So suggests Karl Giberson:
He argues that many atheists simply don't understand what they are arguing against and miss many of the good things which go on inside the church.
He invites atheists to, "spend a year doing research into what real life religious people are like -- the people who are not in the headlines" instead of the abortion clinic bombings and anti-gay rhetoric which is sometimes the only things published (in parts of the US).
He concludes by saying, "I don't think a year in our church will transform your atheism into belief in God. You may leave even more convinced that Christians believe odd things. But I think your experience would help you see that our faith -- like our affection for our beloved Red Sox or our love for our glorious fall foliage -- is not an epidemic or a plague. The beliefs we pass on to our children are not harmful and abusive."
However, perhaps slightly controversially ends, "And the world is a better place because we are here."
Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/take-an-atheist-to-church_b_1327250.html
Do you agree with this idea? Do atheists really argue their case without full investigation into what exactly does go on in churches? Some atheists seem very well read (for example Dawkins), do others simply follow blindly?