Hitler was a Roman Catholic

since this keeps being brought up, Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

it's a different deal than with Stalin. the state atheism and persecution of religious people in the soviet union wasn't necessarily about science or a scientific mindset, but about absolute control. "religion is opium for the masses" and all that, so it was seen as reactionary and harmful to the goals of building socialism.

I deride the reasoning abilities of anyone who brings this up as a refutation to the argument that religion has been a constant source of conflict and misery in the world. the religious fundamentalists are out to convert or destroy everyone else, and the closet theists and moderate Christians are inadvertently helping them.

if you need examples, look at the religious bigotry against the queer minorities, the Gaza strip (Jews vs. Muslims), Shiia Islam vs. Sunni Islam (Muslims literally killing each other), when religious dogma interferes with critical areas of science that could be used to save lives (like stem cell research), the frigging Spanish inquisition or the crusades, etc. you can go on and on, and find examples of murder in the name of faith. does some occasional church charity justify all this?

maybe think about it the next time you go on promoting your faith or vilifying the atheists. if people like Dawkins offend you by shooting holes in your world views or just brushing off your cheesy arguments, or if you feel belittled by their blunt tone, you should fix yourself and deal with it.

>>1
"when religious dogma interferes with critical areas of science that could be used to save lives (like stem cell research),"

You are talking about government stem cell research.  This is different from private stem cell research.  If stem cell research is really as great as everyone says it is, I can't understand why all the huge evil profit-hungry corporations aren't scrambling their scientists to research stem cells and what can be done with them to cure diseases, patent the process/procedure, and then make money off of it.

Typically, if the market isn't doing something, there is a reason for it.  For example:  years ago, some stupid fucking safety advocates said that airbags should be in every automobile, and that mandating airbags would save lives. 

The thing is, there is a reason that car manufacturers weren't bothering with this shit - it just wasn't economically worthwhile.  They could produce more new cars at a lower and more competitive cost and rate without bothering with the regulations of stupid safety-obsessed regulatory whores and politicians.  Yes, some people might have died in car accidents because of not having this safety feature, and that is sad.  However, I see no justification in making the cost of automobiles go up unnecessarilly for 95% or more of the population and hampering the economy and our personal freedoms for the sake of a tiny, tiny minority that would benefit from these regulations.

Don't get me wrong - if people want to pay extra for these features, they should be allowed to do so, and if there is a significant enough demand for them, the market will naturally accommodate that demand.  But forcing us all to waste money on them for the benefit of a tiny minority is stupid.

When the government loving safety obsessed pussies mandated it, the costs were passed on to consumers in the form of higher auto prices.  If people aren't willing to pay for something on the private market, or if there is no market for a given service, there is usually a reason behind it - such as that it might not be as economically feasible or marketable as people think. 

All you are doing in advocating government stem cell research is basically taxing people, then funneling the money into Washington for government bureaucrats to spend on wasteful shitty programs, all in the wake of a looming budget crisis.  Congratulations!  If it is not a wasteful program, and it IS economically worthwhile for the benefits gained, there is likely to be some MONEY to be made in it, and thus there is no reason not to let the far more efficient free market handle stem cell research rather than the government.