For apologists of religion, the violence in Scripture is only superficially there. It has to do with the "translation" of the text in question.
That there is a “religion per se” apart from the social manifestations of that religion is simply presupposed by many people active in this debate.
How can this dispute about the relationship between religion and violence be resolved? Or will this always remain a matter of opinion?
A religion does not simply exist in the fantasy of some of its enlightened followers, it also manifests itself in the real world.
The two elements of critique of religion and predilection for free speech adequately sum up the movement for freethought.
Bertrand Russell was an agnostic. Agnosticism has always attracted people who scorn the straightforwardness of the atheist position.
Is it impossible to say anything about the likelihood of the existence of a personal, eternal, omnipotent, and perfectly good being?
People’s motives for developing an atheist position are often grounded in a laudable type of engagement and not in disillusion.
An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god with certain characteristics. In other words: he denies the existence of “God”.
It may be true that science cannot establish whether God exists or not, but that does not mean that we cannot argue about the matter.