Constrast

When we say agnostics and atheists, religious folk remind us about Hitler (catholic), Stalin and Mao (atheists). What do we say then?

Is this what we want to say: Atheism is a good thing, bad people like Stalin, Thakrey and Mao use it to do bad stuff. People have different interpretations of atheism and everybody discovers it for themselves through a process of internal reasoning and debates.

On the other hand:

What do the religious folk say: Islam is actually a peaceful religion, bad people like Osama bin Laden use it to do bad stuff. People have different interpretations of islam and everybody discovers it for themselves through a process of internal reasoning and debates AND by a close and dedicated study of qoran which was written nearly 1500 years ago which represents ultimate truth.

Another version of religious people: Hinduism actually teaches equality of brahma and everybody. It is the religion of peace and supreme equality. Bad brahmin people have exploited hinduism by enforcing caste system in a way it wasn't supposed to be. People have different interpretations of hinduism and everybody should discover it for themselves through a process of internal reasoning and debates AND by a close and dedicated study of the hindu philosophy through Gita, Vedas and the Upanishadas.

Am I correct when I say these two things? I am pretty sure about the stance of _moderate_ religious people. But I am not sure about our stance (you and me). The world view of the _moderate_ atheist.

There is a certain huge difference between the two, which is the infallibility and absolute nature of the book (or of anything for that matter).