You will be A-thei-ssimilated.

[loCAtek]

If there a scientific source for that assertion?

Any history text of your choosing.

Such as?

How great a percent more? How large a net effect? How big an increase?

Anything larger than zero means the effect of religion has been to increase war and other conflict.

As shown by?

[Scooter]

If there a scientific source for that assertion?

Any history text of your choosing.

Such as?

Take your pick. For you, perhaps something in comic book format.

Anything larger than zero means the effect of religion has been to increase war and other conflict.

As shown by?

That religion has been the cause of war is well documented. If someone were to claim that religion has prevented or shortened any war, that would be up to them to prove.

[loCAtek]

Stoat, that would be your point, not mine to prove, if you are going to make it.

I'm sorry ... I have no idea what you are now saying. It's perfectly easy. They say that their stats show them religion causes wars and thus should be stopped. I say that with those stats at hand what they say is reasonable. You ask me to proofs their stats. I point out that is nonsense, and you say the above?

I beg your pardon stoat, but with all these others things going on: which 'they' are you referring to?

Scooter, very well I'll seek the documentation myself...

[thestoat]

"They" are the people who you quoted as saying religion should end because it causes wars, etc

[The Hen]

Wow. Just wow.

Perhaps a little more reading and fewer threads being started on religion might be in order, eh Lo?

[loCAtek]

"They" are the people who you quoted as saying religion should end because it causes wars, etc

Could you post the stats, pls?

While I've asked for them before, I've yet to see them posted nor linked to; and I'm not going with the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy.

[Sean]

You expect Stoat to provide evidence to back up your bullshit as well as his own posts now?

[thestoat]

This is brilliant. Lo, please reread and try to understand your own posts

[thestoat]

If what he said is true, I can't help feeling the gunman in Norway would have had less reason to kill all those innocent children if there was no religion

The judge said Mr Breivik had argued that he was acting to save Norway and Europe from "Marxist and Muslim colonisation"

Describes himself as a Christian and conservative on Facebook page attributed to him

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14285020
(Obviously this isn't a source Lo has posted, so she will probably refute it)

[Crackpot]

I didn't know Marxism was a religion.

Seriously the thing most people miss is the difference between a reason and an excuse.

[thestoat]

That's true, CP, and of course we'll never know if he'd have done it even in a society without a religion.And the same could be said of wars, hiding behind religion as an excuse for bloodshed. All we can go on are the facts as we know them - and unfortunately the facts are that he said he was against Marxism and Muslims - (maybe he didn't like the letter M). If we remove the reason/excuse (religion) there is a possibility it wouldn't have happened. Therefore I am happy to blame religion

[Crackpot]

Not so much it's likely he'd find something else to justify the action.

[Crackpot]

The nature of "god" makes religion a convienient "catch all"

[loCAtek]

Put stoat in the 'religion causes conflict/war' category.

[thestoat]

Nope, try logic with your random quotes