"A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor prejudiced views of other races"

Hmm….nearly ALL the participants were Christian and the article concludes that Christians are racist?

Well obviously if nearly all the participants are Christian then the majority of racists within the sample would be Christian because it would be impossible for the majority of racists within the sample to be non-Christian!

Why don't they do study where nearly ALL of the participants are atheists from liberal atheists countries and see what the results are? I know why because they don't want atheists to look bad

Speaking of racism and slavery here's what happened at the most prestigious University in Sweden – Lund University – http://www.thelocal.se/33290/20110419/

Slave auctions held at the most prestigious University in the liberal atheist country Sweden? But I thought Theists were supposed to be more racist….lol

The simple fact is the very most racist countries are also the countries with the highest atheist populations like Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Latvia, Czech Republic and EVERY other country with a high atheist population

This is not an argument against God, but rather against any organized religion that gives people the entitlement for hate, discrimination, bigotry, hypocrisy, irrationality, and the murder of millions and millions of people. I'm not saying that secular lifestyles do not have the capacity to cause harm, but it certainly does not even come close to the horrors committed in the name of religion.

I think atheists have a right to treat religious people childishly, but only when their arguments are so similarly irrational, close minded and temper-tantrum prone as that of a child's. If anything the anger comes from the frustrations of trying to have a mature, logic based discussion with people so unwilling to concede, let alone listen to obvious rationality.

We should love our neighbors and enemies because it is the right thing to do, not because Jesus said so.

But (and here's the thing), their bible practically commands them to be certain and condemns honest questioning. The agnostic is at least questioning him or herself… at least accepting the possibility that he or she may not honestly claim certainty about who god is, what he wants or how he wants us to conduct our lives.

When you give yourself license to lie to yourself, you surrender your ability to detect your own biases.

So no surprise that they will not recognize themselves in this article.

How does your comment address the fact that Jesus used a derogatory term to refer to people outside of his "in-group", and said that "the children" should come first, before "dogs", whether they are "good" dogs or "bad" dogs being irrelevant?

Mark 7:25-30 (KJV)

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.

29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

As regards the rest of your comments . . . I assume you believe that your all-powerful god is incapable of controlling the text of his own book. Sure, Gore Vidal can do it, but your god can’t demand a revision.