If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I said NDEs do provide tangible evidence of a spirit, not God. Having a spirit is tangible evidence of God. Not all NDEs provide such evidence, but as I mentioned, some people come back to life with information they shouldn't, or couldn't have.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

That's fairly typical, I have to say. I don't know if it an atheist thing, or a generational thing and I am speaking to a lot of young atheists, but very often people will refuse to even look at certain kinds of information and testimony, based on their preconceived notions, and their own self-confidence that they've "predicted" what is coming. This is of course a perfect shield for their own ignorance, the censoring of anything which could possibly change their mind, by discounting it in advance. Many atheists have outright told me that if it's longer than a paragraph or two they won't even read it.

The testimony in this video is unique and very interesting, nothing short of incredible actually, and no you couldn't possibly predict what was going to happen. You didn't even make it to him getting into the ambulance.

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

God told her to pray at that moment, and Ian heard the words of her prayer. You need to watch the video if we're going to have a meaningful conversation about this.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

You are still operating under the faulty premise that you could suss God out by pointing an instrument at Him. Does that seem logical to you, that you could test for God? That if you just had the right test, suddenly God will appear and say "I guess you got me." The very notion is absurd, yet here you are demanding empirical proof for Gods existence.

What I told you is that only God can provide you revelation of His existence. He has given you a way to know Him, through His Son Jesus Christ. Yet, you refuse to do the one thing which would yield any results. You could pray this prayer, for instance:

"God, I don't know if you're there or not. If you are there, I want to know you. Please let me know you are real and I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior."

Could you pray that prayer and mean it? Are you interested in the truth?

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

Again, I said that NDEs evidence of a spirit and not necessary God.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which require living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him

That isn't how I described it. That was your interpretation of my comment, that God peruses the Universe like a movie. God necessarily exists outside of time and space because He created them. Since He is eternal He is not bound by time. However, that isn't to say that what is happening "now" isn't real. God is the reason we have time, and that things are happening in this moment. The future has not happened yet, there is only now. God operates in this moment, and He isn't limited by time. That is how He can be everywhere at the same time, doing an infinite number of things at the same time. God can also step into time, as His Son did.

>> ^messenger:

Very well written, but I'm afraid entirely wasted on your intended audience.
In reply to this comment by messenger:
If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which requrie living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him.

If we're using terms like "tangible evidence", then I assume we're talking in scientific terms. If we're talking scientifically, then you need phenomena, a theory to explain them, and ways of testing that theory. "I would say..." isn't a scientific statement. What qualifies as "tangible evidence" has to be easily understood and agreed upon by everyone. If people don't agree that something is evidence of something, then it's meaningless. Like, if I suggest that graphite pencils are electric insulators, and you say that's bollocks, we can create an electric curcuit with a light bulb. We both agree that if the light bulb turns on when the electric circuit passes through a graphite pencil, then it's definitely not an insulator, regardless of our initial positions. So if the world at large doesn't agree that NDEs are necessarily evidence of God, then it's a meaningless argument. When you theorize God, it doesn't flow logically that when people are near death that they will necessarily see God. You can look at evidence and say, "This fits in with a theory of God." That's fair, but calling it evidence is not scientific. NDEs also fit with my theory that people seek ultimate authority the the worse and worse their living conditions are. I don't claim that it's evidence that I'm right, just that it supports or "fits" my theory. In other words, it proves nothing at all.

I confess I didn't watch the whole thing (I guessed where it was going once it trailed away from logical enquiry, and so far I haven't heard any surprises -- if there's anything new and interesting in this particular story, lemme know where and I'll watch).

About the mother praying at that moment. It's possible that there is some connection between mother and child that hasn't been properly measured, that only occurs when children are under extreme stress, and even then, only in rare cases (most mothers don't report "knowing" their children were suffering or dying when they hear the news later). That doesn't require Yahweh, or even any God. It's just a phenomenon that we don't know about. And again, "We can't explain it," isn't evidence of God any more than fully explaining the phenomenon is proof that God is fake.

If you cannot provide a test whose conclusion we both agree on for God's existence, then by scientific definition, you have no theory at all. When I press you, the only test you provide is me givnig myself fully to God, and the proof will be that he will contact me eventually if I do it well enough. There's so many loopholes in that to begin with, that no matter how long I did it without result, you'd be able to say why it didn't work. Also, even if it did have a result, I wouldn't agree that the result is proof of God. My theory is that if someone wants to believe something hard enough, and if they bend their will to believing it, they can come to beleive anything they want. It's widely dismissed as "self-delusion" or "choosing to live in a fantasy world" if you're talking about anything other than religoius faith. Some, including myself, also include religious faith in that category. No matter how real it seems, if you convinced yourself of it, that's a good reason to believe you might be deluded. Bottom line, there's no test that we generally agree on, so there's no theory, just your faith that it's true.

About the mother again. All of that could have been wishful thinking/guilty conscience. Mothers often feel guilty when horrible things happen to their children, and one way of "making up for it" in their own minds (or socially) is to tell themselves (or others) that they were suffering too at the same time, and even at a distance were praying for God to intercede.

So I can't explain what happened, but I can provide two decent theories that don't require God.

I'm not sure why, but to people of faith, there seems to be a fear that everything unexplained, if not explained by their God, is somehow a strike against him. That's not at all how science or logic work. There is no phenomenon that requires God to be responsible for it, except the ones he is specifically described as having done himself in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that says people's experiences when suffering extreme mental trauma must be caused by God. If they're explained some other way, your theory of God stands just as strong as before. It's when you go attributing everything that YOU don't understand to God's hand that you get yourself into trouble because when those things are later objectively explained another way then you have to change your story. Better to think critically from the begining, and say with authority what God definitely is and isn't, and what God definitely is and isn't responsible for. Then, if any single one of those things is disproven, then you can simply agree that your description of God is wrong.

You missed my comment above about God and patience. You've said elsewhere that God lives outside time, and looks at the history of the universe like a movie that he can browse and interfere in at will. But then you also say that he has "patience" which can "wear out". "Patience", by definition, means being forced to wait, and "wearing out" means eroding in time, both of which requrie living in time. These two ideas of God both living outside of time and having patience which wears out, if words have meaning, are incompatible. They cannot both be true. If you continue to hold to both of those claims about your God, then that's proof that he doesn't exist as you describe him.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yet another example of a numinous experience caused by severe mental trauma. This is exactly what I theorise happened to you, as I mentioned in one of our previous conversations. This lends some support to it. We are genetically predisposed to seek guidance from authority figures, and the worse our condition, the more we seek it out. Being at death's door is the weakest condition possible, and add to that mental trauma, and the brain makes up whatever idea it needs to survive at that moment, and it seems real.
Also, if God wants us to know him so bad, why does he have to attack us with jellyfish first? He can either let us know outright he's there, or leave us a few clues and hope we put the pieces together ourselves. There's no need for torture.

If it's a numinous experience, how do you explain his mother interceding for him in prayer at the exact moment all of this is taking place?
God doesn't have to attack you with jellyfish, but he will use some means like that to get your attention if you continue to fail to respond to the 100 other ways He tried to reach you. Most often, men are so prideful and stubborn that it takes a full realization of their mortality, or a hitting of rock bottom, for them to realize how much they need God. When you're young and healthy, you feel so strong and self-assured, but it's an illusion..you are at the mercy of forces you don't understand each and every moment of each and every day. Life is fragile, but arrogance lends a false sense of security. They think they don't need Him, that they're getting along just fine on their own. It's only because they don't realize they are a heartbeat away from deaths door, and its only His mercy that keeps them there.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What scripture says that is everyone receives some kind of evidence that would lead that person to conclude that there is a God, or at the very least, push them enough in that direction to be led to Jesus Christ. It also says that rather than acknowledge it, some people suppress the truth God has revealed them because of sin. It is all too common that humans suppress the truth naturally and effortlessly when it reveals something which causes them discomfort.

Having received (supernatural) evidence that sufficiently proves to me that not only is there a God, but that His name is Jesus Christ, I have faith that all of this is true. I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for revelation they did not receive. I have also spoken with many people who have been given such evidence, such as @A10anis, who was shown supernaturally that God spared Him in a car wreck, but still denies God and refuses to repent.

As far as the rules go, no Christian expects the unbeliever to obey them. We expect that you hate Gods rules and would avoid following them whenever possible, except where they match up with the general morality of the culture. The point isn't really about following the rules, when it comes to why you should accept Jesus Christ. The point is that everyone has broken these rules, and that come judgment day, God will find you guilty for breaking them unless you have repented and turned to the Savior for forgiveness. Jesus Christ came to bring reconciliation with God, and forgiveness for our sins, so we could have a meaningful and loving relationship with God. It is our sins that separate us from Him.

>> ^Sketch:

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.
I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.

I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

>> ^Yogi:


Have you seen all my comments on this site? No you haven't. I used to provide very long explanatory comments. I've given that up because frankly it doesn't matter no one reads them.
I don't sit an watch videos...Noam Chomsky is one of the most respected intellectuals on the planet and not a conspiracy theorist. I had over 30 of his books that I recently gave away to the Library of the OWS movement.
I've seen enough to permanantly dismiss you as a poser with self-delusions of grandeur. The length of your "explanatory comments" seem to be directly proportional to the amount of foot in your mouth, and, when confronted with disagreement, you have a tendency to profess bona fides that said comments clearly demonstrate you don't possess. Gave 30 Chomsky books to OWS? Yeah... ok, doctor.

Literally lolled at the title. You are high on self delusion, Sarah. I want to roll up your self delusion and light it up. Powerful.

>> ^kymbos:

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...
While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites
Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?
While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I know what I'm doing is wrong, and I know that I should be providing those who make the entertainment money. And as I said, I do with movies... TV not so much, because it's that thing that I don't have much interest in re-watching shows. (Except Deadwood, we bought all of that on DVD, because you can watch that over and over and get things you missed in the beautiful cussing the first time ) So, there, yes I have a problem. A show like Fringe. I think that's an awesome show, looks like it doesn't have much life left in it, could do with the support, but what can I do realistically? I can't add to its ratings at all as I'm not a family with one of the rating boxes (one of my friends was for a while, was fun to intentionally watch 'good' tv to try to boost ratings ), if I bought the show on DVD it'd really be a symbolic gesture on my part where I'd end up with a bunch of DVDs I'll never watch.

Now, if they made the remaining episodes of it available worldwide for a small subscription fee (and hey, open up the back catalogue too so people can catch up), then I'd stop torrenting it and use the legal downloads (assuming they aren't DRM'd all up the butt).

So yes, I know that torrenting isn't 'right', but I try to do the right thing by the work I like. But I have issues with me doing it, and would like to be provided another avenue to do it legally where I can support the creators I like (without having to pay for crap I don't like). @Ryjkyj seems to believe he's actually in the right, and that's what gets my goat. People who seem to think you're only producing something if you can hold it or touch it. That's such utter rubbish.

He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone...

While I may not align my personal self-delusion with Ryjkyj, the thing I find interesting about piracy is that we're all hypocrites

Spoco, to paraphrase you, you’ve said that it’s the Big Corporates ’ fault that you torrent specific products because they insist on controls and limitations, or are too slow. So what? What entitles you to immediate and unfiltered access to whatever you want, whenever you want it? They are artists producing that material, putting their heart and soul into it. Why do you feel entitled to it in a format of your preference?

While I sympathise, I don’t find it a watertight argument. Even those who refuse to torrent on moral grounds may be inhibiting the expansion of art. There’s pretty convincing data around showing that file sharing has led to more musicians producing and being paid for their art than would have occurred otherwise. By file sharing, you are participating in this expansion. By refusing to, you are stunting its growth.

>> ^NetRunner:

Stockholm syndrome, pure and simple.


LOL! More like self-delusion pure and simple.

lol at 2:25 ... "because life is hard and you need to make up stories to get through it"

Having a hard time? Try self-delusion!

And towards the end, me-thinks she doesn't realize that she's agnostic.

>> ^quantumushroom:

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.

Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.



Dammit he's right...alright everyone shut it down, last one out get the lights.

No, I'm not comparing him to all Muslims. Just the jihadists causing thousands of needless deaths.


Why is everyone getting worked up about this guy? Like he is some major player and representative of Christianity? He has the reach of Rhode Island public access television.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.

You're comparing this guy...to the entire range of Islamic people? Come on QM you know that's a stupid comparison.

Atheists have the same bottomless capacity for self-delusion as the religious, it just expresses itself differently. Example: believing atheism holds the sole patents on reason and intelligence.

A gay man was beat to death in Uganda yesterday. Quite possibly [edit] for being gay. The Christian Right from America went over there and helped roil up the country against homosexuals.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/27/ugandan-gay-rights-activist-murdered

Yesterday. Yesterday. Repeat after me.

Yesterday.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How many people has this fool killed or caused to be killed?
Zero.
How many people has islam murdered just in modern times?
Many. And they're just getting started.

Atheism has no exclusive patents on reason or intelligence. Put another way, the atheist's capacity for self-delusion is equal to that of religious folks, it just comes out differently.