I have to comment this specifically. It was just too naive Highwaystar.

I am (was) tempted to say similar things about Christianity but I've learned not to. You see I could say that statistically Christians are more healthy, less criminal, more law-obedient, less depressive... and the list goes on, just to prove how good religion is. Or I could point to the fact that most religious people actually have honest well-meaning intentions - they believe Christianity is the best thing for humans so they only want to spread the faith to everyrone. It's all nice and innocent. And they too will say that you can just choose not to go to Church if you don't want to - "nobody is going to force you (to believe) against your will or anything"!

But it's not that simple.

Enter mental rape, institutionalized discrimination, taxes to the church or tax-rebates that favor the traditional core family, religious involvement in politics, religious conflict with common laws etc.

With the environment lovers it's the same. Mental rape through all media. "polar bears are drowning". "The antarctic lost almost one millimeter of it's ice core last month" etc. People around you will judge you if you diss the environment. The state will tax you. It will forbid the use of coal, close nuclear plants. Force everything from institutions down to simple electrical goods to be labeled as either eco-friendly or not. We will transfer money from the West to the developing world in the name of global warming (and within our societies too, from the rich to the poor, since the Global warming hoax is part of a socialist project). Scientists and other "good guys" will profit. Sceptics won't get funds. All sorts of corruption from electric companies getting contracts in the name of pro-environment to politicians telling you nice things about flowers and cows just to get your vote.

Hitler would most certanly find another way to start WW2 and kill people.

Hitler wouldn't have been born if religion never existed. Neither would I.

But there would be other dictators.

My point was religious views are less open to change than all the examples you gave. These views can change over a generation or two. For instance, if a study gives strong evidence that global warming is false then in a short space of time others will look into it, and if their results agree the viewpoint will change. Alternatively, social viewpoints can change over time. It may effect 2-3 generations of people.

In religion, the dogmas and views will remain for hundreds, potentially thousands of years, even with evidence to the contrary. Whilst some religious teaching truly are timeless, some have hindered progress.

And what's wrong with Amsterdam (everyone tells me the 'tulips' are lovely)?! :D It stands as an example of a place where your view of having to be against drugs is false. Whilst the government and media may shove the viewpoint down your throat, my own experience is around 80% of my friends have at least once tried an illegal substance.

Look, I don't know what your personal situation is, but I'm a little suprised the people you know are that black and white about the issues you've raised. My experience is that my friends have a range of mixed views about the issues above. The only issue from your post where we all agree is evolution (which isn't suprising considerring my field).

Global warming hoax? Socialist project? Look, I personally agree that there isn't enough evidence to say that global warming is caused by humans (I think there is enough evidence to suggest the world is warming but I don't think we can accurately place the blame with us), but a socialist project? Left wing view maybe, but I don't think there is a major conspiracy going on.

Also, scientists will try and get funds regardless of there viewpoint. Their own personal viewpoint has no place in the process and really shouldn't be disclosed when applying for funds/grants. I doubt any scientists would truly profit from research into global warming.

It's basicly human nature, first you identify something in others  that you don't see in yourself  then believe that is the cause of evil. Thus someone who does not see themselves as religious (they will have some kind of replacement) will be pick religion as an evil. It's the same attitude Pharisee had  in Luke 18:11  "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publician...." The publician the Pharisee look down on prayed "God be mericiful to me as a sinner."

Adult Stem Cells?

People may be resistant to change but to call science dogmatic is a bit of a stretch. When the science is clear then of course scientists will defend it, but begrudgingly science will change its mind if another theory supplants the current favourite. Science at least has tools for distinguishing such theories whereas religion largely doesn't and it makes tremendous claims with ZERO EVIDENCE. Thats the difference.

I have no problem with passionate nearly dogmatic defense of a claim if its actually supported by anything. But Religion doesn't deserve such dogmatism. Especially considering religion is being proven wrong left right and centre by science.

Now I don't like bringing arguments about science into atheism debates because they aren't the same thing. Atheism is simply the claim that no convincing evidence exists to show that God exists. That doesn't necessarily mean someone is obsessed with this scientific world as atheism is simply the dismissal of the theistic claim.

The millions of people slaughtered over ignorant religious beliefs would really appreciate that.

Think Fallout 3

Well that is if Christianity the one true religion didn't exist... rest don't matter much.

No morals? Just survival of the fittest... hell. A heck load more wars too.... or constant war and problems... deadz everywhere... durgz everywhere.... choas... depression.... and bloodz everywhere