Atheists should not respect religious beliefs

My opponent says, "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. " The site , on the other hand, says, "The purpose of modern Christology is to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ"" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This is not critical examination or engagement. The main character is not doubted or pressed to account for his extreme claims. This is essentially a rationalization for an irrational argument. We see this frequently in pseudoscience. For example, ufology is the study of ufo reports, and it is synonymous with alien visitation. In order to secure credibility, these individuals attach their work with scientific nomenclatures. Christology strives to do the same with Christ; it is a pseudoscience. "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. " Such an instance is not demonstrated here so far. My opponent is appealing to authority to prove his argument. Scientists and philosophers,like everyone else, can hold irrational beliefs, even ones that have nothing to do with religion. Finally, for this part, we should not base our beliefs upon exceptions but the general rule. Demonstrating one case of rational, logical, and critical belief in Christianity is not enough because there are still far more Christians who have never critically examined Christianity. "Firstly much of our historical knowledge is based on limited documentation. " This is an attempt to shift the argument and his responsibility in refuting my claim. Although history is imperfect like I mentioned earlier, we do not contrive extreme beliefs from its accounts. I am not doubting whether Jesus existed but whether he did the things people claimed. The Crucifixion does not necessarily lead to the Resurrection. There are many fanciful stories in history, of which some may have a grain of truth. Troy, for example, may have been a real battle however, the battle does not lead to Achilles being nearly invincible. His image may be that of the heroic, talented Greek warriors. "This prima facie case, when combined with arguments from logic. .. 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 survival of Christianity is not self-evidently a case for divine providence. Hinduism has existed much longer (3200-2500 BC. . http://www.indianexcursion.net...). That, however, does not prove that it has maintained divine providence. Personal experiences can be critically examined by others. For example, detectives can question and cross-examine a suspect to validate his/her story. When we speak about our experiences, we may leave holes or contradictory claims in our story that may cause a listener to disbelieve us. This can be seen in the Bible. Although I will not get into depth on this, the accounts of the Resurrection varies in who was present and how it occurred. This should cause readers to question the validity of the story. (Opponent if you do refute this, keep it brief because it is not the focus of our debate, and I would much dislike posting numerous, extensive Biblical passages). The point is that it's a case where readers should question the validity of the story. The value of Christianity I could just post the crimes that were committed in the name of Jesus, but I will refrain because it has very little to do with the rationality and the amount of respect a belief carries. Many irrational beliefs give people comfort, but this does not warrant our respect. Our respect for a belief should stand on its demonstrable truth, not how much comfort it gives us. All of the points my opponent raises have nothing to do with the validity of Christian beliefs. Sure we should respect the people who give to charity, no matter their religious affiliation; however, we should not immediately respect their personal beliefs, especially if they are founded on credulity. This last point is a very important issue. Groups should always be protected from violence; however, their beliefs should never be protected from scrutiny. Religion should be threatened by mental reason, not physical violence.