[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Siddyus

I guess it is just human nature to be at an eternal conflict against each other. Human emotions and animalistic behaviour we adopted from our ancestors fuels it. Then, religion amplifies it. Millions of jews were killed since the inquisition just because of their religion. So on and so forth...

You've got it. I see a few people claiming that religion alone is responsible for so many deaths and so much conflict, and that we'd all be better off without it. I think that's total rubbish. If religion wasn't around then there'd be something else, I am quite certain.

Originally Posted by Siddyus

I believe if there wasnt any religion. Human conflict wouldnt be at the same degree we are experiencing right now.

I dont hate religion. Its just that I think it causes more trouble than its worth.

I disagree with your first statement there, and the second is something subjective that nobody can prove or disprove, even if we go through dozens of historical examples. Out of curiosity, what is it that makes you think that without religion, conflict wouldn't be at the same degree as it is now?

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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.

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...

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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?)

This was the point that I made earlier: while you're right that I don't see those atheists shouting in the streets that atheism is great, or that being religious is terrible, if I did then I wouldn't take any more kindly to them than I would to those religious preachers. Both would be a nuisance to me.

For what it's worth, I do not believe that evangelists and other religious missionaries make most of their conversions by going door to door, or shouting in the street. Many charity and support groups (particularly to prisons) are actually backed and run by religious groups. When people are in need, or when they are at their most vulnerable, they are also the easiest to instill with a certain mindset or belief.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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

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."

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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

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.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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.

Well... I disagree. The number of laws in the Bible, as well as the laws themselves, have seemingly been few in number and rather constant compared with the laws of a democratic society such as the United States.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

But as for your argument, the Chinese Emperors did quite well without an invisible sky god it seems to me.

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.