Atheists should not respect religious beliefs

I have no objections to the definitions my opponent has posted for the purpose of this debate, so I will proceed with my rebuttal. My opponent opening round may be broken down into two main arguments. The first paragraph is what I shall term 'The argument from Uncritical Faith', the second paragraph is what I shall term 'The Argument from Historical Doubt'. The Argument from Uncritical Faith My opponent spends his first paragraph attacking Christianity on the basis that it accepts it's own tenets uncritically and at face value. I will address some of the specific statement he makes to refute this claim. "Faith protects religion from the tentacles of critical thinking." Though there does exist examples of such blind faith, my opponent has attempted to make a generalisation against all manifestations of faith. Pat Robertson, Pastor of St. Peter's Free Church of Scotland in Dundee and Author of 'The Dawkins Letters' argues that he is not a Christian through blind faith, but that he is a Christian because the facts as he sees them supports such a position. He outlines numerous arguments to support his Christian theism, consisting of logic, historical context, and personal experience. He references numerous Christian scientists such as John Polkinghorne or Francis Collins. Though I dispute many of his arguments, he never once invokes arguments pertaining to blind faith. But presents a Christian view point based on rational thought. His Church has a section dedicated to the Dawkins letters, the rebuttal of Richard Dawkins God Delusion. http://www.debate.org... My opponent states that, "the main characters (of the Bible) are never doubted" However within Christian theology exists the sub-discipline of Christology, the specific study of the nature of Christ consisting both of the critical examination of what he did, what he said, and philosophical debates as to the nature of his divinity. As this article shows, Christology consists of it's competing theories, methodologies, controversies and debates as opposed to the 'blind faith' my opponent would claim. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent defines respect as, "Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability " It is clear that the academic brilliance of theologians (however mistaken they may be) the formulation of theistic arguments, and the passion and vigour with which they are argued, may all fall into this definition. Though my opponent may attempt to offer many counter-arguments of Christians possessed of blind faith, the fact that I can demonstrate Christians who hold to rational self-critical faith shows that in certain instances rational atheists can and should respect Religion and so negates this particular argument. 'The Argument from Historical Doubt'. My opponent states, "One of the major problems with the Bible is that we have very little extra-biblical documentation that can either confirm or give us an alternate perspective of the events therein. For example, maybe the Roman officers (in a Roman document) say that Jesus tried to perform a miracle and failed." There exists a number of counter-arguments to this point. Firstly much of our historical knowledge is based on limited documentation. Our knowledge of ancient Egyptian history is based on the work of Manetho, a late Graeco-Egyptian Priests whose research only survives in fragments and quotations and is in parts clearly fictional. However we are able to recreate many important details. Though I confess that there is no corroboration of the Miracles or divinity of Jesus, there is extensive corroboration of the crucifixion of Jesus. http://life.liegeman.org... It must be noted that the possibility of a small despised monotheistic sect that lost it's leader so early on it's history yet managed to survive some 2000 years later does provide a prima facie statistical case for divine providence or the super-human Charisma of Jesus. This prima facie case, when combined with arguments from logic (the exact nature of which is not as important as their existence for the purpose of this debate) and arguments from personal experience (which by definition are only subject to critical examination by the recipient) serves to at least partially refute my opponents attack on the validity of a Christian belief system. The Value of Christianity Regardless of it's truth, or the rationality of it's adherents, Christian faith has a number of positive ramifications that can increase the personal happiness of Christians, and the personal happiness of non-Christians within the same society. There exists no 'should' or moral imperative for Atheists to attack Christian belief as a general rule (excepting rare occurrences where Christian conservative politics challenge say, Secular liberal politics). As religion, or at least Christian faith in the west is generally beneficial their exists an imperative to respect and protect it. 1: Personal comfort, arguably the reason why we have religion at all. There exists no reason for removing religious safety blankets in the name of politically correct truth, or an atheist agenda. 2: Christian Charities, such as the support given to homeless people. http://www.christiantoday.co.uk... 3: Defence against Moral Nihilism. In the absence of religion there is no rational reason not to embrace moral nihilism, as moral nihilism denies all moral truth propositions and appeals to emotion the natural progression is towards concepts such as social Darwinism unrestricted egoism and pure self-interest. Not this is not intended as an argument for faith, but merely an argument to respect religion. 4: Economic benefits, Church donations combined with the tax exempt status enjoyed in the US unable religious organisations to generate wealth, which is reinvested back into charitable operations, reducing the burden on the Government, as well being spent on Church staff, buildings, publications, for the benefit of the overall economy. 5: Unless Religion is granted an artificial and arguably undeserved veneer of respect, Religion will naturally end up by being persecuted. All societies that have persecuted religious faith have become dictatorial and backward.