<The list goes on and on. Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?>
The 'cruel things' perpetruated in the name of Christianity only ended when church and state where separated and the church lost its ability to impose its will on the judicail system. This is the only difference between Christianity and Islamic states that have yet to separate religion and state.
I have no objection to consenting adults practising Chistianity in private behind closed doors. But please keep it to yourselves becuase as Jesus said 'you are your fathers sons.'

Mac:

<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.>

So why do you and they keep objecting yo it?

<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.>

Wrong. Subjective awareness is as cognitively valid as objective awareness. Perceiving your own feelings, your dreams and imaginings, the melodies in the mind -- all of which need not be publicised -- you can encounter reality. It may seem to be at odds with empirical reality at times, but it is still reality.

The material of subjective reality can still be analysed and organised rationally -- i.e. through logic and value-judgement. Some people, of course, are better at doing it than others.

jpw2040:
<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.>

Fallacious argument. Before someone can "decline to believe in it" he/she must be considering a concept or image. Peter is trying to show that the concept/image of God (i.e. your "it") that atheists consider before pronouncing their judgement is not the concept/image of God that he believes in.

Sells
The core belief of Christianity is that I need salvation because of Adam's sin.
My logical mind tells me that this is nonsense.
Proove me wrong.
Ponder
A brilliant one word demolition of two pages of waffle.

<Fallacious argument. Before someone can "decline to believe in it" he/she must be considering a concept or image. Peter is trying to show that the concept/image of God (i.e. your "it") that atheists consider before pronouncing their judgement is not the concept/image of God that he believes in.>

No. The falacious argument is that there has to be an image not to beilieve in. There is no need for an image of something that does not exist, there is simply nothing.
It doesn't matter what image Sellick believes in nothing is still nothing. Your use of symatics does not make something out of nothing and never will.

Christians are so stupid that they are killing millions of other
christians through starvation (overpopulation,contraceptive ban) and AIDS ( condom ban).

Isn't that right Mr Pope.

Do you think you are smart in your golden cloak and tall hat.

I think jpw2040 speaks for legions of disbelievers, sceptics and bored passers-by when he makes the very relevant suggestion that instead of blathering on so much and wasting so much bandwidth Peter just accepts he is entitled to his (crazed) opinion and focuses his remaining years on helping people in tangible ways.

To repeat jpw2040's excellent summation:

"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?"

Over to you Pete!