Thursday, February 11, 2010

That Chick is beat up from da feet up

Who has better self esteem? Or the worst self esteem? Christians are accused of having low self esteem because we need to admit were sinners and not good enough for God until we admit it.

Atheists think this life and all the things in it are just chance. They are an evolved species of monkeys. This brief life is all there is. Their family, job, significant other, family and friends is all just a big accident.

I can see why Atheists could think that way about Christians, compared to a holy God I realize I'm not much. But because he loves me all I get is an abundant life and hope and blessings and comfort and companionship and rewards and joy and peace. Did I mention victory from this world and an everlasting life?

What is it you guys get again? I'm not saying your not confident, just saying you remind me of the ugly girl who thinks the reason no-one asks her out is because she's so hot men are just intimidated by her beauty.

Late, feeno


  1. From the title alone, I thought you were making a Jack Chick pun.

    The link from Christianity to low self-esteem is pretty simple, psychologically, because a person whose life revolves around a saviour is generally known as a victim. You think you've got this huge reward coming, and yet you drum it into yourselves that even you, the righteous few, don't truly deserve it. All that remains is the role of the aggressor, and since the Devil can take many forms you're never short of those.

    On the other side of things, just because a process has chance elements doesn't make the whole thing a matter of chance. In a game of tennis, not a single shot might go exactly where it's aimed due to winds, racquets, etc. but winning the game is still an achievement. You take what you get and you run with it.

    We get our hope, blessings, comfort, companionship, rewards, joy and peace right here on Earth, where we know they are actually out there for us to find and earn. And earn them we must, because it's a tough old world at times.

  2. What is it you guys get again?

    From the right-wing, Christian apologist site called the American Journal of Psychiatry (2004)..

    "Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found."

    Gee, where do I sign up?

  3. I don't know if I would say Christians have a low self-esteem because they admit they are sinners. I would say they are awful Christians because it seems like they do whatever they want and don't care because they can just ask for forgiveness. If anything, that gives them to confidence to just do whatever they want... like transport children across national lines without any documentation (I'm glad it looks like they're going to be released, though, since they're not evil, just stupid).

    I don't know how much is "chance." Did your parents have you by accident?

    The ugly girl who no one asks out? I guess that's better than the person who makes up the boyfriend in Canada that no one's ever met...

    JD: Yep, we're known for our suicide like you're known for your genocide.

  4. Correlation is not causation.

    Being in a minority, with a bad reputation according to a large amount of the remaining population, and far less social infrastructure than any religion, will contribute to most or all of the above regardless of the accompanying worldview. It ain't easy being an atheist in America, and the religious are at least partly responsible for that.

    If those results were duplicated by a similar study in Sweden, where the non-religious constitute up to 85% of the populace, that would be more significant.

  5. All kidding aside though, I think having religious convictions and always knowing you're fate is secured would give one extremely high self esteem. Even if you were the world's biggest wanker, God would still love you, and that would just be dandy!

    Atheists, on average, tend to be skeptics. We are curios, so we ask questions, even if it means turning the light on ourselves. This inquisitive habit might make one less secure if they discover faults in themselves, but also it ultimately can make us more prepared to deal with our failures, since we will have understood them by analyzing the hell out of them. Religious types, with unwavering convictions in their self worth, might miss this introspective moral lesson.

    Also, whether or not one is pessimistic, optimistic, depressed, or manic depends on the individual. Granted, ideologies of all sorts may influence one's natural inclinations moving them to sway one way or another, I think that a person's psychological makeup is precursor to any radical acts of expression. The architecture is already in place if you will.

    JD- I'd like to read that psychiatry journal article in context, if there is a link to it.

    Because it seems like its isolating a personality type that is pessimistic as being prone to skepticism rather than skepticism being prone to negativity.

    I feel that if we can learn to understand how our minds work, then we might have better insights in understanding how other ideas and beliefs can affect or impact our minds and modes of thinking.

  6. I must be off to work. Very nicely done. All you guys should have high self-esteem. You all are bright and make me laugh.

    Geenks, yeah, I know what you mean. When I was in the Military (USAF) there was the one guy whose cars and chicks were all banged up. But somehow back at home was his new Corvette and super-model girlfriend?

    LX, whose Jack Chick?

    T-Vick, Other than that whole atheist thing, your always making sense. Thanks for your insightful input.

    JD, you still cool as a well diggers ass.

    Later, feeno

  7. LX,

    I just googled Jack Chick. When I was a kid I used to read them instead of listening to the preacher. I don't know what scared me more, those crazy comics or Charles Manson?


  8. Yep, we're known for our suicide like you're known for your genocide

    What practicing Christian has ever committed genocide?

    Correlation is not causation

    For an explanation of the former, dare we hope for a Sagan quote?

    Atheists, on average, tend to be skeptics. We are curios, so we ask questions, even if it means turning the light on ourselves

    There are some Christians that lead a "life (or faith) unexamined". Generally we are curious also.

    I'd like to read that psychiatry journal article in context, if there is a link to it


    it seems like its isolating a personality type that is pessimistic as being prone to skepticism rather than skepticism being prone to negativity

    And I think that it all goes back to nihilism.

  9. Actually, you folks are noted for your genocide AND high suicide statics Ginx. Especially since 58% of atheist leaders have ordered a MINIMUM 20,000 deaths of their own people.

  10. JD- You really need to get your nose out of the twisted evangelical publications that you read. You are seriously in need of help.

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. That psychiatric article seems insufficient to me. It starts with interviewing people religious or not whom over half were already suicide attempts and another 47% which were substance abusers. So what the study found was that suicidal people who are under the influence tend to be more suicidal.

    Then it says high density population cultures such as India and China have higher suicide rates, which is a no brainer.

    So basically it doesn't show anything new statistically on the basis of suicide studies. It merely documents that those who believe that a "sky father" is watching them tend to think twice before attempting suicide, and those who don't do not. It's all very Orwellian but it fails to do what they set out to do, differentiate between religious and non-religious for which directly leads to suicide. For that a larger pool would have to be polled and more thorough studies on the pre-existing psychology, which they barely go into any detail--so much as to claim there was no difference between those polled. And that's statistically impossible. So they haven’t found which leads to more attempted suicides, but have discovered of attempted suicides which compels the patient to think twice—and it shows quite well that those with higher paranoia, who believe God is watching, or that they will be punished for it, pause longer to thing[k it through. Which might be a good thing on the behalf of religion if it didn’t amount to mental intrusion and blackmail.

    Also, the aggression thing was misrepresented, because they don't interview for aggressiveness but simply for stress, leading to anxiety, and perhaps stress released via aggressiveness. Which means, again, if you believe dad is watching you, you'll behave more like a criminal with cameras watching you than you would without.

    So it's not saying atheists are more aggressive, it says they cope with their stress often times in a more aggressive manner. That is to say, it gives a good record of those coping with stress different when the thought police are watching. And that's nothing novel, but now they have numbers to back it up, showing statistically that religion is intrusive on a psychological level.

    I would say this case study does a good job at showing how intrusive religious ideologies are and how they have a direct effect on the psychology of those who misbehave vs. those without such psychological blackmail, at least more so than it documents the factors of religious vs. non-religious belief leading to suicide, since over 50% were already suicide risks anyway.

    Interesting non-the-less.

  13. From the article:

    This study has some limitations. For example, it did not assess religious upbringing, religious practice, or the level of personal devotion. Therefore, it is possible that depressed patients who stated that they were atheists or had no religion had abandoned religion as a consequence of depression or hopelessness. It is notable that hopelessness and depression scores were similar in the religious and nonreligious group but that the two groups differed strongly on perceived reasons for living.

    '''And that sums up the studdy.

    Good information to have though.

  14. There you go- all credible research will always lists its limitations. Thank you Tristan, that article did not sound right.

    I have to say, I liked your metaphor of the ugly girl in this one. It is funny, but most women that I know who are skeptics of atheists are far from that. I used to not agree with the notion that atheists had higher levels of education, but it would appear so. Which, kind of makes me sad.

  15. 'All the killers were Christian. The Nazi system was the consequence of a movement of ideas and followed a strict logic; it did not arise in a void but had its roots deep in a tradition that prophesied it, prepared for it, and brought it to maturity. That tradition was inseparable from the past of Christian, civilized Europe.' Elie Wiesel

    List of Genocide by Christians (5 examples) is as follows;

    1. Christian Genocide in Sudan

    2. Genocide in Rwanda book reference

    3. The Inquisition

    4. Genocide of Native Americans

    5. The Crusades

  16. Tristan, that was a good analysis of the article. I just looked briefly at the abstract and methodology, but they may have some selection bias as well. They took people from an inpatient ward, so it cannot be generalized to the population as a whole. It's possible that non-religious people are more likely to check themselves into mental institutions at signs of depression. That doesn't seem unreasonable, since religious people would likely be more inclined to try to fall back on religion to "fix them". I'm sure it wouldn't explain all the results, but it's definitely another limitation.

    JD, please keep in mind for next time that people in psychiatric wards with substance abuse, etc. do not accurately represent the population as a whole. This study is appropriate in psychiatric contexts, but unless you're trying to use this in order to make a better diagnosis, the study is essentially useless to you. Waving it around as proof that life without God is depressing and meaningless is simply poor form.

    feeno I've blogged about this before, that I can see depressing and uplifting things in both Christianity and atheism - and that it's largely a matter of perspective. But there's a great theory in psychological research called attribution theory, and essentially it deals with how people attribute "labels" to events and actions, and how that affects their self-esteem. To keep this short, people who attribute good events as being internal ("It was me that did this!") and stable ("It's a characteristic of myself") and attribute bad events as being external ("I was having a bad day") and unstable ("Just got unlucky") tend to have high self-esteem. It seems to work both ways - people with high self-esteem make these attributions, and making these attributions boosts the self-esteem.

    Those with low self-esteem, however, make the opposite attributions. So some Christians may be compelled to attribute all good things that happen to God and all bad things that happen to themselves and their sinful nature. And that could lead to a pretty depressing outlook. It's possible to turn that around, but like I said, it's a matter of perspective. It explains how two Christians can have very different experiences of God and religion, however, and how two atheists can have very different outlooks on life.

  17. Tink, from your cited article re: Sudan

    "in Southern Sudan the native Dinka and Nuer people of the Christian faith are being killed and enslaved in large numbers, in a most cruel manner by members of the Islamic faith abetted by the government of the Sudan"

    Did you even bother to read the article before you posted it?

    Genocide in Rwanda

    Another bad example. Why arent Christians killing each other in Canada? Are you sure that ethnicity and tribalism have nothing to do with the slaughter in Rwanda? I really want an answer.

    Francis Deng of the Brookings Institution observes; “Today, virtually every African conflict has some ethno-regional dimension to it. Even those conflicts that may appear to be free of ethnic concerns involve factions and alliances built around ethnic loyalties.”

    Your Cambridge link is broke. What do you have to show that the root of the conflict in Rwanda was religious in nature?

    The Inquisition

    I'm sorry Tink, are you referring to the Portugese, Spanish, Roman or Medievel Inquistions?
    I think that it's important at this time for you to define "genocide". When you compared the Inquisitions to slaughter commited by your co religionists, who came out on top and by a very, very wide margin?

    "the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles"

    You brought up the crudades. Which one? There were 10 in all. I don't the think internecine fighting of the 4th Crusade really counts as a religious war but one born out of opportunism. Which of the 10 do? You brought it up so I'm assuming that you know.

  18. Read it.... I did, read them all. I can list more if you like.

  19. Yes, yes JD.... We know, Christians are the good guys.

    I have an idea, why don't you define genocide because you made the claim that no practicing Christian has ever done this, So, let us backtrack, and you can define what you meant. Because, all of a sudden, you do not seem to understand that term.

  20. I asked you first. Did I say that practicing Christians never committed mass slaughter? Or did I ask if they ever did?

    In the interim, were you googling [crusades inquisition] and do you have the answers now?

  21. "Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference. These data were published in the chapter titled "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:
    "Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."


  22. American Journal of Epidemiology: Active Latter-day Saints Seven Times Less Likely to Commit Suicide Link

  23. JD-

    Just to be clear I wasn't denying that religious cultures have lower rates of suicide. But as we both know there is a good reason for this, and that's what I'm more interested in.

    Also, as with the prior article, it's main flaw was as Jeff stated, they chose a mentally ill minority to study suicide risk, so the article's title may be misleading. In order to study what beliefs lead to suicide they would have to start with mentally healthy individuals, from various religions and demographics, and then over the course of a decade or more see which one's lead to more suicides.

    Also, the article mentions that Islam has the LOWEST suicide rate of any religion, but neglects to also state that it has the highest suicide bombing rate of any religion also. So such an article can only be considered supplementary data, but more research needs to be done.

  24. Nope-you opened it, you define it.

    "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

  25. Feeno-
    Just to come back to your original idea.

    You are saying that you feel atheists have a high amount of self esteem. I have been thinking about it, you may be right.

    The Bible really teaches people to submit to God, that you are imperfect in comparison to this supreme being. I cannot speak for anyone else, but when I finally gave up the notion of God, I felt more complete and solid as a person. I cannot say that I abandoned a strictly religious upbringing, my father is as atheist as me, but the more educated I became, the more clear my vision became..... To take the final step, to vocally abandon the security blanket of being agnostic, made me feel more complete. And, there is a sense of accomplishment in facing the world free of any "nets".... Meaning, if I do something bad, there is noone to blame, noone to question (is this a test?) nothing.... Just me.

    I guess that is the confidence that you are sensing. I could be wrong, but these decisions are not made easily, at least it was not for me. I was afraid, now I am no longer. I hope that this clarifies for you.

  26. TV, I don't trust the statistics reported in Muslim countries. According to them, they don't have any rapes occurring either.

    Tink, I guess you cant back up your assertions re: the Inquisitions & Crusades?

    Besides, not even you coreligionist richard Dawkins thinks that Hitler was a Christian based on public statements made while running for office.

    "It is possible that Hitler had by 1941 experienced some kind of deconversion
    or disillusionment with Christianity. Or is the resolution of the contradictions simply that he was an opportunistic liar whose words cannot be trusted, in either direction?" Richard Dawkins

  27. I can back them up just fine- You made the assertion that no Christian who practiced ever did genocide. I showed you that this is not true, you wanted me to define genocide. I feel, since you made the claim initially, that you should define it before this continues, which of course you refuse to do. Cause, what you said is epically, undeniable false. Simple. Now, you are rhetorically trying to save face by sneaking out the back door.

    Dawkins quote, if you read it correctly (which you clearly did not) indicates what we have been telling you for a long time. Perhaps actually reading The God Delusion may help you.

    This quote is on pg. 276. Before this quote, Dawkins also quotes the above quote that I gave you. Then, he quotes statements that Hitler made that were anti Christian. Dawkins talks about how Hitler was inconsistent, and he would use Christianity to suit his needs, similar to how Napoleon stated "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet". Dawkins then goes on to say- p. 276:

    "The terrible deeds themselves were carried out by soldiers and their officers, most of whom were surely Christian," Dawkins then goes on to elaborate by saying that;


    Dawkins then suggests that whatever the motivation, he also used the word Providence in his speeches. On p. 278- he concludes with this;

    "Individual atheists may do evil things, buy they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively, dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism, and an insane and unscientific eugenics theory tinged with sub-Wagnerian ravings. Religious wars are really fought in history, I cannot think of one war that has been fought in the name of atheism."p. 278

    I have my eugenics essay ready for your next posting. How do you define genocide?

  28. Here is a great article I found in the Washington Times today about the coverup of the sex scandals in the Irish church.

  29. You made the assertion that no Christian who practiced ever did genocide

    Where? Furthermore you didnt even do enough research to come up with the example of Charles IX. I'm not sure if he was exactly practicing bu he was at least nominally Christian enough to qualify with historians as a Christian King.

    "The terrible deeds themselves were carried out by soldiers and their officers, most of whom were surely Christian,"

    Who are the soldiers being referred to here?

    "Individual atheists may do evil things, buy they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hitler did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively, dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism

    "As I pointed out in The Irrational Atheist, Dawkins is incorrect because determining who was or was not an atheist matters tremendously in figuring out whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things or not. (I should note that Hitler was not an atheist nor was he a Christian either.) For how can one possibly figure out whether atheism is systematically influencing people or not if one doesn't first take the trouble to determine precisely which people it has influenced? On p. 238 of TIA, I wrote:

    Dawkins, like Harris, focuses on the wrong question. Like medieval philosophers they focus on the explanatory logic of the perceived problem, and they do so ineptly, instead of examining the matter in a scientific manner by observing the relevant evidence.

    Brayton is taking very much the same approach, which is why he can't understand the analogy. Let me spell out both illogical processes inherent in the analogy nice and slowly so that the dim-witted "brights" can follow it. This is what passes for Dawkins's logic; Sam Harris, on the other hand, tends to prefer the No True Atheist argument.

    1. People were slaughtered.
    2. Those people were ruled by atheists.
    3. But those people were not slaughtered in the explicit name of atheism.
    4. Therefore, atheism does not cause slaughter.

    And now for the Marlboro analogy utilizing the same Dawkinsian logic:

    1. People died of cancer.
    2. Those people smoked Marlboros.
    3. But those people did not smoke cigarettes in the explicit name of Marlboro.
    4. Therefore, Marlboros do not cause cancer.

    Dawkins is trying to argue that because he cannot figure out HOW atheism causes atheists to kill large quantities of people, it does not systematically influence them to do so. This is not only illogical, it is fundamentally unscientific. No one really cares why atheists kill innocent people en masse, they are primarily concerned with the undeniable problem that atheists do it with such an astonishing degree of regularity on the occasions they find themselves in a position to do so. In fact, the statistical analysis will show that the 58 percent chance an atheist leader will order the deaths of more than 20,000 people is much greater than the 16 percent probability that a lifetime habit of smoking cigarettes will cause lung cancer. Correlation is not causation, but such a strong degree of correlation is, at the very least, evidence of a systematic influence that Dawkins claimed to be unable to find."

    Vox Day

  30. JD once again your friend Vox Days mode thinking, simple misses the point.There is need of correlating evidence to suggest why we should think the deaths should maybe? have "reason" to be thought possibily connected to the smoking of Marlboros.The simple fact they were smokers aint enough.

    Your friend Vox is simply trying to bury evidence,by use of a heap of educated rhetoric.But that only fools stupid people.And you also need to even be a lil stupid to think maybe it might fool anyone more than the stupid.

    Use of educated rhetoric cant bury facts.

    Even reasonably modern day facts like after the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House carefully scripted the religious service in which the president declared war on terrorism (from the pulpit of the National Cathedral). The president declared to the nation, "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." .Prove the connection between faith and war exists and is infact very real!

    Not that long ago at the outset of the war in Iraq, George Bush entreated, "God bless our troops .Conection between faith and war,very real!

    We have even had biblical quotes on rifle scopes.

    Obvious link between faith and attitudes of war and tyrancy.

    There has often always been this VERY OBVIOUS (direct link) between faiths and wars.We can argue all day about whether its through right or wrong translation or not etc.

    But the factual link still remains no matter what!.Its obvious.By reading faith books we can cross check,and see reason for it too.That some folks suggest scripture has been used out of context,doesnt subtract! from the fact the scripture was used in the context that it was that linked it to war like atitudes of such tyrancy that many faithful have indeed used.

    Hitlers quoted the bible.Stalin learned attitudes of nastiness and hatred and tyrancy from his overbearing christian faith teachers.

    Links between faith and war and tyrancy and overbearing attitudes even with people Warren Jeffs,is factually (directly linked) to their asociation to faith and religion.

    Historically there has always been liturally hoards of evidence available for us to be able to make a (very clear link) to religion and faith in these matters.The link is so clear,only an educated idiot like Vox would try to bother to suggest otherwise.


    There is absolutely no factual evidence linking non belief,to the same.

    There is no special indoctrination folks of no faith use as suggestive material to recite or follow.Non believers in wars do not invoke anything to "bless the troops"!

    All Vox is hopeing to do is confuse folks enough with his educated bullshit,that hopefully someone might think he sounds like he`s talking sense.

    If he want to make his bullshit stand,he needs to provide evidence of what suggestive material non belief uses,that can be observed when used has led non believers to bad attitudes that end in tyrancy and war.

    We have presented faith books as the offending evidence of suggestive material that prevokes this abusive attitude,and even much proof! of it having been used !.

    Once again Vox offers us no evidence to observe how conections with simple non belief, and these abusive attitudes, can factually be made.He is grasping at straws that dont even exist,thats why!.

  31. Gandolf.....Please step back from the keyboard and let the adults speak here and try to Learn something....

    I will state that only 7% of all wars ever fought were wars of religion and you have not refuted that in any way. Of the 7%, half were caused by only ONE single religion (of "peace" BTW). Disprove that fact before continuing.

    There is need of correlating evidence to suggest why we should think the deaths should maybe? have "reason" to be thought possibily connected to the smoking of Marlboros.The simple fact they were smokers aint enough.

    This does absolutely NOTHING to refute the cited article above. Would you be so kind as to explain why "the 58 percent chance an atheist leader will order the deaths of more than 20,000 people is much greater than the 16 percent probability that a lifetime habit of smoking cigarettes will cause lung cancer"?

    Please tell me why.

  32. JD said..."Would you be so kind as to explain why "the 58 percent chance an atheist leader will order the deaths of more than 20,000 people is much greater than the 16 percent probability that a lifetime habit of smoking cigarettes will cause lung cancer"? "

    Because the atheist leader is not just "a atheist",he`s most of ALL a freaking complete nut case.Some of them im sure also helped to be driven crazy by being educated by the presence of nastiness and tyrancy of faiths.

    We have supplied evidence of quotes directly taken from your bible! written on US issue! scopes JD,(this is a direct link with war and faith).A direct link between war and faith ,that you are unable to show a comparable link which is connected to some indoctrinative "faith of atheism" you suggest exists.You cant! simply because absolutely no such indoctrination exists that atheists all follow.

    Your 7 percent this and that and 58percent that rah rah,even when written by wallys like Vox means little !...If the figures are (more) connected to "mad crazed lunatic tyrants",than they are connected to atheism.

    And you or Vox have yet to show good evidence and reason, to explain (how and why) the actual connection is to these peoples "atheism".