Atheists should not respect religious beliefs

Christology I accept my opponents statements that Christology is not analogous to science, and that it does not challenge the core assumptions upon which the subject is based. However Christology still represents centuries of intensive philosophical work. This makes it analogous to science, which in many cases is the application of philosophy to assumptions. Christology can not test the divinity of Jesus in the laboratory, yet many scientific assumptions are also beyond the realms of empirical enquiry. It is for these reasons that I find my opponents conjecture that Christianity is irrational and therefore unworthy of respect to be mistaken. My opponent states, "Disrespecting a belief is not the same as disrespecting a person. For instance, if someone believes that the earth is flat, it is not necessary for us to strip him/her of respect as a person; however, we should not respect his/her belief because there is contradictory evidence to it. This argument is not asking anyone to disrespect people but to disrespect beliefs". My opponent raises a good point, however the analogy is not sound. The claim that the world is flat can be proven to be false beyond reasonable doubt with the most minimal of effort, the claim that Christianity is false is a subject of numerous arguments and counter-arguments and ongoing debate. Flat earthers have an irrational belief, I do not believe that my opponent has made the case that Christianity is of itself an irrational belief. My opponent states, There exist many contradictions within the Bible (. http://www.infidels.org......) (. http://www.evilbible.com......) that should substantiate doubt, but many Christians seem unchanged by these evidences. Christians, in other words, are not willing to doubt their beliefs. I am not going to challenge the contention that the bible contains contradiction, however the mistake my opponent makes is that he treats Christianity as a monolithic body of fundamentalists. In reality Christianity is literally a broad church, some Christians are absolute literalises, others stress the importance of context, some claim that much of the bible is allegorical, others that it was simply 'inspired'. There are Christian churches specifically tailored to the homosexual community, this would be possible if there existed no Christians that challenge their belief system or the bible. My opponent argues "I would gladly as would many atheists become Christian if certain criteria for evidence could be fulfilled. Of course, many atheists have problems with the miracles within the Bible and the morality therein, but if it was demonstrably true, that would be enough. " I agree with this, however that is not to say that Christianity has not met a rational standard of evidence for some people. It has not met my criteria, but it has met the criteria of many others. Some more intelligent than us, some less so. It is rare for a single idea, even when well substantiated to reach full consensus with all rational humans. In addition the measure of Christianity is not simply held to be through logic, or scientific evidence. A rational Christian, such as the aforementioned David Robertson, has based their faith on logic, evidence and personal experience. This is how any rational person forms a rational opinion on any subject. It is worth pointing out that my opponent has not managed to negate the existence of his rational Christianity. "The question may arise how we can believe in and respect one's abstract concepts of love and happiness. These things are not demonstrable, but we still believe in them and respect people's feelings towards them; however, they are not in any way similar to the claims that Christianity is making. These claims are historical while abstractions are emotional and attached to an individual. If I say I'm happy, that is something completely different than claiming to be God. Such extreme claims should not be accepted by faith alone;" I am not not claiming that such claims should be accepted by faith alone, however nor do all Christians make this statement. My argument is that immaterial of the truth of Christianity, Christian belief need to be respected because of the value and psychological benefits it may bring to a believer. A delusion, may be sensibly defined as a belief that in some way debilitates the person who holds to it. A rational Christian, who has logical reasons for faith, draws strength and a sensation of grace from prayer, and whose life is uplifted by such deserves that his beliefs are respected. That Christian may be wrong, so too may the atheist. If they both declare that they have rational reasons for their belief then by my opponents criteria such beliefs should be respected. On a final note I would like to draw a parallel of the "third man syndrome" . http://en.wikipedia.org.... This is a widely reported phenomena in which people in extreme survival situations 'hallucinate' one or more people, who have come to their assistance. In a number of instances such entities have actually saved the lives of the people involved. I would argue that such an experience is analogous to religion (though admittedly an extreme example) in that, 1: The people who experience it both hold faith, and question the nature of the existence of 'the third' man to varying degrees as religious people hold to or question the truth of their faith. Some will wonder if it is a genuine supernatural contact, others that it is merely a quirk of the brain. Both rational theories. 2: Such a belief has been beneficial, as the third man has frequently led people to safety. It is for these reasons that I find that my opponent has no sufficiently substantiated his case, and that I hold that atheists should respect religious belief.