Anti-Theism is flawed.

Greetings, there. An excellent collection of points you've made there. Jesus, I may end up regretting some of the things I'm going to say here, but the lord's always gracious to those of us who do good deeds, no? But I'm sure you must be anxious for my arguments. So, I'll present my arguments without further ado.Sure, then I'll get right on to your arguments, fine as they are, they need a little refurbishing. My arguments:- #1. Isn't fully compatible with scientific research.I disbelieve those who say religion and science are two edges of a double ended sword, because that's not really the case. If religion and science were in fact completely incompatible, it would be logically impossible for science to make even a modicum of progress under the existence of religion which is not really the case. [1][2][3] Arguably, science and religion are different ways of understanding and knowing. [4] I agree atheists highly embellish this point but what's really true, is the fact that science and religion aren't the best of mates. How? Well, for the very fact that science and religion have different ways of understanding, knowing and teaching principles of life. For the obvious example, the religious theory of creationism doesn't cooincide with the scientific theory of evolution. [5]#2. Discourages rational thought.Breaking news. Religion supresses rational thinking. But how? Well, studies show that religious belief decreases with analytical thinking. [6][7] Oh, not so much breaking. Or news even, is it? The very fact that I have to produce some sort of evidence or source my assertions isn't the way religions works since religions are "systems of faith and worship".[8] And faith is defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in a more religious tone, "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."[9][10] #3. History of religionI am not going to overstate or emphasize this point, since history is history, but just to shed some light on what the glorious religions have been doing when we weren't looking. (oh, they've been naughty! Evidence later. Don't reckon you need it either way.) You make a fair point in stating that errors of man are often mistaken for the doing of religion.[11] But then, religion offers plenty of reasons why innocent people may be slaughtered (slaughtered maybe on the grounds of witchcraft, homosexuality, or suspicion). [12] These, then aren't the doings of religion, but doings promoted by religions. Allow me to explain this with the help of an analogy. If your government passes a law tomorrow to legalise the murder of innocent people (maybe on grounds of suspicion) would you not hold the government at least partly accountable for the inevitable rise in the number of murders that follow? Now, religions weren't exactly governments back then, but they had massive sway in the political matters of many a countries - for example, the authority of the churches (which you were arguing about). [13]It is important to note that not all of what I've said apply to all the religions in existence. (some simple or unpopular religions like buddhism or paganism can't ever hope to commit as much atrocity as mainstream religions such as Christianity or Islam and truly are peaceful to a sizeable degree.)Now, time for my arguments against your eloquently-worded sweet contentions:#1. Religion gives hope.This statement requires more evidence than what you've provided. To actually prove this, you'll have to prove that without religion, people wouldn't be as hopeful, under all circumstances remaining virtually identical. For instance, you may not argue any statistical observation which favours the Christians being happier in a country where atheists are a minority and a significant part of the majority disfavours this particular minority. Only then, do you logically prove that religion imbides hope in people.#2. A sense of morality and social behaviour.While it may follow logic that since religion promotes morals, religious people should be more moral, but that isn't statistically true. In fact, since many a religion promote negative sentiments against homosexuals and members of various races, religious people tend to have a discriminatory attitude against the said victims and many an atheist actually do many a good deeds. [14][15][16][17]The religious influence on social behaviour isn't exactly all that dandy either. To demonstrate this, those who were affiliated with religion had massively higher crime rates than those who didn't. [18][19][20] It should be noted that some of those who proclaimed an affiliation with religion may not actually be religious. However, even if we were to consider half of the religious prison population as belonging to this category, it would still surpass the non-religious population with relative ease in some of the cited studies. I notice that I've yet to produce counter-arguments against the remaining two of your contentions, but due to spacial and time constraints I'll do so in the next round.Wish you all the luck, my fierce adversary! Hope you replicate some of the fine work you did there. [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[2] http://news.sciencemag.org...[3] http://farm9.staticflickr.com...[4] http://www.nas.edu...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://healthland.time.com...[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[8] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[9] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[10] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[11] Instigator argument round 2: Flaws of anti-theism.[12] markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html[13] http://www.preachitteachit.org...[14] http://www.faithstreet.com...[15] http://muslimvillage.com...[16] http://www.theage.com.au...[17] http://www.probe.org...[18] http://www.nairaland.com...[19] http://atheistempire.com...[20] http://www.adherents.com...