[takkaria]

A Jew is not a Jew unless they consciously get to consider whether they want to be a Jew or not. A baptised child is not a Christian unless they're old and aware enough to consider their own choices. He doesn't want to enforce anything, he wants people to realise that it's wrong to label children by their parent's beliefs and to automatically assume that they should follow in said beliefs. Anyone brought up "into" a religion who realised it held nothing for them will agree with that stance.

The sanctioned genocide and the jealous god in the Old Testament show it to be of dubious morality. Note that I'm not saying the Old Testament is useless or does contain anything of interest or merit, but merely that it is a poor example of morality. (It contains, for example, the first ever use of the Nuremburg defence from Abraham when asked to sacrifice his son -- "I was just obeying orders.")

I understanding objections to using inflammatory rhetoric and polarising people. It's a fair point; he does use both. But the inflammatory rhetoric only seems as such because we're so used to religion being untouchable. He has strong views; so do lots of people. I've not heard him do any name-calling, mind.

I can't see how he confuses religion and science, really, and I'd appreciate some expansion on that point.

About atheism... maybe the resulting content isn't useful, but it's a required term anyway -- people would still believe that there was supernatural higher power. If it wasn't called atheism it'd just be called something else.

And it all a bit off-topic, but a) is it worth creating a new thread just to finish off this bit of debate? and b) it always happens when people talk about evolution and creationism.