A culture of inquiry and reason, does not deem this sane in the free market of ideas anymore. It used to be it didn't matter how stupid what you said was, if you followed it with "and that's my religion" it automatically demanded respect. In the information age this is no longer the case. Ideas and beliefs are meant to be kicked around, abused, held under the microscope, and then tossed out or changed if found faulty. If you tell someone that their views on corporate regulation are absurd, then it's ok. If you tell someone that you disagree with their views of lateral gene transfer and it's effects on long term evolution, you go to the drawing board. If you tell somebody that you think that a jewish zombie saving us from a talking snake that made a woman eat an apple is dumb, then they will scream persecution and bigotry.Ideas are meant to be scrutinized, but certain ideas have had a priviledged status for so long that ones that hold them think they are beyond criticism.

It doesn't help that alot of religions have built in persecution complexes, so if somebody says "that's dumb" the recepient can immediately respond "my beliefs said you would say that, so I'm even more right! Ridicule me some more, my beliefs said you would do that too! I'm being martyred!!!!". Saying an idea or belief is dumb is not bigotry or persecution however. African Americans were hung and burned on crosses, weren't given legal rights and suffered numerous atrocities at the hands of bigots. Somebody saying "Let's debate the merits of bible's morality." or "Taking a literalist view of the bible is ignorant at best." is not persecution. But again and again this is seen as "militant" behavior, or gross "intolerance". If you think that is militant and intolerant, consider yourself lucky enough to live in a time where that can be said with a straight face.

Also, I take exception to the idea that people single out christians. This is confirmation bias at it's finest. Statistically there are far more christians on this site than muslims, of course there is going to be more discussion of the bible than the koran. I certainly don't think the koran is any more sane than the bible, but opprotunities to debate that point are few and far between. In fact looking at the topic "what religion are you" 47 checked christian, 13 checked muslim, 2 hindus, 2 buddhists, and 116 non-religious. Now just from a mathematical standpoint why do you think there are more topics about debating christianity than say...the Vedas?

Also saying "people are only willing to pick on a religion of love and peace" while claiming people only attack christians shows considerable bigotry and prejudice towards other religions. Just pointing that out.

Religion (Christianity, at least) isn't only about afterlife. There is a lot more to it.

Yeah it does, because I am a rational being who understands that human can err and my brother is human. Therefore he can have fallacies, some of which I would literally break his rib to remove. It is just plain stupid on my part to take offense to something that is true.

I am also sorry, this is wehre we disagree. Just because I lay out untruths doesn't mean I am disrespecting something. It means that I am laying out facts about a belief that happen to not agree with said belief. I don't care whether the belief is sacred or not. No one should take offense to given facts that go against their beliefs. If they do they should just change them to something whose facts don't offend them.

I don't think you know what tolerence and respect is. Just because I tell someone that aspects of their belief are wrong for given reasons doesn't mean I disrespect them or don't tolerate them. It just means that the belief has holes in it. Only the person can decide whether he feels disrespected. At that point it's a personal problem for him, not me.

I find it amusing that many people that "don't believe" in God get extremely angry when he's brought up. 

Atheists bash Christians because they do not understand what a Christian is. Their idea of a Christian is the American warlike neo-conservative nationalist who focusses on the Jewish part of the bible, and almost not at all on the Christian part.

Christianity at its core is a very liberal religion, the new testament is full of statements of rebellion against elites and the irrational beliefs of the old testament. It is a book which praises openess and is against nationalism (It was against the idea of a chosen people). Lastly, it is full of pro-social messages, the opposite of the libertarian ideology of the neoconservatives of the US.

I think a lot of Christians (primarilly American) and atheists have a very incorrect view of Christianity and the early Christ cult movements that started it. Too many people do not understand the bible is from the Roman era, an era where fable was the key story telling element - and instead they see it as history. Another factor is that most of the bible was cut as heresy by the government and Bishops under Constantine I. In my opinion, the bible should be read from a secular standpoint, as a book of fables; not as a history. I don't believe Jesus was a real person, but a character; a personification of the idea of removing beliefs from one's mind, and becoming a more open and caring person.

I also do not believe that the old testament should be payed much attention to in Christianity - it is not that type of religion.  The old testament came from a Jewish nationalistic history - they are the chosen people by their religion; whereas Christianity is based on mystical and Hellenized philosophical Jewish thought.

"It is just plain stupid on my part to take offense to something that is true." So, if someone, even with a reason to do so, "hurts" someone you love, that is indifferent to you?

No one was sepaking about truth but you, it seems. All i was saying is that one thing is talking about something sacred, and another is if that sacred thing it`s true or not.