"States of belief" don't kill a priest, melt down a church bell, and close down a cathedral.
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but there have been many religious wars in which believers, from countries founded on religion, have done far worse things to cathedrals than close them?
come off it, Hitler was never a genuine Christian, he had little real interest in religion. If he had been a genuine Christian he would have loved his fellow man as himself, regardless of jew, christian, gypsy or anything else.
any occurences you can tell me of when Hitler went to Church?
As has been pointed out to you, this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. It's derived from this scenario:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his
Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his
Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No
true Scotsman would do such a thing."
In short, you're saying that because Hitler didn't conform to your vision of how Christians should behave, he's not a real Christian. I'm not getting into whether or not he was, I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is very flawed. I myself have believed in God without attending church weekly.
Oh, and if you have to a church-goer to be a Christian, it should bother you that for all the religion permeating American culture, church attendance there is a measly 21%. Or is it necessary to tithe to be a Christian? Because 97% of American Christians don't. Yet many of them definitely
are believing Christians nonetheless.
There's a problem when a group of people declare things as superstition that must be destroyed; they try and destroy it.
Good thing this is a very rare event, then. Most atheists are content with leaving religion alone. Some, however, feel it does more harm than good. Some of those, in turn, would like it see it disappear. And then a few of those, in turn, want to actively convince people through peaceful means to abandon it. But
destroying religion? By force? Not even Richard Dawkins, despite his very strong words, comes close to making such a statement.
You know, the sad thing here is that I was hoping my post (Post #2 in this thread) would have some sort of effect. I see now it's done nothing at all. Everyone is going on about how secular countries are evil and how atheists don't have a reason to be moral - just like before my post. It's almost as if they didn't even read it.