In response to Player1X3's comment that Jesus was a historically proven figure:  

As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.

At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is

really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.

"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."

If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.

Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"

Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.

Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "

I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) . 

your lucky whole whole rant has been targeted to Christianity. because if you were going this wayyyyy off topic bashing everything about say islam or gays, you would be banned in an instant. but your lucky, as all the mods hate Christianity as much as you do. they may as well change the rules (the ones you have blatently been violating) to exclude Christianity because it evident that they dont care how off topic they are as long as they bash Christianity.

but like i said read the title of the thread, then read what you have been ranting about, then (your inteligence permitting) realize what you are saying does not belong here

I guess you would prefer it if they were teaching their students that the myths in the Bible were true and that they were indoctrinating their students into a Randian philosophy or to be complacent slaves to those with more money?

Being that I'm an agnostic with 2 degrees, I believe that the discussion or study of any religion should be restricted to the department of religious studies, the discussion or study of any political ideology or movement should be restricted to political science or history, and the discussion of economic systems should be restricted to the department of economics. Beyond that, the bulk of departments in the humanities and social sciences which have been introduced over the past 60 (or so) years that typically have the suffix “studies” should be seriously evaluated to determine whether they meet the academic rigor people expect from an institution of higher learning; or whether (as their critics would claim)  they’re simply the home of political figures who use their position to add credibility to their cause and indoctrinate students in their beliefs.

However when you're talking about politics in the United States you have to talk about Fundamentalist Christianity because it is inextricably connected to Conservative political beliefs.  See how 70% of Christians that voted in 2010's elections voted for Conservative Tea Party Candidates and how the policies of many of those that are running for President on the Conservative ticket have a quite heavy handed attachement to Fundamentalist Christian ideals Bachmann, Palin (probably running), Rick Perry (probably running, (Romney is a Mormon which is certainly a more fundamentally oriented branch of Christianity than the more liberal brands -- which really don't tend to have much influence in how politics play out in the US).

Now the people that embrace these ideals do have the power to steer American politics in a fascist direction as many of the people that follow these politicians also have a vested interest  (that mainly stems from their Christian beliefs) in controlling the actions of other Americans ie. trying to repeal women's rights to obtain abortions and denying gays the right to marry.  All these types of actions stem from the fascist nature of Fundamentalist Christianity which demands that everyone kowtows to the whims of their human made God.

even though im sure youre legitametly concerned that the people advocating for a smaller government, one that stays out of their lives, and is very restricted in what its job is, will form a fascist regime. because after all, thorughout history, oppressive dictatorships come from small governments and it is small governments that throw people into prison camps, cesnor speech, have forced labor, fixed wages, equal results mentality. but i wont comment on that part.

but i will talk about the bolded. i have a guestion about that. When did it become a right for people to murder? i must have missed the memo, is it a new ammendment, i thought it was illegal to kill.

Being that I'm an agnostic with 2 degrees, I believe that the discussion or study of any religion should be restricted to the department of religious studies, the discussion or study of any political ideology or movement should be restricted to political science or history, and the discussion of economic systems should be restricted to the department of economics. Beyond that, the bulk of departments in the humanities and social sciences which have been introduced over the past 60 (or so) years that typically have the suffix “studies” should be seriously evaluated to determine whether they meet the academic rigor people expect from an institution of higher learning; or whether (as their critics would claim)  they’re simply the home of political figures who use their position to add credibility to their cause and indoctrinate students in their beliefs.

1)Although when it comes to military and invading other countries, torturing people without good evidence, or domestic spying - the conservatives seem to throw the "small government" idea out the window.  2)PATRIOT act is sure a symbol of small government.  3)Also, the government telling me when and where I can drink and consume alcohol (outside of drinking and driving since that should be illegal for obvious reasons) is sure small govenrment. That was something I didn't have to deal with when living in Japan. 4) We also top the world in incarceration rates here in the US.  To me, that's anything but small government.