How is that true for atheism? 

LMAO can you describe to me how anarchy which is a state in which there is no government is compatible with communism which requires a very large government?

i EAGERLY await your answer

Good and evil are meaningless words, but religion has definitely held us a lot more back and has done way more bad things than it has ever helped us.

Sorry, I just assumed that with 'anarcho-communists' you're referring to anyone who's somewhat liberal or socialist.

But if you're not, your statement makes very little sense. Why are you trying to defend Christianity by trying to show that an almost non-existant group of people is equally bad?

I strongly agree with this. As a Christian, I get sick of being lumped into terrible sects of it while I believe in something completely different to what someone else believes in. I take no responsibility in the Crusades for two reasons, I'm not Catholic, and looking at events leading up to it, you cannot put the entire blame on Christians. The actions against innocent civilians was terrible, but you cannot simply lump all Christians together saying we are all pro-Crusades. It falls on the people at the end of the day.

LMAO can you describe to me how anarchy which is a state in which there is no government is compatible with communism which requires a very large government?

i EAGERLY await your answer

So you don't agree it's of infinite importance to know that magical ponies don't exist? Considering the vast majority of humans on this planet believe in magical ponies and are trying to inflict their magical pony morality and magical pony policies on us I think it's pretty important for everyone to know that there aren't any magical ponies. We waste so many resources on magical ponies that it really is the most important thing on earth to convince people that there aren't magical ponies.

More or less a person could say present evidence that the Gospel story didn't happen, that they are a complete fiction but it wouldn't disprove Christianity. 

So, you could have a Christian who believes "God is a man in the sky. He will grant wishes that you pray to him. If you are good, you become an angel and go to heaven, which exists in the sky. If you are naughty or a non-believer, he will send you to a fiery hell, which is beneath the Earth's crust." - This is kind of Christianity for dummies (not in the sense that these are the basics of it, but in the sense that this is the form that dummies believe in; like the Simpsons characters). This is also more of a recent interpretation, this is not the description that any writers before the last couple hundred years describe Christianity; it's mostly a comedic interpretation. In Roman times, the idea of a man in the sky is something Christians found ridiculous as well, which is why they made fun of Pagans for it. There is medieval art and such of Jesus looking up, but that is mostly metaphorical because 

Reading actual Christian theologians and scholarly works, the above description is not really what they believe in. You have St. Augustine over 1500 years ago writing about how God the Father exists outside of time and space, while the holy spirit permeates all things. Even the Big Bang theory was essentially conceptualized as a scientific presentation of the creation with all the sacredness, metaphor, and spirituality taken out of the equation. Relativity and the dilation of spacetime is consistent with the trinitarian view that God the Father somehow exists beyond the universe, but "his" unchanging nature exists before, during, and after time - a massless object moving at the speed of light can hit the other side of the universe instantly (relative to its own point of reference) while the rest of the universe moves forward over a period of trillions of years.

If people want to be Christian, they will figure out a way to make the religion consistent with what we know is true today... and there will always be the dummies who reject a progress of knowledge and will still believe in the man in the sky anyway. But, I don't think there's a such thing as disproving Christianity. It's too huge of a thing. As long as it is appealing, there will be Christians. It is less appealing now because of globalization and people find church boring and a waste of time; those people drop off - but there are those that actually like it, and more Christians join simply due to this cultural appeal.

Some things in Christianity, very core systems, can't really be disproven. They are ideological concepts.

1. It is hypocrisy to judge people - this was the main message of Jesus, a group called the Pharisees were judging all sorts of people for breaking the Law (as in the biblical Law), and that they deserved punishment because they were doing something that would prevent them from getting into heaven. Jesus thought this was ridiculously stupid: they said "So you don't think these laws will get you into heaven" and he said "They will most certainly get you into heaven, I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that you're an asshole for judging people who don't follow the laws, and a hypocrite because you don't follow them either." The Pharisees were insulted at the suggestion, so Jesus said "Yeah dude, if you interpret adultery as even feeling lust for another that is not your wife, you are all sinners! So fuck you!" He didn't drop the F-bombs, but the intent was there. So Jesus essentially said, "All of those laws and commandments are really just aiming to get people to do two things - Love everyone and everything. And if you are beating and stoning people for not following the Laws, then you're a sinner yourself... and an asshole hypocrite."

2. Give to the needy - he said wealthy people are at a disadvantage because they have more to give up. Jesus effectively set up a commune for his followers. The irony is that a lot of the self-described staunch Christians are very anti-communism... despite the fact that Communism has been a common practice among Christian societies (monasteries, nuns, etc...) since the beginning of the faith. It just goes to show that Christianity means very different things to different people.

3. A person who rejects temptation has more freedom.

4. The metaphor for walking on water - it's not meant to be that "Whoah! It's a miracle! This guy can walk on water!" In the context, the story is about defying your pre-existing knowledge of the world and challenge yourself into exploring new knowledge without confines. It's the same as a psychedelic trip - one of the reasons why some people believe early Christians practiced psychedelic drug usage.

But anyway, I'm rambling, what I am trying to say is that these are all ideas and concepts. And the full body of work can really be applied to different understandings as to the origins of the Gospel. If Jesus didn't actually do any of this stuff, someone still wrote it, and that person had the stories in his/her head (yeah, it's possible that multiple books in the bible were written by women; particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament)

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

Because both are based on assumptions about  things whose existence will always be  unconclusive: spiritual beings.

Atheism as "lacking belief in God" is an incredibly poor definition due to its broad/wishy-washy nature; it's fairly useless when defined like that. As Neil Degrasse Tyson put it, you don't define someone as an "aGolfer" because they don't golf. In addition, one who lacks belief in God or gods could be a deist agnostic rather than an atheist; since agnostics don't deny the existence of God or Gods, but they don't believe in them either.

The most broadly accepted definition of Atheist is "One who denies the existence of God or gods."

This is a useful definition, it is precise, and there isn't confusion about conflating its meaning with anything else.