Haha, you sound like that fundie Iraqi dude, George Sada, who goes around churches claiming Saddam had WMD, and he knows this because his Iraqi Air Force buddies told him so. Bull shit, stop making shit up dude.

Yea, they sure sound like hacks, I'm guessing the British MI5 are hacks too? 

See, unlike the dweeby white dudes that plague this forum, I know how it is to be a part of a deeply committed community, of friends who are a part of the everyday struggle, if someone were to come and harm someone whose a part of it, we'd all be more than capable of seeking a very violent retribution. Push the right buttons, and all of us would be capable of some really heinous shit. 

If I were to have my friends, or a family member die at the hands of a percieved oppressor, I'd blow shit up too. The difference between me and you, and your flunky buddies you proclaim as experts, is that I understand human nature, particularly when it relates quite well to my own. The actual studies, and the research done has all borne out my assumptions. 

You on one hand, are plagued by stupidity and delusion, and don't have a fucking clue. 

If you think you understand the mind of terrorist better, and what role religion has in motivating them, I want to hear your care. I want to hear how the fuck "religion" motivates terrorist? Is it the 72 virgins?

Dawkins doesn't know shit, and I've read his books, listen to his lectures, and read his interviews and articles. He's views on terrorism, are based solely on his dimwitted intuition. And they are idiotic as his claim that theist are more dreadful of death than atheist, because some nurse he knows told him so. Atran made Harris look like a fucking idiot, who had to confess that he couldn't argue with him, but he'd scour the world seeking to find him a knowledgeable opponent, that never showed up. 

And if you think Dawkins knows shit, that I don't know what to say about your "supposed" sources.

Dude your go-to guys, are some fat hairy teenagers playing SOCOM who found a gullible sap to fuck with. Face it, you live in some delusion world, with people you've made up. 

Dawkins is quite intelligent when it comes to his field of study, there's very few people who could speak so precisely and articulately about evolution, but he's rather dimwitted when he express his views on everything else. Kev at least claims to base his views on something other than his intuition, the opinions of his supposed "expert" friends, Dawkins bases his views on nothing more than his intuition. 

And Dawkins status as one of Britain's top intellectuals, is based on his influence, and popularity. His book got a lot of publicity. But if you think you could cite him as a source for an essay on suicide terrorism, you should know that you might as well cite your mom. If you want to point to where one time Dawkins, or the rest of the four horsemen, reference a study, speaks of actual cases, or the actual evidence that supports their views on suicide terrorism, outside of their own naive intuition you let me know.

But as of now, the atheist ranting about how Islam is the reason the towers fell, is in the same league as those theist who rant that it was the teaching of evolution that led to Columbine. Dawkins, Harris and company are a part of this league as well.

As for the foul mouther response to Kev, well I perhaps won't do it again, but I take great offense to individuals who attempt to spread bunk when it comes to 9/11, and what's happening in the world right now, for very personal reasons. 

Well, I tend to discount religious motivation in both good and bad things, and the reason for this, is that before religion was man. Religion serves as a framework for  a person's emotions, but not its source. It would be fairly impossible task to convince those wealthy megachurch Christians to take on a life of poverty, and give all their money for the betterment of the poor, even though Jesus himself said this, in fact he even offered greater rewards in heaven for this. 

Neither could some imam go over to a young fellow and claim that he'd get fucked well for the rest of eternity, if he'd blow himself up and take a number of innocent lives with them, and win himself some horny terrorist converts. Emotions arise out of facts on the ground, and sometimes attach themselves onto a religious framework. Bin Laden's letters are filled with his anger towards western intervention in the middle east, the oppression and untold death those white devils have brought to "his" people, the motivation is like black riots that arise in the aftermath of a police shooting. 

Yes, just as their are peta activist who support killing doctors who conduct test on animals. It's not fucking hard to understand why people feel emotionally connected to fetuses, if you ever seen an expecting mother faun over her sonograms you'd get it. Many atheist here support the end of religion, and some in history have supported the end of religion by the murdering of priests, and nuns, the French Revolution is such an example, and one that raised the notion of reason to be something ultimate. Some theist oppose abortion, some atheist oppose religion, and within those ranks some support violent means of doing so. The nazi's subricribed to a "scientific worldview", and commited their attrocities claiming them to be scientific. A worldview is not a motivator, but a mean to map your motivations. That's a crucial distinction. People have done horrendous things in the name of reason, science, democacy, secularilism, freedom, and religion, but it'd be a naive understanding of human nature to claim that reason, science, secularlism were motivators. 

So let's see, you heard them express jews are evil and need to die, and from this you claim bingo religion as a motivator. Now, did you probe them and ask them why they felt jews were evil, and why have they singled out jews, and not every other non-muslim? Can you explain this to me.

I don't think you understand how to contemplate the question, and that is why you assume as you do. 

I hear this reverse of this argument all the time, it's no different in nature. Teaching individuals evolution leads them to believe in a surivival of the fittest mentality, seeking to kill off weaker individuals, such as what was done in eugenics. The exec at Enron claimed "natural selection", so the dimwitted theist than claims this as evidence that the teaching of evolution leads to men like the Enron folks. 

People can dress up what they do, with whatever language they so choose, the language of reason, science, religion, liberalism, or whatever else, but actual motivations are much deeper than that. 

Then why make the reference to the Nazi's? Particularly when it's common knowledge that they were a Christian organization even on the most superficial levels.

The Jews and Muslims have a historically conflictive relationship that easily predates modern political motivators and is definitely tied to religion. 

Except that's completely different. Evolution =/= social darwinism. If people paid attention, they would have heard about "natural" selection, "random" mutations, not injecting your own fucked up idea of who should survive and who shouldn't. Religion on the other hand was the motivating factor in something like the crusades. We can say this with confidence because even the political or imperialistic motivators were founded upon Christian claims to that land.

Yes, the dude that considered Christianity as a "symptom of decay", who praised  Julian's anti-christian tract as giving a clear portrait of Christians and Christianity, and claimed that the new and old testament, as well as the sayings of Jesus were "a swindle, that won't make us a free", and that making an Aryan out of Jesus, is nonsense, was surely a Christian. 

And vocal atheist high ranking members of the Nazi party such as Martin Bormann, Baldur von Schirach, Artur Axmann, Adolf Wagner, Albert Speer were all christians right?

But this is besides the point, the point was that the Nazi committed their atrocities under the name on science. The large body of German scientist supported Hitler. The tools used were the epitome of scientific advancement, and lets not fail to mention that eugenics was a popular and government sanctioned practice in much of the western worlds, supported by a large body of scientist. 

You can consider it bunk science now, as we understand the rest of the picture, but given what they knew then, it wasn't such an unreasonable position to assume. 

But lets look at it this way, we understand that certain illness, such as mental illness are often hereditary, if we could pin point with individuals carried these genes, would this mean that it was okay to sterilize such individuals? If it was deemed as "OK" by some, would we say that science was the motivator? Or is the "OK" determined by other motivators and perspectives?

Again science is not a motivator, neither is religion, because prior to science and religion was man, and human nature, which motivates all on its own. If a theist decides to take on slaves, or free them, fight a war, or be a pacifist, to slay ones enemies, or to love them, it's not the result of his religion, but rather his very nature. He may dress up his position in religious language as have many individuals dressed up their position in scientific terms, but these are not the motivators. 

Then you don't know much about history or religion. At the conception of Islam, Jews and Muslims lived fairly harmoniously, Jews like Christians were considered "people of the book" by Muhammad, and their religious practices and synagogues were protected as the Islamic State expanded out of the Arabian Peninsula and large numbers of Jews came under Muslim rule. The Islamic law commanded that Jews be judged by their own set of laws, and not the Muslim one. Islamic and Jewish thinking during this period continually influenced each other, as evidences even in the writing of Maimonides. Maimonides claims that the Muslims were rightly directed in their notion of unity of God, and said  "The hearts of those who bow down toward it (Kabbah) today are [directed] only toward Heaven. Even today, over 30,000 Jews live in Iran, and live rather civilly with their Muslim majority, with dozens of Synagogues in Tehran alone. 

Well, I doubt you know many Muslims, but if you find some who are hostile towards Jews, ask them the reason for that hostility, I'd wager next to none of them, would tell you it's not over political reasons, particularly dealing with Palestine. You're views are hardly informed by any scientific analysis, nor any profound contemplation on the question, or even conversations with muslims, but more likely taken from the mouth of the ignorant like Harris and company. I would like to see you defend otherwise.

Really, it was religion that motivated the crusades? Not greed and power? When Bush went hard on for this oil war, he dressed it in the langauge of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, nearly all economic, and power grab wars, are dressed up in the ideals most valued by the populace, there's been a lot of nasty shit done in the name of democracy, secularalization, and freedom. But it takes something more than a naive contemplation to understand the underlying motives for an act, and the words, and ideology claimed as it's justification.

This is magic talk dude, can you tell me what magic power makes it not ok? Is it the magic power of the conscience? The magicaliness of human nature? Is there some sort of fairy that makes the act not ok, which the terrorist have to override with religion in order to commit their acts? 

Right and Wrong are like the Polynessian taboos, for which Kamenhametha II was capable of ridding with ease, they may of held relevance long ago, but now has been lost. Right and wrong may have meant something in Heroic societies, in the premodern world of telos, an enchanted world, but in our modern world have lost all sense of meaning and relevance, like taboos. 

China, who asks if human rights are a western intervention, got the memo, apparently you didn't.  

I don't think that poverty is really a deciding factor, few suicide bombers are un-educated and live in poverty.

So ignore Kevin's strawman that suicide bombers are relativly well off to disprove my point, he seems to do that a lot.

Ironically, if I asked him to source it, he probably would have cited an article by Atran.

I suggest you learn more about history. Nazi party leaders believed that national socialism and christianity were incompatable Hitler believed that christianity would die by itself as science advanced. The party suppressed religious teachings, ended religious youth movements, and forbid religious teaching of Hitler Youth. 

The Nazi party formulated a 30 point program for the "National Reich church", that including the ridding and forbidding the publications of the bible, getting rid of crucifixes, and pictures of saints, and would allow only the Mein Kampf and a sword to be placed on the altar. Hitler planned on getting rid of Christian churches, after having control of the European Empire. 

Reading Martin Bormann: 

"When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest."

Nazism wasn't a christian movement, it's just whored christianity to rile up popular support, and planned to be rid of it, once it acheived it's end. They believed just like atheist here do, in the awesome power of science, not the christian faith which the leaders of the party deplored, and sought to eventually get rid of. 

I never said that science was the cause, nor was religion, and if you didn't suffer from confirmation bias, you would have already understood this. To play with your own words : "Religion was used to justify the actions, which were mainly socio-political. It was not the cause." If you can use thay brain of yours to comprehend why science wasn't the cause, you'd begin to understand why religion wasn't the cause here either. Remember this tid bit of wisdom: "what's claimed as justification, is not always the actual motivation of an action. "

Let's see if you brain can wrap around this. Hitler used religion, and science as justification for his actions, Arab terrorist used religion as a justification, but neither religion, or science were motivators. 

Yep, that's exactly what I said zero-conflict. What a idiot. The fucking point dude, is you haven't gotten it yet, is religion, is not a motivator, human nature compels on its own. The idiot atheist believes in some sort of pure human nature, removed of man's desire for greed and power, that becomes corrupted by supposedly outside sources like religion. It's the idiot atheist who doesn't understand that before religion was man, and that religion and it's use will always be an expression of human nature. It's not an external source of motivation, but rather used an expression of internal sources, like our use of language. But perhaps you're a little to slow to understand this? 

Yep, the amish are motivated by greed and power. Martin Luther King, and the Southern Christian Leadership Confrence were motivated by greed and power, Desmund Tutu, Oscar Romero were motivated by greed and power, Deitrich Bonhoeffer was motivated by greed and power. The pastor of my mothers fundie church, who gave up a lucrative career for a miniscule salary of a pastor, who refused to sue the public school in which his son died because of neglect, was motivated by greed and power 

You're a fucking joke, who doesn't know shit about greed and power. 

How cute. You still think you are people.

Oh, and the Nazi regime was founded and supported through religion. They all wore belt buckles that said "God With Us", and the abandonment and decision that ORGANIZED religion was bad did not begin until /late/ in their rule, and only after they were having conflicts with the church for some of their actions. Then it became a hindrance, and they determined they needed to get rid of it.

Hitler believed he was doing the "Lord's Work". Read his book. He was angry because organized religion began acting against him. Not against religion entirely.

I suggest you learn more about history.

So you're trying to relate a masturbatory relationship to science with social darwinism?  

He used religious propaganda to raise support; whether he believed in some religion's god or not has absolutely no bearing on anyone else who does or doesn't.