[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

It's based on the simple premise of "treat others as you wish to be treated," combined with a dab of "two wrongs don't make a right." If I don't appreciate having someone shout at people and proclaim that they're terrible for not believing something, I'll be equally unimpressed with someone who's doing the same just because they do believe in something.

That is an idealistic view. In reality, if one does not confront the people harassing you and spreading lies, those falsehoods will continue to spread. Also, how often have you seen atheists confront religious people on the street, compared with the reverse? How many atheist stands have you seen in the streets? (I see crazy evangelists constantly in the subway and sidewalks in NYC. "You're all sinners!" Fuck that, when did I commit any crime?)

militant |ˈmilətənt|
adjective
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods : an uprising by militant Islamic fundamentalists.
noun
a person who is active in this way.

Note that in the definition there is no mention of someone who is killing or harming others, just that such people typically favor those methods. That's just being technical, of course.

Please provide an example where people like Richard Dawkins advocate violence and extremism.

I wouldn't push this point too strongly. For certain, throughout history religion has been used as an excuse to do harm. Even in the modern day, Islam is being invoked (distorted, really) for such purposes. However, as you're probably aware, religion is not absolutely necessary for setting people off to do harm to others.

Just because religion is not involved in all violence is not proof that it has no involvement at all.

I would not be surprised if an atheist group (perhaps small) did reach the conclusion that "we'd all be better off without religion" and then felt that the best way to go about it would be to go about killing the ultra-religious. Probably the only reason that it hasn't happened yet is because atheism is a relative minority at the moment. Once it becomes larger and there are more people with violent tendencies and shared views grouped together, you'd probably see some action. It's just speculation, but the point is that it could happen very easily. You shouldn't rule it out

Of course. But until that actually happens, your statement is merely hypothetical.

The same could be said for the laws of various countries. Mind you, laws are often based on "social rules of conduct." Religion just acts as another set of rules and laws. If you ask me, the laws in both cases (religion and state) can be distorted and warped to meet agendas by powerful figures.

There would be less rules to distort and warp if laws were based on the desires of actual people who can be held accountable, and not a supreme being who is nowhere to be found.

I wish it were that simple. Tell me, are all Americans able to get along perfectly peacefully? No, of course not. Within America there are hundreds of divisions - there's the color of your skin, what region you come from, which sports team you're a fan of, and so on. Sure, we're not at constant war with one another over the differences, but every now and then (and with greater frequency than there really should be) someone is seriously injured or killed over those differences. It probably was not your intention to make religion out to be the root of all evil, but in seemingly ignoring all other aspects of conflict between humans, it's coming across that way, and I disagree with that.

I am well aware that people will have a sentimental attachment to the land where they were from, regardless of faith. And you are correct in saying that I do not intend to portray religion as the root of all evil; greed, pride, envy, etc are. However, religion provides an unnecessary division among people, and I think we can all acknowledge that whenever we divide people into separate groups, violence is far more likely to occur, and far more likely to escalate into factional warfare rather than stay at the individual level.