How would you respond to these common theist statements?

[Alex K]

The theistic claim is that atheists do not have a good understanding of religion, are ignorant of it, therefore they will never understand human history properly. They say an understanding of religion is important for studying and interpreting history, especially ancient history.

My experience suggests exactly the opposite, particularly for Christians. Most Christians I've met are painfully ignorant of the history of the church. Throw in a dash of David Barton and you have a significant number of Christians believing a version of history that is not only demonstrably false, but intentionally distorted to give their beliefs more significance than they actually merit.

I was going to say this exact thing. Most Christians know squat about the real history of religion and its role in society and history. I'm sure most Christians think that israel was actually enslaved in egypt for example. You don't have to be a believer either to study religion and history, and many atheists are former believers so...

[brewer]

All I got is welcome. I can't say it any better than the others. Some responses a little harsh but you'll get use to them.

[Ravenshire]

4. Indeed, religion did change history. Imagine what a better world we'd likely live in without the crusades and inquisitions.

[ignoramus]

Yes, and we can't forget the Fox news reporter who stated on live national tv recently that Jesus was "white" .... Pretty sure she was blonde from memory...

[Minimalist]

Yes, and we can't forget the Fox news reporter who stated on live national tv recently that Jesus was "white" .... Pretty sure she was blonde from memory...

Most of them are.

[robvalue]

Hiya, welcome

I think the other guys have this covered already, but:

1- Gibberish. Religion is all but irrelevant in England and we're just fine. Maybe ages ago people needed to make up stories to create order, but no longer.

2- More gibberish, especially since not even people in the same religion can agree on morality. It's quite clear that in fact people project their own morality into their religion, then are amazed when it "agrees with them".

3- Science makes no such claim. It can however help you achieve your moral goals once they are established.

4- Gibberish and clearly false. Anyone can record history. Religion is certainly good at rewriting history; particularly its own stories. I've noticed atheists generally have a much better understanding of the history of religion than religious theists do; often this is why they are atheists!

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yes, and we can't forget the Fox news reporter who stated on live national tv recently that Jesus was "white" .... Pretty sure she was blonde from memory...

Hahah
Lmao xD 
Its funny because she's blond hhahahahaha

Apart from that i think she thought that jesus would be white(hahahhahaha) because of all the paintings(hahahaha).
We need more black jesus paintings(hahahahaha).
Black Jesus Swag.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1. Religion is the foundation of society.
This argument essentially goes along the lines of "Religion created civilization so it must stay". They claim that religion bound people together in the past and that is what created settlements. They argue that we must preserve religion to continue the cohesion of people.
They also argue that their church is a productive community and that atheism is somehow against such behavior.

Religion didn't create society or settlements. Settlements arose with agriculture, because farmers couldn't wander around as nomads; they had to tend crops.

And I'd suggest that family and clan are much more powerful motivators, for binding folks together.

2. Religion is the foundation of morality
This tired all argument has manifested itself in many ways. So they claim that all religions have a set of rules and they are all similar, therefore religion is the source of human "laws". They argue that religion enforced or created the laws that held early communities, as described above. So religion must be preserved to guide humans into the future.

Which religion? Which god? And have those practitioners/that god acted in a moral manner?

Human laws arose from human interactions, starting with Hammurabi's Code, but almost certainly predating that were unwritten codes which bound tribes to a certain set of behaviors. Those laws did not come down from the Heavens on stone tablets; they arose from the grass roots of people requireing common ground in order to work for the best outcome for the group.

3. (Continuation of 2) Science (or atheists) cannot tell us right from wrong.
I am not sure why they think atheists have to be aware of science, but they claim subjective morality is wrong and inhumane.

Firstly, science addresses the material world, not the abstract. Asking science to address morality is like asking a fish taco to state its ethnicity ... a senseless thing to do.

They practice subjective morality themselves when they justify their god's many, many murders, yet criticize Hitler's. There is no difference between Hitler's Final Solution for the Jews and Yahweh's Final Solution for the Amalekites, except that Hitler had better technology, permitting more efficient murders.

4. Religion made history.
This is not necessarily an argument against atheism, but they claim that atheists are not aware of religion and the role it plays in society so atheists cannot have a full understanding of history.

Writing made history possible. Religion did not invent writing, commerce did; businessmen in Sumeria needed a way to record transactions and inventories.

[Holden Caulfield]

I am a new here, but I have been a part of several atheist forums in the past. I have read a lot of articles recently, and I have noticed a new trend, if you will. Theists who do not directly attack atheism but point their objections somewhere else. So here are a few things I have heard:

1. Religion is the foundation of society.
This argument essentially goes along the lines of "Religion created civilization so it must stay". They claim that religion bound people together in the past and that is what created settlements. They argue that we must preserve religion to continue the cohesion of people.
They also argue that their church is a productive community and that atheism is somehow against such behavior.

2. Religion is the foundation of morality
This tired all argument has manifested itself in many ways. So they claim that all religions have a set of rules and they are all similar, therefore religion is the source of human "laws". They argue that religion enforced or created the laws that held early communities, as described above. So religion must be preserved to guide humans into the future.

3. (Continuation of 2) Science (or atheists) cannot tell us right from wrong.
I am not sure why they think atheists have to be aware of science, but they claim subjective morality is wrong and inhumane.

4. Religion made history.
This is not necessarily an argument against atheism, but they claim that atheists are not aware of religion and the role it plays in society so atheists cannot have a full understanding of history.

I want to hear your thoughts on these arguments. I am an atheist myself, just want to see what you guys have to say!

Well how would I respond to this?

1)  The human community is the basis of society.  A group of people depending on each other.  Those groups have and can be all one religion, multiple religions, or no religion.  All have been proven to be effective.  So I don't see how religion plays into that at all.  Does a country that is overwhelmingly atheist in Sweden fare worse than a country than is overwhelmingly religious like Saudi Arabia?  I certainly don't think so.

2)  Again morality is tied into the values of a culture, not to the religion in place.  A multi-cultural country like Canada does find defining morality, so does the mostly atheist Nordic countries like Sweden.  In fact I'd argue based on my personal morals that more religious cultures like Saudi Arabia do worse in terms of morality.  But again morality is based on culture NOT religion.

3) Science has NEVER claimed to have anything to do with morality.  We as a culture define that.  And atheists do just as good a job as religious people if you want to base on history or current status based on western morality.  There's basically no such thing as objective morality.

4) Easiest of your points.  The fact is that atheists on the whole tend to be more educated and more understanding of the role of history.  Everyone knows human culture has evolved from largely religious societies.  Awesome, we also believed in fairies, the world was flat, and the healthing power of human feces.  Understanding where we came from is important.  But in reality I'd bet a higher percent of atheists have read the bible and understand history than religious people in the first world western countries.

[downbeatplumb]

4. Religion made history.
This is not necessarily an argument against atheism, but they claim that atheists are not aware of religion and the role it plays in society so atheists cannot have a full understanding of history.

This is rather vapid argument would mean we couldn't understand plate tectonics because we aren't part of the earths mantle.

Still it was new one, which makes a change.