[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand although I confess I am not making myself clear at all of late.

My point was intended to be that the analogy breaks down. With hitleroonism the hitler-attacker and the strangely-interpretive-hitler-follower both agree he exists. They disagree on his motives and character(presumably).

In the atheist attacking christianity, they disagree on the authorship. So the atheist is NOT saying "your religion is fine, but you are misinterpreting the words of what is actually an evil being, however well intentioned you may be". Rather they are taking the view that the only source of the religion is the religious people themselves. Thus, an attack on the religious beliefs doesnt have the third person element that the attack on hitler does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. It's true there's no clear source of blame, like Hitler. But at the same time, modern Christians are no more responsible for the Bible than my Hitleroons are for the concentration camps. There is a third person, it's just hard to clarify - partially the writers of the gospels, partially Roman Catholicism, partially the ancient Hebrews, and maybe Jesus himself (if he existed and fit the image of him described in the New Testament).

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I personally dont find it insulting to attack people's beliefs, nor to label a belief stupid. However, I do think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that if you hold a stupid belief, you must be stupid - this is not correct as you may be misinformed, alternatively it may just be a blind spot in an otherwise impeccably rational mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that.