Great article. Unfortunately I'm sticking with what I said. You guys expect every single Christian to apologize for something that happened a long time ago which they had nothing to do with, and are blaming it on them. That's discrimination. Do you claim that Stalin didn't do these things necessarily because he was an atheist? Did Stalin not kill "in the name of" atheism? I don't care - he was an atheist & he killed 20 million people. End of story. There you go, I can discriminate too.

Second, the author doesn't know the definition of atheism:
It is not an affirmative statement of belief, it is a dis-affirmation of a belief in god(s).

A disbelief is always in RESPONSE to something. Atheism is either denial or disbelief. Atheists have rejected the possibility of God for whatever reasons. Atheism is a belief; it makes no sense for an "ism" to be based on a lack of a belief, and its etymology means "godless belief". If you don't believe me just because I'm not an atheist then see this page which was written by an atheist and has links to other credible articles: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1....

Agnostics are not atheists. Buddhists are not atheists. Babies are not atheists. Wake up from your delusion people, and get this concept into your head!

Einstein for example did not believe in a God, deistic or theistic. This makes him an atheist correct? That's interesting since he explicitly denied being one:

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

So again, someone explain to me why every single non-believer apparently supports your position despite the fact that 95% of nonreligious people in the US don't call themselves atheist? Why should people go by atheists' made-up and nonsensical terms which only serve to add more people to their position for no reason? A definition is defined by common usage, not by people who fit that definition. I say if you don't like the definition then pick one that actually suits you instead of hopping on the atheist bandwagon.

1) Lowest estimates are 10 million, and over a period of 300 years.
2) Lots of native americans were hostile as well.

What's funny is that atheist blogger calculated the death tolls, which were obviously in favor of theism (and his estimate for atheist deaths were kind of low when compared to other similar statistics): http://atheistblogger.com/2008/07/02/death-toll-t...

Unfortunately, what he failed to point out was that atheists are only 4% of the population, yet have killed 5% of the population, a higher ratio than theists. This proves that atheists' morality arguments are bullshit.

Crusades? rofl. Stalin's 20 million deaths make the 1.5 million of the crusades look like a joke.

To paraphrase the common maxim, we who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We must remember the Crusades, the various periods of the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the Satanic ritual abuse scare in the 1980's, and recent revelations about the Family.

But of course the atheist bigots can't be assed to remember all the deaths at the hands of atheist regimes such as Stalin's. No suprise here.

Again, agnostic theist/atheist are bullshit contradictory terms that people just made up. I still want someone to explain to me how they can both not make any claims to knowledge where there is no evidence, yet still THINK there is/isn't God....based on NO evidence. Seriously, apart from atheist websites and the peer-edited places like wikipedia where do you even see these imaginary made-up terms?

There's a reason you don't see agnostics militantly attacking the existence of God. It's because they DON'T CARE unless there's evidence therefore they DON'T fit the atheist position. Atheists need to quit cherrypicking definitions to suit them & quit making shit up. Nobody is going to accept your definitions that violate common sense no matter how many blog posts you make. <_<

I totally disagree with this article. This just attempts to assign a "lack of belief" definition to atheism so that the position will include more people. Unfortunately nobody considers agnostics, babies or people who don't care to be atheist. And it's going to stay that way forever. A term is defined by common usage, not by people who fit that definition. So sorry, atheists can't change the meaning of their position just because it suits them. If you don't like your position then adopt a different one instead of hopping on the atheist bandwagon.

Atheism is indeed a response to the question of god(s), but agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.
That doesn't whatsoever imply that they are still not contradictory terms. Agnostic atheist or agnostic theist are both contradictory: you don't believe you can have knowledge where there is no evidence, but you think that God does or does not exist anyway? What? That makes no sense.

Even atheists will tell you that this "lack of belief" definition is a total crock: <a href="http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1...." target="_blank">http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1....