I love religion!

[Purple Rabbit]

My point is that many atheists just dismiss religion, and I think it's an interesting subject. You said it made you laugh, well why? I'm arguing that atheists shouldn't just dismiss religious people's ideas as silly superstitions.

You were the one who brought up fundamentalists, not me. Maybe we should just avoid discussing fundamentalist ideas here, as we seem to be both agreeing that there is no beardy man in he sky. I am saying there is more to religion than that, and that's why I find it fascinating.

You are mixing up religious stances with the cultural phenomenon. The latter indeed is very interesting and this whole site testifies of that. What makes you think that atheists just dismiss religion? The former constitutes no one coherent idea but a plethora of ever shifting ideas ranging from the extreme naive to the multi-layered multi-colored oecumenal variant of religious humanism. Since I value free thought I value the right to belief. I will never attack that right. What I do attack is religious claims being made here out in the open.

I do think it's critical to understand what particular stance the religious bring forward and to merit each position on it's own. Please correct me on this whenever you feel I am not doing justice to the position put forward but please don't generalize that into a "many atheists just dismiss religion". Also I dislike the idea that this is pictured as an us and them thing. I have disagreed here with atheists and theists alike no matter how much I appreciate other aspects of there presentation here on AF. Just like there is no one standard set of religious claims, there is no one standard set of atheist argument. It seems to me that when you make that suggestion you are generalizing atheists for generalization of religious claims.

I have catholic background and grew up in a time when some emancipation in church took place. I am all aware of the range of stances that can be taken on this matter. There is a difference between belief in god(s) and belief in belief. There is a difference between religion as a moral container and religion as a unique origin of absolute moral. There is a difference between Vatican condom prohibition and the personal stance of a catholic believer. Between missionary help and fundamentalist bombing. There is a difference between religion as a cultural phenomenon and personal beliefs. And because of this range in configurations of religious claim I choose to counter each religious claim separately in debate. If you ever longed for devotion to religious content from a non-believers perspective, you can find that here.

I highly value Richard Dawkins' opinion about the epistemolological aspects of religion and I think the accusation that his critique is shallow and without indepth knowledge of theological grounds is a shallow attempt to dismiss his critique by avoiding the content of the matter. It is a reference to some still deeper grounds, it's the mystical card being played. If there are any straight answers they should be given, if there are non they shouldn't been feigned.

I also have frequented theist fora. I found that 98% is about bible interpretation preferably in one specific tradition, it is not about critical examination of historicity and it certainly is not a cross denomination comparitive approach. Instead I found that there is an utter lack of willingness to compare across religions. I wonder if there are really groups of enlightened christians disagreeing with the fundamentalists. Indeed where is their hideout and why not join us here in debate against the variants of religion that are indeed detrimental to our society?