a difference between being respectful and being bland. Unfortunately you're slowly edging onto being bland - still reading your content.

-Jordan

All these endorsements from theists should be making you very nervous RA.

When hobo's start to congratulate you on your style it's time to clean the vomit out of your hair and get a grip.

One thing you should ask yourself is: do you really want to be associated with people who post the things Choobus does? Another thing to ask is: do people like Choobus who spew hatred with everything they say really have my best interests in mind when they post their "advice?"

Jason, do you like luxury? If so, are you friendly with Chris Treborn. I suspect the answer to both is yes.

Oh and Jason, another thing to ask yourself is: do you feel lucky. Well, do ya, punk?

     As I noted in a comment on an earlier post, those like Choobs are perfect examples--poster children--of why atheism is a self-defeating proposition. I take off my hat to him in gratitude for the work he does against atheism: THANK YOU!
     Choobs calls other people liars... while he himself LIVES a lie--threatening, like a playground punk, those that point out his self-destructive ways.
     If the universe is ultimately meaningless and without purpose to you, Choobs, then spare us the dishonesty of trying to purposefully convert us to your own, personal meaningless lie. Your hatred consumes you... there is little "human" left apart from the ashes. So, why should anyone take ashes seriously? You live on abnormality and self-loathing in order to get a rise from others... How sad: an existence defined on the negative--a privation... a shadow.
     Why, Choobs, why? Will you again respond with hatred, rage, foul language, threats? Are those what get you high and define your very essence?

Holopupenko (aka shit for brains) said

SOME INANE BULLSHIT

it matters not what some Jeebus loving spaztard says about me. I am Chobus, and my kingdong is not of your arse. For a cocksmoker such as you to try to understand my motives is as a piece of toilet paper trying to understand what is happening as it goes down the cistern. I willfully shit upon you and your ilk, and I do so without remorse. You are not fit (nor, I suspect, able) to comprehend my "essence": however, let me put it to you thus.
\
Even the most pungent fart is, from my buttocks, more vaulable than any utterance you might have in support of your fucking cunt smacking God.

Hey! Just for the record, Choobs is his own person with his own character. Personality is a side item dependent on the individual, meaning, it's his free right to exercise his freedom of speech, as it remains the free right of other people to exercise theirs, perhaps in a way not to be perceived so vicious. Not every Christian is the idea model of decorum either. However, two vicious personalities don't make a more civil conversation. I'm not going to keep Choobus from speaking as he wishes. That's up to the RA website editors, and he has been banned in the past. I'd argue Choobus is being contradictory if he were to claim himself a Bright, or Secular Humanist, but this isn't what he's doing. I'd also try to stop him if he were intent on actually realistically physically destroying people, not just lay on his usual flame, but as far I can tell, this isn't what he's doing either. He's not the model of civil tongue, but then so what? If he wishes to stick to being his own individualist self, it's his right to express as he feels. If I don't like what he says, I read someone else's comment. Being the big responsible person I am, I know can always use the scroll feature on the browser to read the comments of anyone I find favorable enough to read.

Choobs:
     Sounds like you're desparately trying to convince yourself more than me... In any event, I grant you leave to e-scream your lungs out. Please continue your fine work of undermining yourself and atheism. Now, where did I put my popcorn...?

Kreme:
      "... personality is a side issue"? Doesn't one's worldview, to a large extent, color one's personality? What does that say about atheism? Atheists want to be bad as a reaction against the good... and succeed. Christians want to be good... but largely fail. You tell me which is the better option.

Nightfly,

I wasn't calling TRA a coward. While I don't see any particular courage in the trend of the recent posts, I don't see any particualr cowardice either. The problem is I don't see much of anything. A lot of 'mea culpa' for past insults, and a lot of vague hints that he's experienced something profound. While I appreciate that he might not be ready to share the experience, I don't understand or appreciate the way he's going about it.

If he chose to share his questions and be open, that would be courageous. Impressively so, given the likelihood of facing ridicule. Not sharing is entirely understandable, but in that case why blog about it at all? Why not find a different topic? Something he would be secure posting about? Take a hiatus from posting new entries? Recruit guest bloggers like he's done in the past?

While I hope I'm wrong on this, I get the unpleasant suspicion that this is builiding up towards some sort of mind game. And while I can read and enjoy some blogs by religious people while still disagreeing with their theism, being played with like that would put me right off the blog.

I'll give it some time to see what pans out. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.

I'll bet the angry foul-mouthed commenters here are the actually the meekest, most minimally-performing, resentful people around me, in my life and in my office. Lower lip perpetually stuck out, they are convinced everybody is either against them or know something they don't know.

I just can't see people who comment this way as popular, confident or successful. It's a shame, because they often demonstrate agile (if uninformed) thinking and quick (if sour) wit. Their gifts are bound up in hurt, frustration, unforgiveness and distrust.

I personally have found faith in God to be freeing and joyful. But I do know a few serene, happy and loving atheists and agnostics, and I wonder what their solution is? I'll have to ask, the next time the conversation swings around that way.

Therese Z wrote:

"I just can't see people who comment this way as popular, confident or successful."

Unless their popularity, confidence, or success has nothing to do with them commenting that way.

"Their gifts are bound up in hurt, frustration, unforgiveness and distrust."

Unless they don't really mean it and have adopted a persona. Maybe it's an acting class exercise.

Another option is to not take it seriously.

Looks like the atheists (aside from TRA) are on the warpath. Why do you folks feel so threatened? If you don't like what TRA says, go elsewhere and be snide and snarky amongst yourselves.

Personally, I think the fact that Christianity sends you into spasms is just more evidence that you know in your hearts it's true. Else it wouldn't be any more of a threat to your egos than, say, the International Order of Odd Fellows.

Paul:
     Ummm... then why do you take anything anyone says seriously? Why do you spend the time and effort taking on what Christians say? Point one.
     Point two: Choobs an actor? Maybe. What good is speculating on that, i.e., what does that add? And even if true, his approach undermines any rational discussion. To what end? To get a grade on some acting assignment while misleading others? Isn't that of what he (and implicitly you) accuse TRA? Be serious: your comments are really empty...

Nice strawman you are building there, Christina.

You invent an opinion that atheists are threatened, and then use it as "evidence" that atheists are Christians in their hearts. Is this how you build evidence for your own faith?

If you want to understand atheists, you must understand for openers that they feel as sure as you do in their hearts! SURPRISE!!! You are extremely sure there are gods and devils in this universe. We feel extremely sure that there are no gods and no devils.

You believers find it useful to submit your life to supernatural beings; we find it useless. You say god brings peace to the world, but you have no evidence for that; even your own faith is split in multiple ways. We say the idea of a god has brought misery, hatred, persecution, wars, genocide, and suffering for thousands of years, and we have overwhelming evidence for that.

Actually, June, we don't have evidence for that. What our sad human history demonstrates is that humans have a pronounced propensity for violence, tribal loyalties, greed, selfishness, etc. ad nauseam.

The far more interesting question is: why, in the face of what we are, do we long to be something else? Why do we strive against this aspect of our humanity? Atheism cannot answer this question.

June:
     You're another example of why atheism is so uncredible: selective inattention. More people have been killed in the name of atheism than all the religious faiths of the world put together throughout recorded history. One empire alone, during the 20th century (whose communist ideology was animated precisely by "scientific atheism"), can probably claim that "honor" for its own.
     You want evidence? One word: Choobs. You want more--lots more? Look at the ravings of atheists in this blogs comments. Visit ANY atheist's site and you'll find hate so virulent that if released would make the Holocaust pale into insignificance. And, look at the "issues" MOST (but not all -- I'm talking clear trends, not particular individuals) atheists support: killing unborn babies, abortion, euthanasia, the depravity of homosexuality, etc., etc., etc. You talk the talk... and people--real people--die. You're so soaked in blackness of the culture of death that you can't see straight... or at all.
     Christina is absolutely correct: your camp's insecurity and whining and threatening and foul language speak so, so loudly--and you wear it like a badge of honor, because you believe a person acting upon the choice of doing evil frees a person. Keep it up: you've joined Choobs in being the best argument against what you support. Thank you!

CHRISTINA- Seconding what June just said, I'll add a couple more points. There is as great a variety of personalities and mental and intellectual levels among atheists as among spiritualists. However, I will point out that atheists have been not only threatened but tortured and burned (as were many a "believer" who ran afoul of orthodoxy) and I have no doubt whatever that if the likes of Falwell and company were ever to get control of our society, we atheists would be committed to Christian retraining compounds if not worse.

Second point: The reason many atheists go into "spasms," as you put it, is the same reason any intelligent person would get hives trying to explain a simple equation to someone who was too intelligent not to understand but for some reason couldn't or wouldn't. Religious claims are so absurd that when someone states one with a straight face we cringe and grit our teeth--and sometimes spume a little as well. We cannot reason with you on any point in religion because--though you reason as well as we in any other area--you cannot, or dare not, reason about your "faith."

Final point: I have met several people--all Christians, as it happens--who actually believed that humans "think" in their hearts as well as in their heads. This gross misconception comes, of course, from having so often heard the many common expressions that support that notion. It is the same effect as the repetitive drilling and reinforcing that produced your "faith" in your religion. I trust that in the case of cardiac cogitation you know it ain't so!

BRAVO, HOLOPUPENKO! You deserve the golden fish award for the best lie a Christian has come up with in recent history! You have taken the worst crime of which religion has ever been accused, and which even most intelligent Christians reluctantly concede, and flipped the entire ponderous weight of it over onto the puny, overwhelmingly outnumbered and outgunned atheist! I'm not going to try to totally re-educate you, but Constantine did not instigate the bloody Christian capture of half the world by appealing to atheism. If that's too ancient an example for you, then I'll ask you to consider to what ideals our own society appealed in our major wars. It was not atheism, Holopopenko. What was it? The phrase "under God" was not inserted into our originally exclusively patriotic Pledge of Allegiance in order to inspire atheists to fight the "cold war." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Holopopenko, you're an idiot!

Like it matters, but I still don't believe you RA. Of course, I could just be missing "clues" by not reading closely enough, or following your allusions, taking you seriously.

BTW, what's your buddy, Brian, think of all this? I've not his site for a while either because the idea that Jessie wasn't a real person, as possible as that is, doesn't seem any more likely than the possibility that he was.

Hhmmm.. Before clickin' post, I decided to check for myself.

No help there. There are some good political posts though.

Have fun, regardless.

Oh! Hope y'all have a great Independence Day!

Thorngod:
     Okay, I'll call your bluff: please put the numbers where your mouth is and cite credible references on how many people were killed by Constantine. Add to this any other credibly referenced numbers for all religious faiths throughout history. Then, compare this ONLY to Amnesty International's and "The Black Book of Communism's" estimates for deaths attributable to the Soviet Union alone (we'll leave out China, Pol Pot, etc... for now.) I remind you, the Constitution of the former Soviet Union explicitly referenced scientific atheism. Then, World War II on the Nazi side alone: how many victims was it again? Compare this to any and all deaths directly attributable to religious faith. If you can't or refuse to do this, and just assume your words are self-evident dogma, then I will thank you for supporting my position. I and the others are waiting... for you to wipe the blood off your hands for supporting a failed, deadly worldview.

I am delighted to know that so many atheists find me distasteful (and more).

Yes, I an a big fan of "foul language" (especially when addressing theist cocksmokers and other assorted cunts).
It is true that I see no advantage in having long discussions with people who make no secret of the fact thet they eschew reality in favour of fairy tales.
However, as all these theists come crawling out from under the recently revealed crack of RA's jesisism let me tell you this: all your logic is belong to us.

Keep it coming arseholes.

HOLOPOPENKO-- I have an important errand to attend to but will take time for one question for you to mull over. How many Germans under Hitler (including Brown Shirts and Gestapo troops) do you estimate were atheist?

June, if the atheists here were that secure, they'd not be going into spasms over the possibility that TRA's nonfaith might be wavering.

Thorngod, I'm not talking about posts that debate TRA. I'm talking about the spittle-spewing posts that contain all the logic of a toddler's bedtime tantrum. And the bulk of what the atheists in here have been posting has been of the tantrum variety.

Choobus, They just don't know you like I do, luv. If they did, they would know that you are really just one big softy.

Thorngod:
     Do you always avoid difficult questions you can't seem to (or don't want to) answer with other questions? "Important errand?" You mean, you hear your mother calling? Okay, I'll make it much simpler: focus ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY on the former USSR (I'll chase you on the other officially atheistic and faith-suppressing regimes later). Here's a hint: the 1932-33 Famine in Ukraine alone killed anywhere between 7-10 million. Start with that, and try to wash your hands of the blood of the victims of a state whose OFFICIAL ideology was based on atheism--the murderous worldview to which you acede. Again, we wait... before moving on to Eastern Europe, Pol Pot, Mao... and the Nazis. By the way, if you refer to the pagan pseudo-religious, Nietzschean BS animating Hitler as "religious," well then, we're all justified calling atheism a deeply-ingrained faith, aren't we?

Lily, please don't underestimate the depths to which I am prepared to sink! The recent surfeit of christ-punchers has made me redouble my efforts in the service of crudity, blasphemy and offensive loquacity, and it's jolly mean of you to undermine this with what could be construed as kind words. Knock it off. However, I must say that the obvious candidates for Shitlords like Holopupenkunt make me appreciate you and steve G. Slightly, a little bit.

Christina, if by "spasms" you mean penetrating comments from TRA's readers, I think they have been quite restrained, considering what TRA's blog used to be like in past years. Frankly, his recent posts have sounded like the gaseous byproduct of a bad case of food poisoning - which led me to the somewhat crude, yet anatomically correct, suggestion he should "blow it out his ass".

Yes, Christina, some readers are questioning why/how - on its face - this blog has become openly inconsistent with its own mission. Some of us are simply challenging TRA's bizarre irrationality. Remember that this blog is supposed to be RAVING about how religious claptrap is trivializing our culture. And here comes TRA, polluting his own blog with drippy sentiment about not saying anything bad about God!

We miss TRA pulling down the idiot GodSquad's pants on Wednesday's, or chortling about cannibalistic rituals of eating God's flesh every Sunday, or making fun of cartoons about the Pearly Gates.

HOLOPOPENKO, I'm back! 'Gone to see my long-dead mother, you ask? No, I was meeting my son to pick out a bathroom countertop and mirror, and another computer printer--and while I was strolling the aisles I spotted a nice large Japanese canvas I liked and purchased it to brighten a large blank wallspace in my wife's bedroom--which I decided to go ahead and mount before I got back to you.

Now, back to the fray. This should not be necessary. You write like an intelligent person (which I'm confident you are). But some things seem so obvious that it's almost embarrassing trying to explain them to anyone over the age of fifteen. I know that may sound condescending, but it honestly is not intended that way. It's just a sad goddamned fact! I really don't relish spending fifteen minutes on this, and I'll be damned if I'm going to write a lengthy religio-historic treatise for you. But I'll present a few pertinent propositions and hope you can muster the modicum of reason required to see what should be obvious.

Proposition One: About 95% of the people on Earth are and have always been devotees of one religion or another. This rough percentage holds for all large, organized societies and for all historic periods.

Proposition Two: Though not all wars, revolutions and military conquests have been inspired by religion, an inordinate percentage of them have been (predominantly so during the thousand-year dim-witted Age of Faith), and those that do not incorporate a religious appeal in their war cry are nevertheless amply aided and abetted by the strong religious orientation of the always very superstitious peasants that make up the cannon fodder.

--Your reference to the Communist Revolution is a transparent canard. The fact that Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and maybe even the sad-mad Joseph Stalin were atheists had no effective bearing on the success of their enterprise. (Effective bearing, I said, not theoretical bearing.) Their war cry was not "For God" but "For liberty, equality and bread." The Russian peasantry was totally, fervently Christian. Had the Communist revolutionists been Christian soldiers, the results would have been essentially the same, except that the revolution would have been shorter. Had they appealed openly to atheism, Russia would still today be a Christian monarchy and the names Lenin and Stalin would mean zilch.

Proposition Three: If God is on your side, you're more likely to win the contest. Tell me, Holopopenko, were Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee good Christians? You bet your believing ass they were. Was Abraham Lincoln a good Christian? Guess what! Honest Abe was so close to atheist that you couldn't have wedged a razor blade between his agnosticism and his "Under God" ejaculations. But he was no idiot. Nor were Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine, Franklin, and quite a few other founding fathers--but not a one of these mentioned was a Christian! If they believed in a "god" at all, their concept of "God" was so far from yours that you couldn't span the distance with a godstick. But Lincoln used his Christians to defeat the Confederates' Christians, just as the Revolutionary intellectuals used their Christians to defeat the British Christians. God always does battle with God, whether under the same name or a sobriquet.

Holopopenko, if I knew you personally, we'd probably be friends, or at least friendly acquaintances. All my friends are Christians--virtually all. The only atheist I'm sure I personally know is a woman who works with me, and for whose atheism I am somewhat responsible. Religion wears an exceedingly deceptive face. Close up--among fellow Christians, fellow Muslims, fellow whatever-your-faith--it is warm and charitable and forgiving and virtuous. But between Faith and Faith it is intolerant, uncompromising, damning and demonizing. The irrational absolutism of religion has been by far the most fabulous tool of war mongers and megalomaniacs from time immemorial, and it has provided charlatans (and yes, atheist opportunists) their primary means of fleecing fools ever since the first wooly-heads got religion. I keep trying to tell people this, but God doesn't need any help from you (and he is also probably sick to death of your fawning praise). God is self-sufficient (and he doesn't need you or I to tell him so, either). He is also going to do whatever the hell he pleases with that "soul" you think you have. [I trust you understand that I am referring to the "God" you believe in, not one that I do.] It is not God, my friend, who needs your attention, but your fellow man--not just your "feels good to be fellow church members" Christian neighbor, but your fellow Muslim, your fellow Chinee, your fellow wetback, your fellow n______ and all the others. And if you need God and Jesus to make you a good human being, then you're the worst kind of cripple. I can't speak for other atheists, but I stand on my own human feet. My body and brain, my friends and fellow humans, however frail they each may be, are the only things on which my existence ultimately depends. Eventually one of these must fail me. So must one of yours. And beyond that moment, you will not know or care that God is not there for you.

Christina,

If Christians really had faith, they wouldn't be so excited to read about TRA's pseud-conversion. As it is, they are riled up at the idea that someone who used to think rationally might be able to be like them, too. What they fail to see is that the conversion itself is the failure of the mind. I should know, as I abandoned my own for some time.

I can't believe that real Christians exist, or they would be distinguishable from the cowardly creatures that I see day in and day out. I don't believe in Christians, just people who think they are.

Well, sdaniel, I'm largely in agreement with you, but I have encountered a few that I would have to say were genuine true believers. Very few. Very damned few. The vast, vast majority are either hypocrites, charlatans, or pitiable self-deceivers. Self-deception is a favorite human artifice. It is not confined to the religious arena, but nowhere is it more conspicuously applied.

Thorngod:
     Come on, just deal with the issue at hand instead of pontificating and sharing with us your version of "War and Peace." I don't need your veiled platitudes, and, no, I'm not your friend... yet. (Don't reduce love to mere kindness and chumminess and friendship.) Back up your assertion by putting EMPIRICAL evidence on the table: put your numbers where your mouth is. My request was simple: focusing ONLY on the former Soviet Union (an OFFICIAL atheistic state--read the official relevant documents), compare the blood bath WITHIN the borders of that empire (forget about all the external wars, forget about China, Pol Pot, and now North Korea)--for which I provided you references (please feel free to use your own) to ALL deaths attributable to ALL religious faiths throughout all of recorded human history based on credibly-referenced estimates. Go ahead: be honest and challenge your unsubstantiated assumptions... and prepare to be duly surprised... and then try, again, to wipe the indirect blood from your hands as you are a direct and open supporter of atheism.

Holopupenko,

what part of the definition of Atheism explicitly states kill people, or follow the ways of others who've killed people? Granted it doesn't follow along with the statement to not kill people either, but that's why atheism alone isn't an ethical set of guidelines. Atheism only relates to a stance one takes relating to the existence of gods. The ethics, and morality parts are entirely different matter altogether. It is not enough to look at the Atheistic idea, because even any person can be theist, or polytheist without any intently good natured ethical system. It's when you consider the hypocrisy, and character of the people who claim to follow an ethical system, yet don't, that you realize the potential corruptible nature of all people.

Kreme:
     Avoidance tactics, eh? Deal with it: as a result of atheism, literally rivers of blood have flowed as a result of the official policies of an empire that was 11 times zones across. Do you want me to continue to heap on top of that other regimes--former and existing?
     And here's a howler--let me repeat your words to see how they sound coming right back atcha: It's when you consider the hypocrisy, and character of the people who claim to follow an ethical system, yet don't, that you realize the potential corruptible nature of all people. (1) Your last phrase is a clear, concise truth Christianity teaches dogmatically (what's wrong with that?); (2) So, why don't you practice what you preach and heed your own words: Christianity is not represented by Pope Alexander VI or Tammy Faye Bakker. To think otherwise is to asign collective guilt to an entire group for the sins of a few. Isn't that the definition of a bigot? Is that what you're saying, that you're bigoted against Christianity AND Christians?
     Try again...

Hey! Wait a fucking minute, Holopupenko! Did you not just now deride the Biblical declaration of your God that "assign(s) collective guilt to an entire group for the sins of a few."? But I just minutes ago, on another TRA venu, took you to task for your declaration of that absurdity known as "Original Sin"!!!
Holopupenko, I just a few minutes ago informed you elsewhere that I did not intend to contend with you again anytime soon. I did not intend to. But how do I ignore such blatant balderdash? I do not make a habit of insulting people, but you, H, are a fucking idiot. Try to redeem yourself!

Thorngod:
     Try to stay focused and on mission to back up your "Constantine" claim. I made it easy for you by only asking you to focus on one empire, and to compare that to ALL people who have died throughout ALL of recorded history as a result of ALL religious faiths. Again, put your numbers where your foul mouth is. Stop avoiding the issue by getting off the subject and making excuses... or admit you're a bigot... whose hands indirectly drip with the blood of the victims who died directly as a result of atheism--which you directly and openly support. We're all still waiting...

Holopupenko,

I don't agree that anyone is responsible for all the violence commited by past peoples. What is our responsibility is that we learn from these people so such negligence of human dignity is avoided. I can't say whether such an ethic as stated in 1) is clear or concise in Christianity. It's not a law required of any Atheist. But even then, Atheism alone is not an ethical set of principles. It's not an anti-ethical set of principles either. I think you have to analyze each Atheist according to that individual Atheist's set of ethical principles. Because not all Atheists are Maoists, or Stalinists, or Pol Pot'ists in regards to adopting the same ethical principles taken by each of these Atheistic dictators. That's also not considering socio-economics.

Unless you agree that there are different forms of Christianity (meaning Christian doctrine is not absolute as you claim), and that every Christian individually makes up his/her own rules that remove them from the responsibility of promoting destruction on the people around them, whenever they do, I don't think you can't compare the two. Christians supposedly have their own code of conduct they are to all follow.

The more proper question if this in order to be of a fairer analysis, based solely on the question of Deity, is who's killed the most people, Theists, or Non-Theists. But then you have to ask, well, what about agnostics? Who's killed more people?

Now if we were comparing Secular Humanism vs. Christianity vs. Islam vs. Wicca vs. Buddhism, etc. to see which people supposedly following each separate set of ethical principles commited the most violence, then that would be more idea for this frame of discussion. Do people with a particular ethical system kill more than people with a different particular ethical system?

Kreme:
     Okay, more or less fair enough on the points you raise. I admit I'm baiting the issue here, but for very good reasons as alluded to earlier. No one's got a monopoly on suffering, I agree. I do, however, reserve the right to chase you on the essence of atheism... but not at this blog. With all due respect to the RA, this is kind of a free-for-all, knock-em-out foru