Ok… so what does this have to do with genocide and forced sterilization?
It seems like you’re making the assumption that genocide and forced sterilization would be a good thing (in the long run, perhaps), and that this is obvious. I don’t see how this follows at all. Why would this be a good thing?
First of all we spend hundreds of billions on police forces, military forces, security, feeding the poor. Some countries have a lot of natural resources that we could use. Other countries compete with us for existing resources. Millions suffer from mental and physical ailments that just make them a drain on society. If there are no consequences why bother deal with these things?
What does that even mean?
What specific decisions are you talking about?
It is in our evolved nature.
It did create a ton of real estate jobs in Dresden, Stalingrad, Nagasaki…
(sorry)
And religion used to make our minds so limber, intellectually curious and innovative, too ! 
Ok… still not connecting this to genocide and forced sterilization.
I don’t understand- of course there are consequences! Hopefully we’ll try and fix these ailments.
Of course there are “consequences” to neglecting people and committing massacres. And ethics forbidding such things. This idea that without religion there’s no reason not to run around like a homicidal lunatic is your bugaboo, not some human universal.
Because how we deal with those things determines the sort of world we live in. A world where human life is cheaply discarded is not a world that I want to inhabit.
Really? Man, are you the President or UN secretary general or something? Most of my decisions are more along the lines of “When should I meet this client?” or “Should I try the new Asian place for lunch?” God doesn’t really enter into it.
Hitler may have proffessed to being a Christian but I doubt if he was anything but a sociopath.
I see no reason why a belief in God should have any effect on research, physics or anything else. No way we will ever understand everything. I have a great love and respect for science and I think it has helped me to formulate what my own concept of God actually is.
Gods world is cruel, unforgiving and doesn’t look back but it is also successful. If I felt I had to take Gods place I would become cruel, unforgiving and without regrets. Thank God I don’t have to do this as God handles that job quite well. I might not be able to live with myself if I had to make the decisons he makes millions a times a day.
He certainly wasn’t a sociopath. He was a very warm and sociable person around his friends. He just believed some very, very toxic things, some of them a product of his Christian upbringing.
Any being worthy of being called “God” doesn’t need to resort to cruelty to get things done. The fact that evil exists is strong evidence against the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent God.
No atheist I know of thinks he has to take God’s place.
You are making all sorts of faulty assumptions, so it’s not surprising that they lead you to faulty conclusions.
If your point is “boy it would be tough to be God”, then I agree. That would be a difficult job. If your point is something else, then it has escaped me.
“Any being worthy of being called “God” doesn’t need to resort to cruelty to get things done. The fact that evil exists is strong evidence against the existence of a omnipotent, benevolent God.”
Death is not neccessarily evil. One animal gives his life to feed another. A food supply runs out and animals die, just the way things are, not good not evil. I have to believe he is going somewhere with this whole thing.
Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of your position in the OP? Or, at least, answering the OP in the negative that, if you were an atheist, nothing would change in your outlook on solutions to global problems.
The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club 
(because of course, if god doesn’t exist then he necessarily has no place, and there can be no calling or reason to “take his place”. Since he never had one.)
"Isn’t that pretty much the opposite of your position in the OP? Or, at least, answering the OP in the negative that, if you were an atheist, nothing would change in your outlook on solutions to global problems. "
If there was a contradiction it was more due to my writing skills. But fact is I am not an athiest and I do fully believe in science and the advancement of science. I also believe in Rehabilitation, and helping undeveloped nations learn to feed themselves. I believe in solutions to all the problems we are facing based on facts we can arrive at through science. I would probably use the death penalty for criminals if I was absolute 100% sure they were guilty, but I am not Christian per se.
My biggest point to this thread is that I see a lot of obvious aggressive attacks on Christians and anyone else who believes in God with rediculous assertertions of how they want to stop science. With the amount of animosity present it is hard to believe that if these same individuals somehow gained control we would have some serious problems, and that is a scary thought to me.And yet it [del]moves[/del] did.
Well, there are a lot of Christians who think evolution is an atheist invention to take God out of their lives. Maybe you’re not one of them, but you have to see that they do exist. But you’re taking the view of a small minority and projecting it onto the majority (of atheists), and then claiming you would behave like the minority if you stopped believing in God.
The funny thing is a religious leader would have a much easier time justifying genocide than an Atheists. “Because god told me too” has always gone a lot further in promoting evil than “for the good of the planet”.