It seems to me that when I hear people so comittmed to atheism that it's become thier religion of anti religion speak, they say the same nosnense about the harm religions have done. Now I can't disagree that 'religion is the seat of despotism' (as the marquis de sade said) because indeed it is. The thing is that I figured that out in gradeschool. I used to spout the evils of faith too. But it isn't faith that is really the proginator of so called 'evil' or the weilding of power, it's just the particular image one uses effectively. It's naive to think that without religions there would suddenly be less wars, simply because there is no faith to fight about. Warfare has never once truly been about religion. It is now and has always been about resource needs and population density, and the young men who do the killing have always been the tools of old men who need resources. Maybe the young men believe the religion they were fed to fight over, but in the sbsence of that there would just be something else to use. Soldiers and terrorists would be motivated with a pride in thier country, or some group mentality. The absence of religion would just be filled with anything else. For the record I am not saying this because I'm anti war, I'm just pro honesty. I call motivations the way I see them. It's nice to imagine a world with no religion and no country (as John Lenon did) because then we'd have nothing to go to war over, but it doesn't work. It doesn't exist now because we don't have to fill the void, but the need for resources will always create some kind of image to pretend we're fighting for it. In a world without religion, Richard Dawkins would have written a book called 'The patritoism delusion'