I have no problem with verbal attacks on religion, I've been defending it all my adult life.

However those disingenuous passionate atheists who with religious fervor deny they do not have a faith in their beliefs "there is no god" are blatant hypocrites. They jump in with passion every time a Creator is mentioned with emotive passion rather than proof of their claims. They jump in with what people have done in the name of a theistic view in the past rather than verifiable evidence there is no intelligent purpose or design in or behind reality.

NathanJ,

There are a number of problems with this claim.

<<When atheists try to prove a point, endlessly, life is made very difficult for some who are religious ... You only have to look at the 'high attack rates', in society with words like "poisonous belief systems" on this page.>>

Firstly, there is a difference between making it difficult for others to believe a particular thing and taking away their freedom of choice. As Lefty One mentioned briefly earlier, there are some parts of the united states where people still cannot tell anyone that they are atheists lest they be ostracised by the entire community. Where is your sympathy for them? There is a double-standard in many societies whereby religion is allowed to just get away with whatever it wants without question, and your double standard here is an example of that. I can assure you that what some atheists are doing now, is nothing compared to what theists used to do to atheists.

Secondly, I have seen no evidence of believers finding it difficult to believe. Most that I know of are blissfully unaware that the world is moving on, or are happy slagging off at atheists by portraying them as caricatures (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4824308).

Thirdly, there is nothing wrong pointing out that a belief system is “poisonous”, so long as one can demonstrate that. A belief system that can cause family members to disown those who no longer believe, is poisonous. A belief system that can pollute the minds of its children to accept mythology over science, is poisonous. A belief system that causes people to become concerned over what consenting adults do in their beds, is poisonous. A belief system that can convince its adherents to ignore environmental issues because a Jewish zombie will return any day now, is poisonous. A belief system that can convince people that patiently exploring the issues behind rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation is a more appropriate response than shutting the whole thing down, is poisonous.

Then there’s Islam.

I could go on and on and on.

Continued…

…Continued

“But AJ”, I hear you say, “that’s so one-sided. What about all the good charity work they do?”

I’m glad you asked, NathanJ. The charity work is hardly surprising given that religions provide the social ties required for charitable organisations to form. No-one bandies together in the name of atheism. Sometimes the charity is accompanied by a sermon. Worse still, one only needs to look at the work done by the Catholic Church in Africa to see just how downright reckless it can be. The links between religiosity and charitableness are highly suspect.

http://skeptikai.com/2013/02/16/are-religious-people-more-charitable-generous-and-altruistic-than-atheists
http://skeptikai.com/2012/09/04/religious-or-non-religious-who-is-more-likely-to-be-a-good-samaritan

Finally, I'd add that there is nothing good that comes from religion that cannot arise through secular means, and that given the damage religion does to societies and individuals, a risk/benefit analysis is probably not going to result in favour of religion.

<<Most criticism is harsh, with no opportunity offered for balanced debate.>>

I don’t think it’s harsh enough. Religions are still allowed a free pass in a lot of ways for merely being religions. The softly, softly approach twenty years ago didn’t seem to be doing much either.

But what is your idea of balanced debate? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of debates happening. My YouTube “Watch later” list is full of them. If, by "balanced debate", you mean that one side has no evidence or reasoned argument in favour of their position while the other one does, then I would agree that the debate is not balanced.

<<What about now?>>

Now, I invite theists to challenge my beliefs (or lack thereof), and sometimes they attempt to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201&page=0), but never am I presented with a rational argument in favour of theism. In the end, it always comes down to, “Well, you just gotta have faith.” Either that or a torrent of abuse flung my way, and a belief system that can cause someone to become abusive because it is threatened, is poisonous.

--

Josephus,

Atheists have no burden of proof. Atheism is the default position, so it is nonsensical to speak of it as though any faith could be involved.

Opposites seem to converge when the Big Bang starts as a ripple in the field of matter and anti-matter. Is that sort of anomaly caused by a generator that fits theism?
By all means expose this: "rampant child sex abuse in a criminal organisation". But " shutting the whole thing down," includes accountants, mechanics and lawyers who abuse children . Australia. Big bang universe.

To all still following this thread

A couple of points not covered so far. Taxation exemption for the church has been around for a long time, and is worldwide. Why do they get a pass on that, as it means anyone can call themselves a church, hold services in their front room, and avoid paying any form of tax on the building and or a business selling stuff from their front yard?

My other point is my own present belief, and that is as an agnostic, who I am absolutely sure can’t be blamed for any lunatic behavior of the human species. For anyone not familiar with the term, it means I believe there is a power that created this plant and everything on it, but I don’t believe in any of the religious stories that are peddled today.

So if you wonder at the intricacies of everything from a snow flake to the DNA that runs through every plant or animal on the planet? And if you think it could not possibly have evolved by chance, but find the stories peddled by any religion illogical, then you, by definition my friend are an Agnostic.
Chris

Hi there JOSEPHUS...

Normally I don't usually enter into this God debate, as I believe everyone is entitled to either believe or disbelieve whatever they wish. However to describe Atheists as blatant hypocrites, is just plain wrong, and damn rude JOSEPHUS !

When I was young like many blokes of my age and generation (early 1940's - to c.1953) we were sent to Sunday School in order to comply with our parents wishes of becoming God fearing young men and women. After joining the ARA and being sent to South Vietnam, I saw plenty of evidence there, to thoroughly convince me there is no God, otherwise he'd certainly put a stop to the mayhem that was Vietnam in the late 1960's early 1970's. To say otherwise, would, as you'd correctly opined, be quite disingenuous.

I suppose, the 503 + - Australians killed over there, quite a fair proportion of them probably believed in God, yet when it counted, either the 'Dust-Off' couldn't get through in time, or it was too late anyway, as the poor bastard was simply listed as KIA so no amount of help would be needed anyway ? Furthermore, I heard one yarn that seemed to have some currency, that a few of the NVA and VC harboured Catholic beliefs ? The veracity of that rumour I wouldn't know, however the country was called French Indo China for quite awhile ?

That said, if someone does have some religious convictions, and they acquire some benefit from their faith, well good luck to them, as long as they don't try to push those believes down my neck, is all.