"Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?"

Yes!

Right life is conscious participation in boundless Radiance.

Yes indeed, Christianity stands condemmed by its dreadful historical record. Mountains of corpses. All of the natural world and even the stones thus effected by it are groaning under the weight of its influence. Pain and suffering brought to the entire planet.

By their fruits you will know them.

The Truth or authenticity of anyones religion,both "individual" and collective, is always and only demonstrated by what they do altogether, and even moment to moment.

And never ever in the clever words they put to together, or the scriptures that they quote, to justify their actions.

Was/is the life, and the institution that they belonged to, characterised by Grace, laughter, humour, music, dancing, art and the celebration (and creation) of The Beautiful altogether.

Did they spontaneously, and non-strategically, offer loving help to all of those within their own intimate sphere, the community in which they lived, and the world altogether.

Was their politics characterised by tolerance, compassion and forgiveness? And the promotion of these intrinsic VIRTUES on the world stage of history altogether.

This reference unequivically SHOUTS NO, No, No and NO again.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Meanwhile a key figure in the history of Christianity was born 500 years--and there are world-wide "celebrations" of his birth.

I am of course talking about John Calvin.

Calvin was a psycho-path, a serial killer and mass murderer. He installed a reign of terror in Geneva. Anything remotely represented THE BEAUTIFUL was banished completely. People, including children, his adult step-children,and his former best friend the polymath Servetus, were executed for the most trivial reasons.

And yet this montrous human being is celebrated as a "great christian mind" and the founder/inspiration for a world-wide "religion".

A "religion" which is very strong, and very much a part of the "religious" mind that informs right-wing religiosity in Puritan America. AND as an INEVITABLE RESULT the "culture" of death that pervades the USA altogether.

Peter Sellick,

You haven't demonstrated that there is any other evidence apart from empirical, why the division? The conclusion is that there is no rational basis to religious belief, we wouldn't employ different criteria for engineering or biology.

"Scientific rationality cannot be applied to the arts or to affairs of the heart.." well yes, it can. There are scientific theories as to how we chose a partner or why we appreciate art or, indeed, why many people are religious and many, like me are not. Whether the "sterility' of atheism or the delusion of religious belief is more dangerous to the human "soul", (whatever that is)is open to discussion.The Noble Laureate Peter Medawar is reported as saying that ,"I don't have the gene for religion", I think that is a very plausible explanation as to why some people, even those with high intelligence, are religious.

You are really are making a special plea for theology, by attempting to remove it from the usual logical framework of empirical inquiry, theology is unique, in the sense that that there is no evidence that the object of study exists, it is a ludicrous human endeavour. In your fourth paragraph you are insinuating a fallacious argument, that there is no morality without religion, this was refuted (1)by Classical philosophy and (2)by simple observation, religious texts, at least in the enlightened West, are subject to continual reinterpretation because of the influence of contemporary morality.

Your appeal to sacred texts is irrelevant to those who do not share your beliefs, they have no historical basis whatsoever. It seems to me that Jesus was preaching exclusively to Jews anyway and might have been amazed that his teachings were embraced by the goyim.

You are making a straw man when you say "the god atheists object to," most atheists would say that there is no evidence for any reality but the natural world, there is nothing in fact to object to.

"The truly free Christian[s] ... were the ones who were freed from religion."

Atheists and advocates of theism are perfectly able to harmoniously coexist. It's not believing in god that gets atheists wound up, it is the blind acquiescence to the demands of organised religion - usually set up by calculating individuals to serve their own interests, whether they be material, moral, or mental - that is the real concern.

I have family members who are elders in a respected, and I would say fairly typical Christian church. They pay 10 percent of their earnings to the church, and spend most of their time helping to grow the congregation (with each member also having to contribute 10 percent of their income) and reading Christian books, listening to Christian music - items for which they pay through the nose. They also take part in numerous charity and fundraising events to help people they consider to be less fortunate, all the while spreading the good news and expanding their Church.

I would suggest that you can believe in god, try to live a decent life and help others without joining any affiliation with a religious group that places demands on you that have nothing to do with god, Jesus, or the Bible.

I have my own views on life and death but I really don't feel the need to argue with others in order to make them think the same way. So, I seriously question why anyone, especially a stranger, would wish to foist their beliefs onto others - in my experience, their motives are seldom sound

Heartily agree that our lives are enriched by the non-empirical. Yes, my mother loves me, music moves me and talcum powder on the change-room floor disgusts me - all of them without a strong empirical basis. However, Sells, you're asking us to make the huge leap from 'my mother loves me' to 'Jesus loves me,' with no arguments more persuasive than 'because I say so.'

Like almost all your articles, this one is based on a straw-man fallacy - in this case, the hypothetical individual who lives by empirical principles alone. This person doesn't exist, so please stop pillorying him/her.

Mention of "the God that atheism objects to" merely extends the straw-man argument. Atheism doesn't object to a god, it declines to believe in it.

It's nice that you believe, and honestly, I'm delighted for you. However I do wish you would stop insulting our intelligence by using dodgy arguments to claim the impossibility of atheism. The legions of non-believers here are ample proof that atheism exists and indeed thrives.

I don't understand why you feel the need to keep hammering away at us with these lofty-sounding but ultimately empty articles. Wouldn't your christian instincts be better deployed helping the homeless off the street, or driving sick old people to their doctor's appointments?

Peter as noted above you seem to believe that atheists are an activist group that 'objects to god'. While there may be some atheists like that, many including me are not.

Atheism for me is not an ideology, it's simply an absence of belief. I don't believe in the Christian god just like I don't believe in ghosts or Santa Claus. To say this absence of belief is impossible is plain silly and suggests that you can't comprehend any mental model of the world apart from your own.