From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

...................

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

====================================================

BTW, I forgot to mention that Islam is based on made-up stories that is completely at odds with modern scientific knowledge. It is no more true than the idea that fairies live at the bottom of my garden. It's a completely ridiculous system of thought- and we shouldn't pretend that it's anything other than an inane mythology. Tell me again why women should be defending this rubbish.

(Oh, and the same goes for every other religion- so save your tears!)

The one editor's choice letter is headed 'Good Work Joan', continuing the trend for Salon editors to pick letters which praise the Salon writer.

It's obviously true that Islam is a violent religion, just like Christianity and Judaism. According to all three religions, as an atheist I should be stoned or beaten to death preferably continued with eternal suffering in the afterlife.

I'm a big fan of Dawkins because he refuses to dilute his opinions (and facts) to suit current sensitivities. I suspect that almost every scientist (and thinking person) agrees with him, but it's still a bit of a shock to see someone talk so openly about the falsity of religion.

Compare and contrast with other liberal writers on religion like Karen Armstrong (who has also featured on Salon) for instance. I can't imagine for a second that Armstrong really believes in a personal god. She writes whole books documenting the various mythologies that gave rise to contemporary religious beliefs- but she becomes annoyingly vague and mystical about the big question- i.e. does god actually exist or not?

Not only does the emperor have no clothes, but She never existed in the first place.

(By the way- I'm convinced that God does not exist- but Dawkins' attacks on Thor are offensive and leave me cold. How dare he insult the mighty T on a Thursday? The holy day for us Thorists.)

Try explaining where PI, a pentagon, the square root of -1 or Pythagorus' rule come from. These are all universals that have a platonic truth independent of humanity (or Pythagorus). They're not invented or designed. They're something- but they didn't come from anything.

Next try the Mandelbrot set- the famous complex fractal pattern that results from the iteration of a simple complex equation. Where does that pattern come from? Did Mandelbrot invent or discover it. Most mathematicians and Mandelbrot himself would accept that it was a discovery of a mathematical pattern that was already 'out there' even if no sentient being in the universe had previously found it.

So it is with the universe. It is a mathematical entity of enormous complexity that doesn't 'come' from anything. It's a 4 dimensional block of space-time that represents a solution to a set of equations- many of which we've already discovered- such as quantum mechanics and relativity.

Aha you say, but just because a solution to an equation exists- that doesn't mean that it actually 'exists'- i.e. is manifest in the real world. Actually maybe it does- it may be that since we're part of the mathematics- looking from the inside- there is nothing more real than the equations and their solutions.

I'm not saying that's the only explanation- but it is an explanation that involves no supernatural elements.

If there are laws of physics which the universe obeys and further if those laws of physics are 'computable', then you could imagine a gigantic simulation of a galaxy done on some ginormous computer by aliens. The simulation could be done down to the atomic level, and run long enough such that simulated life evolves on a simulated planet.

On one level we could dismiss the 'life' as simulated and artificial, since we know that the organisms are only composed by abstract 1's and 0's. However, because these simulated organisms are on the 'inside' at the same level of simulated reality as everything else they see- they would definitely view themselves and their simulated environment to be absolutely real.

Again- so it is with the universe. At the most fundamental level all common sense breaks down and only math survives- there is no reality behind the math- it's only math. We're part of those equations- and that's why we perceive their effects as reality.

But where did those equations come from? They didn't come from anywhere- they just exist in the universal space of all possible mathematical systems.