Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

BlackBart · **#781** by **BlackBart** » Jan 21, 2015 8:02 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Christ in a Datsun Cherry this getting tedious, let's try a slightly different tack.

See this funny looking chap here, carl? That's Prince Philip and he's the husband of the Queen of England.

Now, there's an island a long way a way from America called Tanna and on this island there's a a tribe called the Yaohnanen people. You're not going to believe this carl, but the Yaohnanen people believe Prince Philip is a divine being! They think he's a God! It's true! They're quite serious about it.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe Prince Phillip is a god - that would be silly wouldn't it? But now you know this, are you going to give to the poor in the name of not believing that Prince Philip is a God? If not, why not? And would we be able to conclude anything about your character if you didn't?

Now imagine if this cargo cult, for some bizarre reason, became popular in America and some of it's adherents starting insisting that children in school pray to Prince Phillip and wanted to make it law. Wouldn't you organise against such a stupid idea? Wouldn't you approach congress and say look, as a person who doesn't believe that Prince Phillip is a God, I shouldn't be forced to kowtow to him by law or have to adhere to this cargo cult in any way, shape or form?

And would that make your non-belief in the divinity of Prince Phillip your religion or define who you are?

:popcorn:

tolman · **#782** by **tolman** » Jan 21, 2015 12:16 pm

laklak wrote:There was a church up in the North Carolina mountains named "The First Church of the Blood of the Holy Lamb". Not sure of their theology, but I'm betting it would make your average Episcopalian's eyes water and probably involved venomous reptiles. The most interesting part was "First", as that implies a "Second".

The funniest one I've seen was a church van in South London.
I can't remember the name of the actual church, but the line underneath was (in italics, and quite possibly quotes)
"The Church Of True Worshippers"

There was no reason to believe the people were actually trying to look profoundly arrogant, nor for assuming that in everyday life they were particularly unusual people.
Instead it seemed likely to be something about religion which caused them to abandon self awareness and a sense of perspective.

Now, one could well say that a sports team may have an arrogant 'we are the greatest' written on their club bus, but one might also think that one of the basic purposes of religion is supposed to be cultivating of modest self-awareness and perspective.

chairman bill · **#783** by **chairman bill** » Jan 21, 2015 4:18 pm

BlackBart's post nails it. Is there now any need to continue with this fuckwittery?

Calilasseia · **#784** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 21, 2015 7:30 pm

carl wrote:
tolman wrote:Indeed - and it's worth stressing the point that it's not simply a matter of a god having to try and impose its Divine Will on naughty humans who don't want to listen.

Numerous doctrinal disputes and splitting of churches has frequently happened as a result of clearly entirely sincere people honestly believing they have some connection to a deity praying and thinking and coming up with different answers to the ones which other similar people have got.

It is not surprising that humans disagree, wouldn't you agree?

Er, just one slight problem here, Carl. Your magic man is supposed to be capable of dispelling discord and disagreement on the relevant subjects, yet, if this entity exists, it has utterly failed to do so. Indeed, your magic man, if it exists, has even failed to persuade supernaturalists on a global scale to adhere to one mythology. Which is rather telling.

At times, it's amusing seeing supernaturalists trying to excuse the failings of their supposedly fantastically powerful and gifted magic man, by blaming far less powerful and far less gifted humans, for supposedly getting in the way of said fantastically powerful and gifted magic man. Which rather drives a tank battalion through the assertions that said entity is as fantastically powerful and gifted as supernaturalists assert.

carl wrote:Disagreement amongst humans carries no weight whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of God.

Except when said entity is asserted to be powerful enough to end the debate once and for all, and with consummate ease, regardless of what humans do or think. Which is precisely what large numbers of supernaturalists do assert. Except that said assertion looks extremely shaky, in the light of the fact that this has manifestly not happened.

Nebogipfel · **#785** by **Nebogipfel** » Jan 22, 2015 6:33 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

This is (a) not true and (b) even if it were true, doesn't answer the question. Why should humanitarian aid fall under the remit of atheism?

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Yes, they do. I guess astronomers are bad people too, because the IAU doesn't give anything towards third world humanitarian aid or disaster relief. See how stupid this argument is?

carl · **#786** by **carl** » Jan 23, 2015 1:00 am

THWOTH wrote:
carl wrote:
THWOTH wrote:Carl,

Would you agree that the biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices of many nominal Christian denominations are wrong?

Not really. Name which belief or practice you have in mind and I will try to address.

There are too many Christian denominations to name, but your answer would imply that (just to take some examples) you think Baptists, Presbyterians, The Amish, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Jehovahs Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Mormons and Anglicans are all essentially correct in the matter of their biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices which distinguish each of them from the others?

Is that your position carl?

No. 'Christian' means to follow Christ, so I would simply compare what the Bible says to what their doctrine says. There are items of doctrine for which there is specifically called out in the Bible (primary doctrine) and there are some other aspects which are not specifically called out (peripheral or secondary doctrine). There are areas on which to disagree and allow for that (peripheral areas) and areas of disagreement which separates truth from error (primary areas).

For example, there are primary doctrinal differences between the Bible and the WatchTower teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For Christianity, the Bible is primary. Everything else - teachings of various organizations, traditions, etc. are tertiary.

2 Timothy 3: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Calilasseia · **#787** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 23, 2015 1:06 am

Except of course, that the decision as to which bits of "scripture" made it into the Bible, at least here in Europe, was decided by committee. There isn't even agreement on this across the so-called "Christian" world. Because some books considered to be 'canonical' by the edicts of the Council of Nicaea, are considered apocryphal by the Eastern Orthodox Church, and vice versa. The idea that this morass of confusion and discord was "God-breathed", is hilarious to put it mildly.

carl · **#788** by **carl** » Jan 23, 2015 1:09 am

Calilasseia wrote:
carl wrote:Your magic man is supposed to be capable of dispelling discord and disagreement on the relevant subjects, yet, if this entity exists, it has utterly failed to do so.

As previously explained from the Bible, we are waiting for the day when He returns and re-establishes order. This is IN THE FUTURE. We must realize the Bible is not claiming that heaven is here now.

1 Corinth. 13: "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..."

1 Corinth. 15: It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed.

Rev. 21: "Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away..."

carl · **#789** by **carl** » Jan 23, 2015 1:15 am

BlackBart wrote:
carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Christ in a Datsun Cherry this getting tedious, let's try a slightly different tack.

See this funny looking chap here, carl? That's Prince Philip and he's the husband of the Queen of England.

Prince Philip has nothing to do with atheists failing to organize their resources to initiate relief to the suffering world.

Yes, atheists initiate lawsuits, billboards, and atheist conventions, which is all good but in the words of Jesus:

Matthew 23: “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness."

What good are atheist conventions and billboards when people are starving and dying?

tolman · **#790** by **tolman** » Jan 23, 2015 1:41 am

carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
carl wrote:Your magic man is supposed to be capable of dispelling discord and disagreement on the relevant subjects, yet, if this entity exists, it has utterly failed to do so.

As previously explained from the Bible, we are waiting for the day when He returns and re-establishes order. This is IN THE FUTURE. We must realize the Bible is not claiming that heaven is here now.

That's quite deliberately and dishonestly avoiding the point.

The point is that the alleged deity is not claimed to be shy or powerless.
Indeed, all manner of believers claim to see evidence of it intervening in everyday matters, and scripture is filled with tales of it intervening in human affairs, especially when people are guilty of 'incorrect worshipping'.

Yet in non-mythical history, it seems to entirely avoid intervening in disagreements between its supposed followers which involve some of those followers telling other people it wants X or Y or Z when some of the things it is claimed to want can't be right because they are incompatible with other claims, typically being made by seemingly sincere people.

This claimed deity seems entirely unwilling to do any of the simple things it could supposedly trivially easily do to stop people saying untrue things about what it wants.
Even when disagreements get to the point where significant numbers of people end up getting tortured and killed in its name
And, all for the lack of basic guidance.

In reality it does exactly the same amount of intervening as Thor, Horus, or Shiva.
That is to say, bugger all.

Calilasseia · **#791** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 23, 2015 1:54 am

carl wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
carl wrote:Your magic man is supposed to be capable of dispelling discord and disagreement on the relevant subjects, yet, if this entity exists, it has utterly failed to do so.

As previously explained from asserted by the Bible

Fixed it for you. Except of course that these assertions do nothing to address the substantive argument.

carl wrote:we are waiting for the day when He returns and re-establishes order.

Except that, oh wait, the original authors of your mythology thought this would happen in their lifetimes. Except that it didn't. And every "prediction" since then of the imminent arrival of your magic man has been hilariously wrong. The latest such fisaco being Harold Camping's 2011 rapture "prediction", which turned out to be just as hilariously and fatuously wrong as all the previous ones.

carl wrote:This is IN THE FUTURE.

Except this this is yet another blatant apologetic evasion of the substantive point being made, namely that your asserted "fantastically powerful and gifted" magic man was capable of ending the debate right from the word go, but apparently decided to let humans invent a multiplicity of mythologies to adhere to, and arranged for them all to be at each other's throats over this issue. At the very best, this makes your magic man incompetent with respect to its stated mission, and at worst, makes your god a duplicitous trickster deriving a sick schadenfreude pleasure from the misfortune that is entirely the responsibility of said entity. Trying to excuse either incompetence or malice by pointing to some piece of the fabricated mythology you treat as fact, and try and tell us that yet more unsupported assertions therefrom constitute fact, won't wash.

carl wrote:We must realize the Bible is not claiming that heaven is here now.

Of course, a magic man is easier to prop up when it's always jam tomorrow ...

carl wrote:1 Corinth. 13: "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..."

1 Corinth. 15: It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed.

Rev. 21: "Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away..."

Why should I treat these mythological assertions as being any less suspect than the assertion in Matthew, that hundreds of dead people got up and walked about, which apparently failed to come to the attention of either the other three "gospel" writers, or several thousand occupying Romans?

tolman · **#792** by **tolman** » Jan 23, 2015 3:06 am

But... but... it's jam tomorrow.
Sweet succulent jaaaaam.

It's been convincing children and morons and enabling bullshitters and manipulators for two millennia, so it must be good, mustn't it?

THWOTH · **#793** by **THWOTH** » Jan 23, 2015 4:29 am

carl wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
carl wrote:
THWOTH wrote:Carl,

Would you agree that the biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices of many nominal Christian denominations are wrong?

Not really. Name which belief or practice you have in mind and I will try to address.

There are too many Christian denominations to name, but your answer would imply that (just to take some examples) you think Baptists, Presbyterians, The Amish, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Jehovahs Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Quakers, Mormons and Anglicans are all essentially correct in the matter of their biblical interpretation and the beliefs and practices which distinguish each of them from the others?

Is that your position carl?

No. 'Christian' means to follow Christ, so I would simply compare what the Bible says to what their doctrine says. There are items of doctrine for which there is specifically called out in the Bible (primary doctrine) and there are some other aspects which are not specifically called out (peripheral or secondary doctrine). There are areas on which to disagree and allow for that (peripheral areas) and areas of disagreement which separates truth from error (primary areas).

For example, there are primary doctrinal differences between the Bible and the WatchTower teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For Christianity, the Bible is primary. Everything else - teachings of various organizations, traditions, etc. are tertiary.

But for Jehovah's Witness the Bible is primary also. There is no significant difference here between that particular denomination and all the others - as you say, all Christian denominations have the Biblical texts at their core.

And yet, interpretations of those text do vary widely within the Christian tradition, along with the beliefs and practices which are laid down, doctrinally, as a condition of membership for each sub-set.

Now I'd grant that there are often similarities of interpretation and certain other commonalities between Christian denominations - they are all 'Christian' after all - but Mormons aren't Catholics, Baptists aren't Presbyterians, and Anglicans aren't Methodists etc, precisely because they significantly depart from each other with regards to Biblical interpretation and doctrinally authorised beliefs and practices.

So the question remains, and although I have no idea about which branch of the Christian tradition you would consider to be your natural perch, as it were, do you not think that some people are mistaken, misguided, or just plain wrong to build their nests in other branches of the tree of Christian faith?

edit:fixes & spellig.

redwhine · **#794** by **redwhine** » Jan 23, 2015 5:05 am

carl wrote:What good are atheist conventions and billboards when people are starving and dying?

What good are the Vatican and Westminster Abbey when people are starving and dying?

At 2011 prices, the popemobile cost approximately £345,000.

While Pope Francis has retained the Mercedes popemobile for security reasons and for trips abroad, his reign has been characterised by simpler standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popemobile

What good is the popemobile when people are starving and dying? The pope is your gawd's best buddy. If gawd doesn't want the pope to be shot, and is all powerful, what use is the popemobile anyhow? ...security reasons... :roll:

I'm sure that many charities, both theistic and secular, would be able to find a use for £345,000.

What good was your recent holiday when people are starving and dying?

What good is sitting alone in your room? Come hear the music play. Life is a Cabaret, old chum, come to the Cabaret.

SafeAsMilk · **#795** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jan 23, 2015 5:14 am

redwhine wrote:
carl wrote:What good are atheist conventions and billboards when people are starving and dying?

What good are the Vatican and Westminster Abbey when people are starving and dying?

Ah, they have enough money left over after jamming their religion down poverty-stricken people's throats, they deserve something nice, don't they?

SafeAsMilk · **#796** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jan 23, 2015 5:17 am

carl wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Christ in a Datsun Cherry this getting tedious, let's try a slightly different tack.

See this funny looking chap here, carl? That's Prince Philip and he's the husband of the Queen of England.

Prince Philip has nothing to do with atheists failing to organize their resources to initiate relief to the suffering world.

SkyMutt · **#797** by **SkyMutt** » Jan 23, 2015 5:42 am

Calilasseia wrote:Because some books considered to be 'canonical' by the edicts of the Council of Nicaea . . .

A minor quibble here. It's very common to hear that the Council of Nicea established the biblical canon, but there is practically no evidence that that is the case. The only evidence which supports that idea is a preface to the Book of Judith written by Jerome, but the fact is he wrote the preface approximately 75 years after the Council of Nicea, and mentions as hearsay that the Book of Judith (specifically) was accepted as a "historical" book by the Council of Nicea.

It appears that the first synod to issue an official canon may have been the Council of Laodicea, though that is disputed. As far as I know, the first synod which undisputedly issued a canon was the Council of Rome in 382, though as the link explains, that was a local, not an ecumenical concil. The Third Council of Carthage in 397 issued a canon, as did a later synod in Carthage, in 419.

Yes, all of the above is tedious, but the main point is that the idea that the Council of Nicea issued a canon has practically no support. A nice summary of this issue is "The Council of Nicaea and the Bible".

From all of which we learn that the council made a ruling on the date of Easter and condemned the views of Arius. After the council, Constantine ordered the burning of the works of Arius and his sympathisers, and the exile of himself and his supporters, and followed this later in his reign by action against Christian schismatics and gnostic heretics.

From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. However it did condemn Arius and his teachings, and the Emperor Constantine did take the usual Late Roman steps to ensure conformity afterwards. However these were not put into effect; and Arianism made an almost immediate comeback. Even Arius was recalled by Constantine.

Agrippina · **#798** by **Agrippina** » Jan 23, 2015 6:16 am

carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations ...

From Wikipedia:

The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO, or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Western European nations and their allies representing the First World. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies representing the Second World.

Seeing the Cold War ended in the 1980s, what exactly is a "third world" nation in your mindset?

And which nations should we be giving money to? Underdeveloped African states that are controlled by insane terrorist organisations?
Well-developed, but dangerous Middle-Eastern nations that are overrun by insane terrorist organisations?
Please define which nations you think should be receiving our charity?

ETA: In the countries that are overrun by terrorists, they are also overrun by priests wielding Bibles and the charity is handed out ON CONDITION that the recipients also accept the Bibles. Imagine that, a hungry child being given a Bible, rather than some decent clothes, a house and some food. And guess who is giving them the houses, clothes and food? Yes, those nasty secular, atheists: doctors without borders, and other aid organisations not affiliated to churches. :roll:

If you're talking about countries that were previously not aligned to NATO or the communist bloc, then you're talking about for example, my country, which is far from being "third-world" in the sense of being under-developed. Here, no one asks where the money donated to charity comes from, they simply accept whatever anyone is prepared to offer, with respect.

ETA: Until the end of the Cold War, we were a "third world" country in that we didn't belong to NATO, and despite being a colony of Great Britain, like Australia, and pretty well developed (except for the areas where we sent people who looked different to live that is.) Now we are a developing country, and we don't want your charity, definitely not any more charity that comes with Bibles, we want investment.

..but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Please show some examples of atheists taking the initiation "when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state." I read several international news items every day, and I watch international news channels on TV. I've yet to see any news items about lawsuits initiated by atheists. Please explain this statement.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Yes, my priorities are to do as much good as I can to anyone who needs my help, and to cause as little harm to my environment as I possibly can. And I can do that without grovelling on the floor and talking to the ceiling. :roll:

BlackBart · **#799** by **BlackBart** » Jan 23, 2015 8:06 am

carl wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
carl wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like.....

Atheist organizations defer to others the initiative of hard work to establish charities to third-world nations but decide to take the initiative when it comes to lawsuits for separation of church and state, for which there are secular organizations which already do that too.

Yes, they do have their priorities....

Christ in a Datsun Cherry this getting tedious, let's try a slightly different tack.

See this funny looking chap here, carl? That's Prince Philip and he's the husband of the Queen of England.

Prince Philip has nothing to do with atheists failing to organize their resources to initiate relief to the suffering world.

You know what the problem with deliberate obtuseness is, carl? It's indistinguishable from the genuine article. :coffee:

Yes, atheists initiate lawsuits, billboards, and atheist conventions, which is all good but in the words of Jesus:

Matthew 23: “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness."

Cut and paste skills aren't as impressive as discoursive honesty, carl.

What good are atheist conventions and billboards when people are starving and dying?

Never having attended an atheist convention or put up a billboard, I wouldn't know, but why don't you provide the evidence that you haven't erected a false dichotomy? Impress us with your evidence that atheist conventions and giving to charity are mutually exclusive.

Nebogipfel · **#800** by **Nebogipfel** » Jan 23, 2015 8:14 am

carl wrote:
What good are atheist conventions and billboards when people are starving and dying?

Oh, Lordy! What good is you posting on RatSkep when people are starving and dying?

Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Who is online