> [christianity ...] rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for. This

> [christianity ...] rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for. This is a pretty incredulous assertion to make - given the existence of six broadly recognised and highly divergent branches, but more so the tens of thousands of sects worldwide, that would all claim to hide under the 'christianity' umbrella. How does their very existence, let alone the myriad famously violent contra-examples to 'let's all push in the same direction' (let's pick Ireland as just one example among many) reconcile with this claim? You mentioned relativism twice, as a point against anti-theism, but don't seem to accept it's rampant within every religion (AFAIK) but certainly every christian denomination. I'm referring to the way practitioners will select and abide by only the teachings they agree with, and happily discard the ones they don't. The very definition of relativism, yes? Claims that atheists can't agree on morality are hard to argue against, but I posit they're even harder - for you - to substantiate. All research I've seen suggests that in general atheists express higher empathy, understanding, tolerance to the rest of the world (not just their clique, as we tend to see with religious in-groups). I'd suggest, returning to where we came in, the ethic of reciprocity - or rather than negation - don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you - would be fairly widely accepted by non-theists the world over as a starting point. From there you can draw out a fairly robust moral framework, without needing to invoke the supernatural. This is extra fortunate for me, as I wouldn't want to have to choose between a purported moral code, and giving up my mixed-fabric clothing.