Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

Yes, well... I'm not aware of the Hitchin's side of this discussion.

Just working at getting a level understanding of things, as it were.

Cheers.

Not at work.

The whole Ireland topic got started here because we were talking about how people justify the violence that they do. Rahn127 said that religion is by far the most common thing people use to defend doing violence. He said:

When looking at justification, religious reasons are at the top of the chart. The normal everyday human response of anger will cause some harm, but when you compare that to the religious justification for widespread hatred, civil unrest, regional conflicts, world wars, there is truly no comparison.

The justification used for world wide harm is religious in nature.

I asked why he thought this is true, because I think that people are so good at justifying violence that there are all kinds of reasons. Skin color, money, political ideology, etc. etc. I completely agree that religious things have caused violence in the past, but deny that it's "The justification used for world wide harm," or "at the top of the chart." 

Rahn replied with a video link to Hitchens doing his usual rhetorical schtick. The video mentioned violence in Belfast, and I argued that the violence in Belfast is not religious in nature. It is political. 

Naturally, this got a reaction.