I’m an agnostic, but don’t spend too much time trying to “refute” religious claims. The arguments don’t excite me, and a debate about religion always leaves me feeling a bit deflated, even if I “win.”
I do often find myself in sympathy with Christopher Hitchens’ idea that Religion Poisons Everything:
But I find it more interesting to debate with people whose philosophies and goals are somewhat closer to mine, which is probably why I find engagement with feminist thinkers to be more interesting than, say, trying to refute the rantings of a clown preacher from some Hole.
(By the way, if you are interested in an intelligent debate about religion, look here.)
I was disturbed to read the post in Feminist Critics about a man who lost custody of his children in part due to his agnosticism, since our country is not (yet) a theocracy, and religious beliefs of the parent should play no role in a custody decision. (Unless, of course, the religious beliefs entail withholding of medical care or food, of course. In that case, a court really ought to step in.) BTW, that last link asks you to “register” for the NYTimes, which is easy to do and is free. So far.
Religious “arguments” are so often ex post facto justifications of emotions, which is one reason I enjoyed this video by Sacha Geddert that has no words, but does a nice job “explaining” the emotional underpinnings of atheism and agnosticism.