[Peguy]

The bolded parts are largely main points I wish to emphaised. Basically the author here has critiqued the weaknesses of the general approach atheists have taken to debating issues related to religion, and I noted how this apply to the arguments given here.

Overall there seems to be a gross ignorance of not only religious teachings, but religious history, and whatnot. At best, most atheist arguments seem to apply only to one form of religious expression(fundamentalism), and completely ignores the vast variety of religious forms that do exist, not to mention the numerous religious-based critiques of fundamentalism.

As far as history goes, you guys mostly parrot the history one learns in grade-school as opposed to one based upon more scholarly sources. This is especially true in regards to Catholicism, where all arguments not talking about pedophilia never seems to go beyond the year 1600. This isn't the Middle Ages anymore ok?

The centrality of current political concerns in Atheist polemics is very much on target, and there is indeed a relative lack of any interest in delving deeper into the what the various religious traditions really have to say.

And the general tendency to dismiss rather than actually attempt to understand religion or religious sentiment is a big weakness of modern atheist polemics. At least the older atheists showed more appreciation for the many aspects of religious belief.

Voltaire was no friend of religion, but he was able to speak positively of the way religion inspired women to sacrifice their youth for the care and betterment of others.

I was an atheist before it was cool, yet I myself spoke admirably of the many things religion had done for the enrichment of humanity. Disbelief in God does not mean disrepect for belief in God. Many atheists(particularly younger ones) seem to loose sight of this.

So yes, if you can address any of this, I would certainly appreciate it.