During the last few years the western world has seen an increasing interest in the topic of Atheism, with bestselling books by writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. The critic of religions that these writers have brought to the table have not gone unmet, with writers like Dinesh D'Souza rushing to the defence of Chrisianity.Taking on the arguments of New York Times bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza in the current debate on the existece of God and the usefullness of religion, I here examine the claim by D'Souza that Atheism, in fact, is responsible for the worst mass murders of history. In taking D'Souza's arguments and analyzing them on its own philosophical merits, with methods like the process of elimination and information evaluation (i.e source criticism), I will here show just exactly how persuasive these arguments prove to be. In the following pages we will not only discuss the role of Atheism in 20th centuary totalitarianism, but also answer questions like ?Was Hitler an atheist or a theist??, ?Is Atheism responsible for the worst crimes of history?? and ?Are people who believe in God in fact more moral the those who do not??.

This essay intends to examine the atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray's arguments against religion, based on the themes of religion, Atheism and the perception.of their present worldview. In addition, the research aims to find out whether it is suitable to talk about a new Atheism. And, if so, whether such newAtheism correspond with the definition represented by the Christian critics. The essay intends to contribute to a very limited research on the so-called new Atheism without applying pro-religious arguments.Previous research and theory highlight the problem of defining the terms Atheism, religion and secularism a concern that is reflected by the five critics troughout their arguments. What really united the critics were the idea about religion taking too much place in society, and the opinion that atheistic morality is at least as good as religious morality.

The purpose of this study in the psychology of religion is to explore the process of an individual?s shift in orienting system, from a religious to an atheistic. The materials used are autobiographical accounts obtained from two books. One that has been used as a primary source and one as a secondary. By using Rambo?s process oriented theory of religious conversion relevant themes and categories were chosen and later subjected to further analysis using Pargament?s theory of religion and coping.

Denna undersökning handlar om ifall kristendom kan ge upphov till ökad empati. Det bygger kring tanken att kristendom uppmanar till tolerans och förståelse, men frågan är om det verkligen stämmer. I undersökningen användes enkäter med en svensk översättning av C. D. Batsons (1994) empatiskala tillsammans med en berättelse i två versioner där huvudpersonen antingen framstod som elak eller snäll.

This study has its background in the debate about religion and the existence of God, which has been an ongoing issue throughout the Western cultural tradition. Today´s information society has been an impact on the increasing interest for this subject. The essay?s main task is to accomplish a rhetorical analysis of two books, Illusionen om Gud (2008) by atheist Richard Dawkins and Guds dödgrävare (2010) by Christian John Lennox, in order to investigate the authors? use of rhetorical strategies to influence their audience. The texts are studied using a qualitative approach with the theoretical basis of some well-defined rhetorical variables: ethical, logical and pathetic means of persuasion, propaganda, and the important factor that a message always is presented in a certain context in which the recipients both have their own values and subjects to general truths and common frames of reference.

Denna uppsats består av en studie av en dialog mellan vetenskap och religion hos den amerikanska filantropiska John Templetonstiftelsen. Syftet har varit att utreda värdet av denna dialog och att få en uppfattning om värdet av dialoger mellan vetenskap och religion i allmänhet i fråga om aktualitet och fruktbarhet för deltagarna, publiken och den allmänna debatten. Den studerade dialogen visade brister i definition och riktlinjer, val av deltagare och diskussionsämne. Argumentationen utgick ifrån deltagarnas personliga tro eller icke-tro och inte utifrån deras kompetensområden inom vetenskap eller religion. Dialogens olika bidrag visade inte på någon större grad av nytänkande, med undantag för två korta essäer som diskuterade nya Gudsdefinitioner.