Re: Actually

'Currently' is what matters, and these attitudes are here to stay without overt opposition from outsiders.

Oh, that's why I oppose those pseudo-Christian traitors!

Do you know how frustrating it is trying to convince modern Christians that their people participated in widespread persecution and murder? Their argument usually runs along the lines of: those weren't real Christians but impostors made to demoralize the Church. Right, well, I don't see much evidence of the "real" Christians stopping or attempting to stop them (never mind the fact that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy). Then the Christian defense usually shifts to pointing out that this mostly happened before Luther founded Protestantism, as if that somehow invalidates everything bad that the Christians did before Luther. It's really just a sly way to place blame on the Catholics.

Of course I know it.

Just that you probably argue it as an Atheist where I argue it as a Muslim - Constantinople 1204, Jerusalem 1099, the other Spanish Civil War. But it's exactly the same in the last instance. More annoying, to me, when a Christian says something on the order of "all Muslims want to kill the Jews" - like, dude, Christians have killed many, many more Jews than Muslims! Even excluding the Nazis, it's enough with the other Spanish Civil War and the Thirty Years War.

By the way, the Thirty Years War was between Catholics AND Protestants, so you can't lay it all on the Papists. Also, Papists burned more heretics but Protestants burned more witches.

So yes, I am all too familiar with that too. And, usually, the kind of data you think irrelevant, like, um, « Tariq didn't invade Spain on a whim or on a holy war mission, but was invited to invade by Christian barons opposed to Christian royal oppression », comes in very handy in those debates.

Yes, and Rousseau, among other things, was a sexist who thought little of girl children or females in general.

Indeed.

And, as I pointed out in my article, organized religious is just another tool for priming children to be completely subservient to authority, even worse the parental relationship because it teaches them to be subservient to an authority that a) has ultimate, unconditional and undeniable power, b) is ever-present and always watching, and c) supposedly loves you completely and yet demands absolute obedience and is willing to painfully torture you for eternity if you fail to meet his expectations. Remind you of anything?

Yes. Reminds me of Justin Stout. He is a sensible AnCap - but like most of the notable Libertarian Atheists, it seems to me that he cares more about taking shots at the religious than actually helping diffuse libertarian ideas.