[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Or you could educate people in a non-confrontational manner, or try to persuade them that your views are better if you really care to fight over people's thoughts...

And how is this different than what Richard Dawkins does?

I think you interpreted the definition differently than I did. Here it is again, with the emphasis on how I read it:
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods

You're reading the "and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods" as being "and [always] favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods." That last bit isn't absolutely needed for something to fit the definition, but the first part (that I put into bold) is always a part of the definition. I'm not going to argue over definitions, though - read it as you will. That was just an answer to your question of why some people termed it "militant atheism."

My point is that there is a double standard with regards to atheism and religion.
When religious people try to spread their beliefs, you people say, "Oh, that's just what they do."
When atheists write books to try to spread their beliefs, you people say, "ZOMG MILITANT ATHEISTS!"

Sure. Again, my point is that religion is not the root of all conflicts. It probably doesn't account for that much, either. Throughout ancient history it's been involved in a number of large-scale conflicts, but you're fooling yourself (in a dangerous manner, I think) if you really believe that conflict wouldn't arise if religion didn't exist.

You're twisting my words. If you actually read my posts, you'll notice that not once did I say that religion caused all conflicts. Those are your words, not mine. However, from your own post here you acknowledge that there will be less conflicts without religion.

People will divide themselves no matter what. Skin color, family clans, the region of the continent that you come from, your profession, what sports team you like, what kinds of food you like, what you major in at school, what school you go to - there are divisions that can be made at virtually all levels of society and life itself. Religion is just one among hundreds if not thousands of division points that people could draw upon, and I do not believe that religion is any more influential than any of those other factors (in the modern world, it's arguably even less influential). If you think otherwise, then you have probably not attached yourself to a "herd" before, or been to a place where people get into a zealous frenzy about something that is entirely unrelated to religion. Religion is most certainly not necessary to turn someone into a modern-day crusader.

"Modern-day crusaders" such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, anti-gay rights activists, and Al Qaeda all draw support from religion. (That's not to say I do not acknowledge positive religious institutions such as the many charities, nor the non-religious negative organizations such as PETA.) I have yet to see Yankees fans and Red Sox fans engage in warfare and assassinations.

From what I remember of Chinese history, the Emperor ruled with the Mandate of Heaven. That may not have referred to a single deity, nor did it connect with any centralized (or well-established) religion, but I'd argue that it's most certainly close enough.

The Chinese pantheon itself was a huge bureaucracy, complete with servants and secretaries. I don't think that the "Mandate of Heaven" was taken seriously though, because every time there is social unrest and a dynasty collapses, the emperor is seen as having lost his Mandate. Since the Mandate is closely related to the populace's satisfaction, the implication is that people had some control over the gods, hence it's hardly as concrete as the European kingdoms.