I think I'll go to bed now, with this last thought:

People, theists and atheists, could do better.

I don't argue that, because you're right. I'm just saying that I don't think you can blame the atheists for all that negative image.

I don't hate religion for what has been done in its name so much as I dislike the things that have been done in its name.

Let's also not forget, though, that a lot of good things have also been done in the name of religion.

Otherwise, I often side with atheists, and then surprise people with the announcement that I personally see myself as Christian. I think Schleiermacher's defenses of religion sum it up best for me - that religion is NOT and never should be a set of moral or metaphysical rules. Instead all it is is just that feeling of dependence on something that's great and infinite, something beyond yourself. You can't justify it, but you don't need to. If you only believe that one thing and follow it through, you don't need anything else - because it reasonably leads to things that many Christians mistake for God-given laws, rules and obligations. You don't need to tell someone that they shouldn't lie, cheat and steal if they have a more general sense of responsibility for the world and a relationship with not just the present, but something that's there for all time. And in that view, texts and moral rules are not the source of beliefs - but just their historical consequences that should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt, because they appeared in very different times and to very different people than we are. You have to learn to get past that and draw the real lessons from the essence of the teaching. And in the case of Christianity, I believe that essence is very, very simple, very powerful, and 100% personal on a human level. Unlike so many other religions, the core message of the religion has no preconditions for being received, requires no rituals, nor asks you to give up your individual self. Christianity is the religion of the poor sinner, not because every Christian needs to be a poor sinner, but because its 'price of admission' is one that even the most impoverished of us can easily afford. And that's the beauty of it, I guess.

Bolded for truth. :yeah: :rock:

The anti-theist crowd always argues against religion using the same bogus, circular argument which never addresses the real problem. Ironically, while they don't believe in an form of deity, their argument actually implies the existance of one.

PEOPLE are responsible for atrocities, not religion. Do you really think that people would not attempt to control, subvert, and subjucate one another in insanely cruel ways regardless of religion? Hell, according to YOU, people invented the tool of religion in order to do so. So either religion was there and humans merely grasped it as a tool (implying god) or it was not there and humans created it in order to achieve other ends (implying that religion is NOT the problem but that the humans created it to serve their goals which would have existed regardless of religion).

At the end of the day, blaming religion for the atrocities committed under its banner is akin to blaming blades for murder. The blade was just a tool - not only has it been used to kill, but it has saved lives through surgury, cut materials to create the world around us, carves our Thanksgiving turkey, etc.

In much the same way, while religion has been perverted in many cases, it has also been used to accomplish much good - feeding and sheltering the homeless, outreach missions to medicate and educate sick children in the 3rd world, helped to create a basic sense of morality which secularism has built upon in many ways. Furthermore, it has provided a sense of positive oversight to people who otherwise need it but cannot have it provided to them. And while that oversight can certainly be used for evil it also can be used for good.

Judging by the differences between today and the dark ages, religion in general has evolved as a tool much for the positive, much like the blade of the sword has evolved into a scalpel.

All of the above is true, but I too would like to add an opposite point.

At the same time Christians often fail to make the distinction between atheists and "anti-theists", as you so well put it. Not all atheists hate Christianity or any other religion. The ones who do the hating get all the attention.

I'm curious, though. What is the circular argument, and how does it imply the existence of a deity? They also accuse believers of circular argument, and with some justification.

I agree with it, but quite frankly I see far more of the overt religion-hating from anti-theists than I see atheist-hating from Christians.Heh, I wish I was an artist because I would draw the recycle symbol with the following text at the end of each arrow.

Circular Anti-Theist Argument:

1. Religion corrupts humans.
2. Humans do evil things because of corrupting religion.
3. Because there is no god humans have to create religion.
4. See step 1.

Seems to me that corrupt humans corrupt other humans, and religion is merely the tool they use.

Possibly, but it's also an observed phenomenon that we see what we want to. The religion-haters see the centuries of religious hatred of not only unbelievers but also believers who don't believe the "right way". I know, you already addressed that, and rightly, but I'm not trying to bring it up again so much as point out the "anti's" reasons, however justified or not they may be.

And of course that's been done with Christian reasoning as well. We've all seen that chart, so I won't bring it up again.

Very, very true. No argument there.

Of course, I'm not arguing otherwise. If someone wants to have a decent, peaceful discussion as to the logic of the existance of any deity, I'll clearly be on the atheist side of the line.

My point only intends to cover the nearly militant, anti-theist stance, and perhaps to show them some anologue between what they claim and the claims of their opponents whom they so fiercely hate.

Frankly, I think religion should remain a deep and personal decision, and human decency should allow those who ascribe to faith to be able to do so without open resistance from other ideologies. Often the argument is that, in the case of Christianity, proselytizing is an intrusion upon those who don't share that faith.

I think that's bogus and the biggest load of crap ever handed down as "rational" thinking. We are subject to messages of all different natures every single day - to imply that one in particular is intrusive because it is that which we most strongly disagree with is disingenuous. Freedom of speech works every which way.

Anti-theists certainly have as much right to spread their message as Christians do. And I have a right to call it like I see it - the anti-theist message is intolerant and hostile. I don't sense either from Jehova's Witnesses knocking at my door.

"there are no athiests in foxholes"

Then foxholes are definitive prove that god exists.
Go figure....:03:

So there it is the proof....that everybody wishes to be protected from harm in a desperate situation. Good old instincts, but nothing divine.

"..is an argument against foxholes, not an argument against atheism"

This is not an example of a circular argument

Can you give me some atheists indoctrinations?

Off the top of my head:

"Faith is believing in that which I know ain't so." - Mark Twain
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Marx
"All thinking men are atheists" - Hemmingway
"Nothing could be more idiotic and absurd than the doctrine of the trinity." - Ingersoll

Agree....:salute:

Down to how to interpret history or poetry and so on.
Take Socialism Capitalism Fascism Communism just choose.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tW0D_jgB6M...se-500x375.jpg

One of my favourites, even if it is from a fictional character.:DL