Here you go abusing your philosophy terms. Maybe I should start screaming strawman at every opportunity. It might make me seem smarter.
Huh? That's neither abuse or philosophy. It's a term pointing out that you're distorting your opponents' viewpoints instead of addressing their actual viewpoints. I'm not trying to seem smarter, I'm using a fairly common and useful word, and if you don't know what it means I suggest you google it.
My point was not to prove the argument wrong. If I wanted to do that, I would have taken a much different approach.
I agree, you merely distorted what people say instead of trying to address it.
Have you ever read Freud's opinions on religion? (Of course you have. He's practically worshiped as a god among educated people for his revolutionary ideas.) He has very negative opinions about religion, basically equating it to a mental disorder, keeping people in a childlike state of mind. He blamed religion for many of the world's problems.
No I haven't (so there goes your presumption). Freud's opinion on religion is irrelevant, and there's no reason for you to even bring it up. Just man up and admit you made a strawman, instead of all this fluff.
This is what I've found the most outspoken atheists to believe.
This is not what I've found. I get the feeling you don't many, if any, atheists in real life. (I also get the feeling that you will now insist that you know plenty of atheists, even though you really don't)
Some of the quieter atheists believe that religion has positive effects on some people. It give them a set of moral standards to live by, a community to keep them accountable, a sense of purpose. But they see religion as just another thing for humanity to evolve out of.
Actually the vast majority of atheists I've ever encountered have a nuanced view of religion, i.e. that it can inspire both good and evil. In fact most christians seem to acknowledge this as well. Then there's the tiny minority who for some reason insists that religions can't possibly have negative consequeces, a view I find completely baffling.
Any expert in the Bible will tell you that the Bible does not condone senseless violence.
So telling people to kill people for being homosexual, unfaithful, witches, drunkards etc. isn't condoning senseless violence? If a wife tries to break up a fight between her husband and another man and she accidently touches the other man's penis, you must cut of her hand, according to the Bible; that's not condoning senseless violence either? These "experts", do they also tell you that up is down and that red is green? Sounds more like experts of spin. In my impression, real experts, i.e. actual biblical scholars, tend to have a much more nuanced view of the Bible than the "experts" you seem to subscribe to.
People who killed witches had their own personal superstitions as their justification. They conveniently forgot all of the love thy neighbor, he who has no sin the first stone stuff, and saw with their tunnel vision only those verses which they could take out of context and use to their advantage.
Ah, yes, cherrypicking. Telling people in verses attributed to an omniscient God that witches exist and should be killed can't possibly have any real effect. I'm amazed that anyone can convince themselves of this.
Religion is not a fuel for violence. People will be violent with or without religion.
Of course violence will still exist without religion, but that doesn't mean that religion can't fuel violence.
Peter