If that's your argument than it's just as easy to say that religious people are far more immoral than atheists as the vast majority of leaders, dictators and tyrants were religious.

Basically, it's not a very good point. Whether someone is atheist or religious makes no difference to whether they commit immoral acts. However, you're far more likely to get people following into a war if you utilise their religious belief. Much harder to do that with a complete lack of belief (atheism).

Not saying it's not possible, as with things like nationalism (or even something as small as support for a sports team's fans causing a riot), but it has nothing to do with atheism.

Give me any proof that atheists in general believe God exists but just hate him.

Because honestly, I think you're talking out your arse on this one.

It's difficult to put names to highly moral atheists, not because their aren't many of them, but because they don't have a large community backing and following. Rather than naming, how about I just give some general examples.

How about all the atheists doctors and surgeons working in thrid-world countries? The researchers working on anti-cancer drugs for Cancer Research? The atheist social workers?

Moral atheists can be found in all walks of life, just like religious people. You just have to look.

Bubbles, you do understand that in judgement motives are needed.

By your logic all human beings should server 20 to life if one human being commits murder.

Why? Because regardless of his motives he was a human being.

Here's a crystal clear example.

In a world where Dogs talk a man shoots a dog, the dog court sends him and all humans to jail, regardless of the mans motive. Why? Because he happens to be human.

It seems like your just on the offensive to Atheists, and I'm only curious as to why, now that I understand why I can say that your generalizing, drawing your own conclusion from your own imagination and then proving your imagination right, I would hope you'd be right though as it would be wierd for you to imagine you were wrong. But in the end your relation makes as much sense as using a tooth pick for fire wood despite having fire wood on hand.

W/e your logic is up in the air here.

It is human nature to seek to achieve ones goals, and the motiviation is unique based on the history to get to that agenda. If a person said let's kill all Christians because I don't believe there is a god, then boom you'd be 100% correct in your relation.

My bad.  And who knows, maybe there are donut moons somewhere...

why dont some of you people just go read all my fucking posts instead of just picking the one and sounding your mouth off.  im not going to have a discussion when i have to repeat everything ive said every post.

I disagree... since that's not what the book is about.

I don't think a book about poor people would be anymore likely to make people give, I mean how many people spend there days walking by countless homeless people and just not care.

To be fair....  While I don't think it's the majority.  It REALLY does seem like a majority, since the only people you hear talk about atheism usually are those who angrily bring it up complaining about how they had to waste their time in church and if god was there he sure as hell didn't do anything for them.

Rarely do people talk about atheism in an outside setting except in a "God hasn't done shit for me so I don't believe in him anymore" sense.

There may be people out there who claim that they don't believe in God because they are angry at him, but I know many atheists (a very large number of people, probably the majority, who are my age in NZ don't believe in God) and I do not know any who would fit into that category, or who even seem angry at God. Most of them are apathetic about the entire situation, and those who aren't seem earnest in their lack of belief.

I became familar with the book, and thus got it, by hearing it through the Hanity's and other Newscorp commentator shows.  I happen to comment here just that a focus on who gives more, rather than which approach helps the poor more, is important.  I also believe, referencing the Gospels, that looking at giving through the eyes of the giver, and speaking of that as being virtuous, totally misses the point where the idea is to give and have people focus towards God in the end.

In short, the book was used in the talking head circles to speak on how conservatives care about the poor more than liberals.