I'm sorry that we have to throw epithets at each other although I understand that this topic creates passion. When Dan created this thread, I don't think he knew the rancor that it would cause. But this rancor might be an important step toward our ultimate understanding of one another. So I'm grateful that Dan brought it up.

Aside from the personalities and brickbats, name-calling and righteous indignation, we can conclude that out of these disagreements that there is the potential of learning something valuable.

As for my own conduct, I didn't willfully lie to anyone. There would be no point in it.
I thought I had read something when I hadn't. I made a mistake. But it wasn't done willfully. I apologized for my error.

I did however react to the knee-jerk response to Dawkins whom I admire for his honesty, clarity and scientific observations. His books are an important read for anyone who attempts to criticize his views.

I think he and Ingersoll remain important critics of organized religion and shed the light on
the all too human negative behavior of some in the various churches. As to the other so-called (fallaciously I might add) "new atheists", each one has something of value to offer, even the vituperative Hitchens.

Having read some of the works of theologians, there have been redeeming ideas there that although I accept that they differ from my own, I find informative.

Religion is a fascinating subject for studying. It's an index into how the human brain functions and absorbs information. Some of the references of religion offer an insight into the language, lexicon and mores of various cultures. For this reason, comparative religion courses in college can be edifying if the student is allowed to think for him/herself.

Indoctrination and dogmatism are the enemies of clear thinking. They are the cause of needless battle lines being drawn. Understanding views other than our own is a help to ending the rancor and conflict.