Yeah...and so do those that don't want people to be religious too...

Sure, religion breeds conflict, but so do many other non-religious ideologies.

So the they may be a larger group than merely religious people.

And on the same coin there are religious people who don't like violence and promote peace.

Do you think the same could be said for politics?

Indeed,  the Republicans in the US are a 'perfect' example. The Democrats are far from perfectly rational, but recent comments and speeches I have heard from the Republicans, and the Tea Party, are real face-palm material.

Religion is a cause of conflict, because religion is moral relativism. A societies' morality is relative to whatever god or religion they have. An atheist can have an objective morality based on minimizing human suffering.

But the mistake is to assume that religion alone is the source of conflict. Put a bunch of rats in limited area with limited food. What happens? Conflict without religion. So unless population growth is limited to what the environment can sustain, there will be conflict over limited resources. Humans have the capacity to understand this and do something about this, religion is a barrier to a solution because it teaches people to believe in a false reality.

Between factions, they are. Their positions are incompatible with each other.

And, in and amongst their own ranks. How many different Judeo Christian offshoots are there, where there are complete incompatibilities?

Don't be lazy, and allege something you have presented no evidence for. If you want to debate, play fair.

Exactly. But, as Sam Harris clearly points out, in all his debates and lectures, is that atheists understand that their incompatibilities, and conflicts, are based on their personal objections.

That's polar opposite to theism.

It's an entirely different debate when the thrust of your argument is based on your personal emotions, and personal opinions, but, entirely in another category, when men are acting as 'moral agents' of gods.

That's the salient point, and crux of the majority of Sam Harris' position.

Well, I haven't made that mistake. Unless you can point it out, I don't see where I could have, as I completely agree with your premise.

There's a power struggle?

Of course.

What else do you think would happen?

How is that incompatible with what religions have done since antiquity?

Exerted control over populations. They're fascist regimes, who's MO, is to dominate and subjugate, in every sense of those words.

To enslave individuals to an overlord.

But, it extends even further, as Harris points out, very clearly. It extends to the individuals not only acquiesing to becoming enslaved, but, at the same time, being 'moral agents' of an overlord.

They adopt the same MO, and take it upon themselves to be 'citizens on patrol', and attempt to 'police' everyone else's thoughts and behaviours.

Mix religions together, and you have mass conflict, that is unresolvable due to the incompatiblities of the MO's of the different factions.

That's anarchistic.

The only hope for any peace, is segregation, or moderation.

However, moderation leads to other problems, which Harris points out very clearly as well, because now, you have apologists, on both sides, who will attempt to make excuses and/or justify any radical fundamentalist action.

There is no objective morality at that point.

It all becomes subjective.

The gods become 'moot' at that point.

They may as well not be there at all, because they're merely tokens, or ornaments, that people use to absolve themselves of their 'personal' choices.

That's his whole 'We need to get rid of religions' argument.

They're merely symbolic. They were never more than that to begin with, which is well understood by atheists.

He understands that it's insane to think that the radical fundamentalists will ever be convinced otherwise. But, he's trying to appeal to the atheists, and moderates.

False premise.

These conflicts were there even when resources were overflowing. These conflicts were about regimes to subjugate, control, command over citizens. That's the major conflict.

The different factions were never civil to each other. That's the second power struggle.

Then there's the conflicts with heretics and apostates. That's another power struggle.

Thankfully, moderation, slowed the genocide of heretics and apostates.

Now the atheist is growing in percentages, and in increasing positions of power.

The debates among atheists are between 'subjective' and 'philosophical' positions. Not as power struggles between incompatible gods.

Big difference.

Sam Harris is completely on point.

Fcuk you, asshole.

I can play by those rules.

You're just an idiot, who like to run his mouth, and not say anything cogent.

I get it.

Just my opinion, of course....

Religion is nothing more than a comic book projection in the form of a label, that reflects the REAL evolution of "safety in numbers". It is the conflation of natural human behavior to epic mythological hocus pocus,

It is the idea that a utopia is achievable in reality and that if all others follow this utopia script, we will all be better off. It conflates a label as being more important than the fact that all humans are the same species. It allows humans to set up "us vs them" causing us to treat "outsiders" as a sub species.

But WORSHIP of anything, be it a state, or a god, or celebrity, is bad. It sets one up to be blind to the reality that life is never a script, but a range, and we are not clones of each other.

I can remember when I treated the Redskins as life and death, as if my life depended on it. I also treated Pat Benatar(rock star of the 80s) as deserving of a pedestal. And if back then, someone had spoken ill of either, I would have stopped talking to them and treated them as an enemy. I look back on that stupidity as childish and star struck gullibility.

Politics and religion is nothing more than worship and the only thing to counter such things is to question both. It won't go away, but neither deserves "hands off" status merely because someone is a fan of this label or that label.

Religion is the childish idea that utopias exist with the dangerous mix of politics. Any form of dogmatism, be that of the state or a god, without questioning to keep either in check, society will turn on itself and each other.

Civility is not the result of a religious or political label. Civility is the result of common law through consent of the governed.