Quote: Paul W @ June 19 2008, 7:31 PM BSTNote that Religion has it's good side, teaches honesty, kindness and respect for your fellow man (on the whole).
Unless they're gay.
But yeah, I see your point.
Is religion to blame? Page 6
Quote: Aaron @ June 19 2008, 7:54 PM BSTI don't think it's possible to offend me. Does that mean I'm the best possible comedy fan?
Everybody has to have levels of tolerance - unless they are a robot 
Quote: Aaron @ June 19 2008, 8:27 PM BST
Is this that thing where it looks like the robots are all getting bigger but actually they're all the same size?
No.
Well, not on that picture...
Ellie's drunk again.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2008, 8:31 PM BSTEllie's drunk a pub again.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2008, 8:31 PM BSTWell, not on that picture...
Ellie's drunk again.
Actually - I haven't drank alcohol for a whole week. 
I have not had a drop of alcohol since we all met up Ellie. I tell yer I am a bore.
You met up in the real world?
Quote: Charley @ June 19 2008, 9:37 PM BSTI have not had a drop of alcohol since we all met up Ellie. I tell yer I am a bore.
Even I didn't drink then. But I was driving!
You weren't drinking when I was there - did it get messy after I left?
Quote: sootyj @ June 19 2008, 9:40 PM BSTYou met up in the real world?
We did indeed in the "virtual" pub.
Quote: Charley @ June 19 2008, 9:37 PM BSTI have not had a drop of alcohol since we all met up Ellie. I tell yer I am a bore.
I'll second that!
Quote: David Chapman @ June 19 2008, 10:38 PM BSTI'll second that!
You cant raise your arm you old fool.
Quote: Charley @ June 19 2008, 11:17 PM BSTYou cant raise your arm you old fool.
I'll raise something else then.
Quote: Marc P @ June 19 2008, 12:57 PM BSTAll wars are to do with money.
Nail on the head, Sir. No war in analysis was fought over religion. And Marc was (imo) perceptive when he said we shouldn't confuse the upper echelon's reasons for war with the reasons why we grunts get sucked into wars we never wanted. The two sets of reason are not identical.
Motivated by short-term religious aims, a suicide bomber is dying for his leadership's long-term political goals; that's why the leaders rarely strap on a haversack themselves, despite the many 'religious' benefits they say such death brings. Many would argue that promises made to suicide bombers are a political distortion of Islam.
To rally people to a cause, our leaders (throughout history) have used notions like patriotism, religion, or politics to create the necessary antipathy between the enemy (barbarians) and us (civilisation's only hope) but all wars are fought over control of money (e.g. trade routes, resources etc) and this ultimately means control of land. So when several parties want the same piece of land, it's time to duck.
SootyJ's point about many of the 'greatest' evil men being atheist demonstrates that removing religion won't mean utopia. The human condition is the cause of our suffering and inhumanity.
Dawkins (although a keen mind) uses pretty shabby logic at times. He does it because he isn't particularly interested in truth, he's interested in promulgating his own brand of fundamentalism. And like all fundamentalists, he'll distort the truth, use false logic, or hide embarrasing facts to fulfil his personal agenda. Not all fundamentalists wear dog collars or turbans.
For example, to deflect attention from the uncomfortable truth that atheists have been behind untold suffering and evil (which in this instance can't be nailed at religion's door), Dawkins uses facial hair as a common denominator amongst tyrants. This is a clever though deceitful trick. First, it uses syllogism, a trick to derive an answer using false logic. Second, it shifts the focus away from the atheism of the tyrant. And third, it trivialises an uncomfortable and awkward fact (i.e. that atheism is clearly capable of outstripping religion in the evil stakes) and turns it into a joke about moustaches. It's clever because people remember the joke, not the awkward truth that's hiding behind it. If Dawkins was interested in real truth, he'd admit he had no answer. That there is no answer is clear from his reliance on a feeble quip. When one of our greatest minds resorts to a joke to hide behind, that should surely make us think about accepting anyone's word, however reasonably they dress it to appeal?
So where do I stand? Personally, I avoid anyone who's interested in turning me into a miniature version of themselves. Life is full of grey areas where no one (the scientist or the shaman) can know everything. It's our belief system that fills in the grey areas and that's why each human's world-view is so unique. Dawkins or the Pope won't take responsibility for us coming a cropper if we take what they say as gospel truth. We are ultimately responsible for ourselves and our actions.
So is religion to blame? No, ultimately we are.