Except you know... your point that he wasn't an atheist.

Hitler was very anti-religion... he thought it was a negative that held back people....

as did Stalin for that matter... and most people in the USSR fueled by marxist settiment.

I wasn't going to bring it up... because such arguements about the value of religion are really really silly even when you look at things from a wide view.... (Chances are we'd be lucky to have 1960's technology right now without religion)...

however

Hitler specifically wanted to eventually put Catholic higher ups in concentration camp to get people to stop believeing it.for example.

While Stalin specifically did kill people to hurt religious belief, and further wanted to.

So in general, your point is fairly wrong.  (well unless you want to argue they died because they believed in those religions.... but... i hope you'd see the fallacy in that.)

Nevermind the fact that the crusades largely weren't about religion but the economic realties of warfare at that time which was... "You had to invade people to keep your malcontents busy and getting rich".  "If you get invaded you suffer greatly and lose, even if you win the war."

As such, they got everyone together and focused everyone on a target far away with religion as a good excuse.  Without it... there would of just been a bunch of bloody nearby wars.

This can be seen by the last few crusades which tended to be against Christians, and christians who believed the same way often... and half the time in places they weren't even supposed to reach.

Largely these threads are funny because there isn't a way to prove god exists... and yet most of the athesits in such threads like this seem to go exagerratingly out of their way to show exactly why they aren't any better then anyone who believes in a religion and shows generally without a doubt that the ugliness of things comes not from a religion, or any idea... but specifically from man's consiousness.

Define religion. I bolded two words, that may help you achieve this.

So... then in your opinion, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all relgions then?

This site has shown that plenty of people worship and show devotion to those companies.

I mean if so... we're just argueing about a definition, at that point making this arguement pointless.

Though i'd note then... pretty much anythign can be a religion... and the only way you'll ever get rid of it, is to kill anyone who has enough sentience to think.

Yeah, in my opinion the extreme worship to some companies has religious character. I only say church of Apple, that is even more extreme than the worship for video-game-companies.

Yes, many discussion are in the end about definitions.

And I have no interest in getting rid of religions. So I have no need to kill anyone.

All I want is to stop the exaggerated hate against atheism and to counter some strange arguments, that seem to prove religions, a creator or something while losing all logic in the process. In the end a real religion cannot be proved or disproved. It's all about believing somethng. Thats why it is also named belief or faith.

Some religions can be disproved, but usually only because they claim some stupid stuff. Like: the gods sit on this mountain - ok, we can go looking. But most religions can in their core not be proved or disproved.

First off let me say that I'm sorry you feel that religion/Christianity has been basically forced down your throat for most your life - seriously, I men that.

However, such doesn't excuse your ignorance.For a serial rapist or pediafile will find very little sympathy from other for his wrong doing. I'm not calling you a rapist or a pedafile, but only pointing out that wrong doing has no excuse. I say you're doing wrong because if you know anything about religion/Christianity you would know that it is all about LOVE. And it is probably love, maybe a bit misguided, that has brought so many religious people into your life.

 Secondly, the fact that you've been in many religious discussion, doesn't mean jack. Next thing you'll be telling me is that because you have a political view, you're a Polititian or fit to be a Senator or maybe even President? Being in religious debates doesn't mean you're a religious scholar, but it could mean you've just been talking shit all these years with absolutely no foundation. Ultimately, the point I was making is that to be good at anything, you have to spend years dedicated to it, whether it be a profession, a hobby, or even Religion/christianity. Just talking about stuff doesn't make you an expert - and certainly not fit to debate Christianity.

With regards your challenge in bold, what is your argument or point of view about Christianity? For the sake of argument, mine wouuld be that God loves everyone, including you, even now. So what's your argumen or angle?

Your question was answered in my post. I've bolded the portion in my post.

people should believe or not in whatever they want,but it is pretty simple.

If you take a look how complex the dna is_this could never happen by coincidence.And even if this happen by coincidence,this dna structure would't evolve and reproduce itself,because the structure would never know what it is and never know how or why to reproduce itself.As soon as the first life started it already had the code for reproduction.how could both things happen at the same time and why,and where does the urge came from to live and reproduce and the selforganizing and selfrecognizing knowledge to analyze the own structure and to built a code for reproduction,a code that is not just reproducing but recognizing what is good and not for improvement of its own structure and the ability to recognice mutations eliminate the bad and reproduce the good ones?
life would be the same ad a computer programm,with noone to code and start the programm nothing would ever happen.a primitive binary code would remain primitive for all time without being able to analize itself ,to improve itself,to reproduce even if it is a complex binary code nothing would happened because there would be no need for the programm.

that video hurts atheist more than anything.

I hope the guy who made this doesn't actually believe this.

Bold - No, no it is not.  Religion is only about what an individual wants it to be about.  for some it's about controlling others through fear or desperation. for some it means justifying evils.  for some it's the unbridled truth in their eyes.  For others it's just another way to segregate us.  Since Religion as a whole has so many denominations, sub-groups, and variations (has to be up in the millions by now), there's absolutely no way you could possibly claim that you know what each and every facet of each and every variation is about.  If that's what it means to you, then by all means please do continue to preach love and tolerance and understanding and kindness, but don't dare think that just becuase you want to believe something (Religion is about Love) that it's true.  that's kind of what this whole discussion is about.  

And I'd say dedicating 7 years of my life to fighting off logical fallacies, aggressive ignorance, and constant judgement-based harassment is a pretty good amount of time dedicated to the craft of fighting religious ignorance and intolerance.  

I've had people tell me that my relationship with my girlfriend was an affront to God becuase homosexuality was a Sin.  When I asked for proof, all they were able to bring up was a quote from Leviticus where Jesus said something about it being Wicked for a man to lie with another man (citation Needed.)  I countered it saying that nowhere in there did it say that homosexuality was a sin and that it was a very vague statement up to an individual's personal judgement and interpretation.  I was once again told I was ignorant of the subject since I had the devil in me.  No refute to my point, just a casual dismissal becuase they had nothing to say.  

When people make faulty points regarding religion, science (especially evolution), and society in the name of religion, it's not hard for me to go through a list of logical fallacies and pinpoint exactly why their argument fails.  Back it up with science, back it up with history, back it up with logic and rationale and even explain the behaviours with even the most basic of human psychology, and you will not convince a religious person that they're wrong.  I quoted House earlier and I stand by my assertion that rational arguments don't work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.  I'm not saying all religious people are dumb or ignorant or stupid, but the very concept of religion has about a dozen logical barriers to overcome.  The entire thing is based on faith, faith above all else that people aren't lying to you.  Faith that the bible (or whatever holy scripture you believe in) was written by the hands of god, that it was never tampered with, that the people telling you about it don't have an agenda, that something that was relevant over a millenia ago is still relevant today, that in spite of hundreds of doomsday rapture threats that never came true, that there's an afterlife.  

Every religious argument is inherently faulty becuase it's based on assertions with no backing evidence.  you can believe anything you want, and you can even debate philosophies with ease, but once you start making assertions about the genesis of the world, our place in it, and the existence of beings and their supposed judgements, you need more proof than any religion can offer.  

It can't be done, yet religion still gets to control the world.  I have a real issue with that.  And being critical of it and demanding it play by the same rules that anything else in the world has to play by is met with aggressive hostility mixed with the symphonic blubbering of zealouts unable to support their claims, collectively resorting to a base 'freedom of religion' clause.  

I really wish I had my big list of different ways to debunk religion on me.  it would be fun to copy and paste the lengthy explanations as to why each and every pro-religion argument can be effectively debated and crushed with simple logic, historical proof, and above all else, science.  

I like this from other forum post but I will call someone out when there wrong and don't know what there talking about.

"Thats why it is also named belief or faith."

In the bible in reference to faith it was loyality based on the evidence.

When Jesus told his followers have faith he always referenced his works  in which the followers have seen. Jesus was the number one person when it came to saying have faith on me because of the evidence and not based on me just making claims.

"But most religions can in their core not be proved or disproved."

Here you give a very native response in not responding to our factors such as history or creditablity based on sources. Your respond is one of someone who clearly didn't read anything and just thinks combining random religions makes all religion false. 

""All I want is to stop the exaggerated hate against atheism and to counter some strange arguments, that seem to prove religions"

Here you sneakly try to run away from the arguments by discrediting them without addressing them in which case your point/sneak in is nothing but an avoiding the argument based on lack of ability to do so. This is called passive atheistism in which you have no ability to attack the arguments so you just makes claims like this to avoid the problem of answering them. Just saying they hold no ground doesn't mean its true its just a fallacy.