ooh, stinkeye_a! I like the way you think

yikes. Is the translation of 'Abrahamic Faiths' Judaism? Say what you mean, man, cause I don't think people understand the definitions they use
this came from wiki, [en.wikipedia.org]: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the Abrahamic religions with the greatest numbers of adherents.[4][5][6] Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani and Alevi faiths), Samaritanism,[7] the Druze faith (often classified as a branch of Isma'ili Shi'i Islam),[8] Bábism,[9][self-published source] the Bahá'í Faith and Rastafari.[10][11]
Druze are Jews mixed with pagan...so, duh???

@crazycurlz
I said exactly what I meant. "Abrahamic Faiths" refers to all the religions that evolved from the house religion and god of Abraham.There are thousands of them, with more being created all the time.

@Reignmond I take offense by the terminology and your statement. But, in truth, its somewhat vague, really. Constantine, 3rd c, was (so far as I can tell) pagan until he adopted Christianity as a vehicle to solidify power. Paganism is not Abrahamic and yet, there he was, a real SOB. I doubt that force and violence evolved only with the 'Abrahamic religions' which is what you seem to be implying. Narrowing the view on western religion negates world history. The world and its history is RICH with force and violence. Nonbelievers can't separate themselves from the species. And these behaviors shouldn't just fall on the backs of Abrahamic religions.

@crazycurlz
Take offense as you wish, but it will not change the history, some of which is detailed in the bible itself.

@Reignmond first of all, you can't have it both ways: the bible as a fairytale and the bible as a historical document. So, I hope as an atheist you are clear on where you stand regarding the bible as a historical document
my original point is it's not just the 'abrahamic religions' that are guilty of force and violence. AS A SPECIES, humans are capable of terrible bloodshed. The Vikings were not 'Abrahamic', there were violent American Indian tribes and in South America too. I'm sure that a closer look at Eastern peoples would show the same lust for bloodletting.
I don't fully understand your original comment but it does seem to be a lazy commitment to spreading propaganda. Until we all acknowledge that the human species as a whole needs to look at its history, we get no where. Bloodletting didn't start with 'Abrahamic' religions.

@crazycurlz
Many a fairy tale has some truth in it, not at all uncommon. The bible clearly tells of God's immorality, and even if it is not true, the Abrahamic Faith as a whole wishes to show it as true.

While what you say of us as a species is certainly true, we do have a violent tendency, it is the Abrahamic Faiths that are -- I reiterate -- especially forcefully and violently exclusive of not just all other faiths, but even of its very own religious kin. Sure, sometimes recently, they will band together for s little bit, but that is not the norm. The religious wars of Europe, which caused many to flee to the New World, is a good example. It would be "imaginative" to read my post as 'the Abrahamic Faiths created violence'. That said, they did justify it as "God's Will" in word and print.

As for my "Viking" and Native ancestors (I am part Danish and Haudenosaunee, along with a bunch else), they were indeed violent at times (as were pretty much all my other ancestors), but they did not fight because of religion -- which is the topic. [Though, my one Native ancestors, Red Jacket, certainly had no love of Christians. Another, Handsome Lake, created a Native religion styled after Protestantism.]

Fortunately, the zealots amongst the nonbelievers are the minority, too

I don't either.