No they dont, because my mind is great, maybe the greatest here and I think very different from them(money is everything bla bla; communist are demons bla bla).

I also think its better, if you are gonna kill people, to admit you dont believe in a god. Thats better than believing and killing anyway. Because history says there have been more religious people that kill people for even more stupid reasons, to ignore that is stupid.

Im not saying its part of religious people to kill others, its just that they have been more in the past so anyone who would be a massive killer, dictator, etc... was more likely to be religious. To say being atheist is connected to killing people is a stupid statement as saying religion is connected to murder, there have been atheists that have been crazy stupid guys as there have been crazy religious too. Its not connected(except in some cases where its religion that leads to kill, these are some terrorists groups and crazy religious goverments).

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5527

Thanks for the compliments about my intellect, even if you don't agree with me :)

As for the OP, religious, and non religious thinkers don't kill people. People in power who want more power kill people. If your an efficient leader who needs to convince a mass group of people to kill and die for you, you take the path of least resistance to achieve that goal.

For most of the world, that's religion. Convince people to kill for there god. If you can't go that route, have people kill for there country, or there form of government (like to spread "Democracy").

If there never was religion, just as many people would have died in the world due to war, there leaders would have just convinced them to die for something else.

After a certain point in history, religious rulers and empires weren't nearly as effective. Most of these leaders came about at a time where even if you could instill hate against a certain religion, you couldn't really rally yours. These leaders came about during the 20th century, when the time of religious rule was past. The 20th century was also a time of unprecedented population growth, meaning that mass genocides and takeovers would have far more devastating effects.

"It's not fair or reasonable to fault the Bible when the person who's waving the sword is doing things that are contradictory to what the Bible teaches."

From the article I liked this phrase, it could be used to add more to my last post, even if I think great part of the bible is BS. But this makes me think the article is somewhat written by a not so bright guy:

"If you were walking down a dark street at night in the center of Los Angeles and you saw ten young men walking towards you, would you feel more comfortable if you knew that they had just come from a Bible class? Of course, the answer is certainly you would. That demonstrates that religion, and Biblical religion in particular, is a mitigator of evil in the world.

First, one thing has nothing to do with the other, I would feel as safe if I knew they where coming from football training or any other class, even more because they wouldnt say Im going to hell because I believe in evolution and dont believe adam and eve. And how does that have to do with the mitigation of evil in the world? Many people do things to fix the world rather than reading a book and many of them dont believe in anything, or if they do they dont take religion as a thing of mayor importance in their life.

I think that to rule your life with a book that has nothing sacred about it is giving it a use that it shouldnt have, I even think the Lord of the rings has more morality in it, especially in the old testament.

This is maybe the main reason why the numbers are so big compared to the other.

You just solidified your position as someone overfilled with self importance on this site, for anyone who reads this. That's counter productive if you expect people to read anything you have to say, and take you seriously.

But I would assume someone with the greatest mind on this site would know this.

if there wasn't ever religion on this planet, people could kill each other and it wouldn't matter.

Before the idea of an afterlife, it was hard to make war. No one wanted to die in battle if they thought that there was nothing after death. Religion fueled war, and war built empires. Take it for what you will. My original point still stands, and pretty much can't be debated.

This is a very good point. And this thread is so weird. Is it villifying all things not religious or saying that because more people have been killed by non-religous people than by religious people (which would be really hard to prove or even conjecture about) therefore killing in the name of a god is less bad? I am pretty confused by what the aim is here.

Off topic: I agree on the whole Mafoo is a thoughtful person with some radical thoughts.  I have never enjoyed consistantly disagreeing with someone so much on my entire time on the internets. Good work man!