Barring any personal rapprochement with any theological constructs, I consider myself an atheist as well. I don't think banning religion would suddenly do away with warfare. The problem is that there aren't enough Americans in the world.

I don't think the problem is religion per se; it's just that, cliche as it sounds, religion and politics don't mix. Have you heard the phrase, "'tis better to ask forgiveness than beg permission?" I'm a Catholic, but I think if I were in a position of power, I'd do a lot more asking God for forgiveness than asking permission; politics is a shifty and dirty business, and expecting that one static set of rules can guide one through the muck of domestic politics and international relations without getting stained is fatally idealistic. --Phoenix Rising

Phoenix said: "expecting that one static set of rules can guide one through the muck of domestic politics and international relations without getting stained is fatally idealistic." The problem is that religions tend to BE fatally idealistic. Are there any religions which ever featured lines like "This is what God commands, but, hey, you know, use some common sense". Quite the opposite, a person who dies for the Holy Cause(or kills, to some fanatics)is assumed to be Worthy of Admiration. If you pull the fangs out of religion by declaring that it is only for certain situations, or needs to be continuously re-evaluated to fit a changing world, you might as well have banned it. Like a snake, a religion won't prosper without its fangs. Contrary to popular belief, the USA was founded on Deist principles, not Christian, which can be pretty much summed up as "Believe in God, Truth, Justice, Virtue, etc, but not necessarily in Religion". Rejection of Religion is not necessarily the Rejection God, in fact, I beleive the opposite is true.

For all of the the harm that religion has done, think of all the good that it has done as well. To focus on only the bad points of religion(like the fact it causes wars) and ignore the good points is simply foolish. Besides, not all wars are caused by religious people. Look at Communists. They are atheists, but still cause wars. And don't forget that following the French Revolution, France decided to attack everybody else in the region, despite having turned Churches into "temples of reason." Also, most religions have admonitions against violence, it is when the religion is hijacked by political goons or fanatics that they can cause problems. And even saying that religion is the cause of a war often ignores the cultural differences as well between cultures. All encompassing solutions like this demonstrate the same wishful thinking that caused a lot of wars in the first place. Religion is not the problem, especially (generally) peaceful ones like Christianity and Buddhism. The problem is people. There ARE evil people, and they will use whatever institutions they can to do evil things.

You all missed the single most important fact. That fact is that man is evil and in most cases of "religious" violence, religion is just an excuse for commiting acts of evil.

The Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot. Godless Communism. More deaths than in all the wars fought in the name of religion.

Perhaps the real sentiment should be "Ban all systems of thought professing the infallibility of the highest authority"?? You'd catch a lot of religions in that net, and some political systms too. Of course, you'd have a paradox, because if you really tried to "Ban all systems of thought professing the infallibility of the highest authority" you would have to profess the infallibility of THAT system of thought... The world isn't perfect. Sometimes, you gotta break a few eggs if you want egg all over the place.

"To become an ' athiest ' mean's that you belive that a thought exist's based upon a religion in other people's mind's and have concluded it lead's to evil ? So if none of this is real to you in the first place why proclaim yourself an atheist ? Do atheist exist ? And if so what for ? Most of all why the name ? It's a word meant to oppose something right ? According to you those thing's don't exist so how can they be responsible for what you accuse them of ? The Roman's had lot's of God's yet the warmongering ran on. It's the people not the God." Atheism simply means "without (a) the belief in the existence of God (theism)." Saying people kill in the "name of God" simply means people are killing without justification.

Highground, regarding your reply: "The Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot. Godless Communism. More deaths than in all the wars fought in the name of religion" There is no such thing as "Godless Communism", at least in history. Your examples or Stalin and Mao, and more recently the nutcase ruling North Korea are perfect examples of "gods". These communist goverments enforce a dogmatic ideology and even have people worship the head of goverment with pictures of them in every household. Same as religion, so in a way, the communist mass murders are also the result of religion. I laugh out loud when I hear people say that North Koreans are atheists: they are raised from birth with the story of their "eternal head of state" having descended from heaven. Litteraly!!!

In history telling people: "there are the enemies of God. Now here is a weapon. Go and kill them" has been enough to make them start wars. Makes me wonder if religion is the problem or the fact that people are easily talked into starting a war. (It really doesn't take that much convincing)