Comment 27 by Juju

That's right, they don't analyze all the evidence put forth. Instead they disregard the evidence (which is the evil parts of there religion) and pretend its not there. Its called cherry picking and that's not at all the proper way to build knowledge on a subject. Just because they pretend that is not evil doesn't make it so.

Cherry picking may be wrong ethically and indefensible intellectually, but that does not make it evil. I think it actually points the common sense and morality that is innate in all people in that even when confronted with such evil as killing other people, they would rather ignore certain parts of their religious books than be literal about it. These religious people develop convoluted theologies to help explain it away so that they can have their loving (as opposed to blood thirsty) God. I fear that your view of religious people is that they are all very much literalists, and that even those that are, interpret the literal words in a manner that would make them evil.

In the same way I should not dare to point to some religious person who was moved by religion to do great good, and as a result, claim that all religion is good, I don't think atheists should fall into the trap of claiming that all religion is evil.

That's also correct, but as you have demonstrated above, the religious mind has a tendency to ignore the evidence that doesn't fit with how they want things to be. That's why you won't actually find a YEC that is also a good geologist

You're right, you won't find a YEC that is a good geologist. You also won't find a YEC who is a good teacher of evolution. However, not all religious people are YECs. I can point to that English pair of Polinghorne, and McGraph, as well as American Francis Collins, and I'm sure those are only a few. I'll concede (and its not much of a concession) that it is more difficult to be religious and a scientist because your mind has to make many contortions to accommodate faith, but that does not mean religious folk cannot make good scientists, or that they are all just silly unthinking idiots.

Not that I need to answer for Tyler, he's more capable then I am, but, telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't commit to a belief without evidence is emotional child abuse.

I know when you put the idea like that it sounds awful, but has there been any actual evidence that it is child abuse. In order to prove that it is child abuse (more specifically psychological child abuse) you would have to demonstrate that it may result in the child experiencing psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder. (wikipedia) It seems obvious, but it hasn't been demonstrated, and religious instruction, even about the hell, I'm not sure could be shown to be more harmful than unrealistic expectations of your kids, or even too much pressure, or some completely natural way parents mess up. Child abuse is a charged word which is needlessly and wrongly used by atheists in referring to religious parents instructing their kids.

Also true, but the "myths" you've selected don't fit the definition

Actually, you have not shown that they aren't myths.