I'm just breaking everyone in gently :D

Novel by Miyazawa Kenji: Night on the Galactic Railroad
Manga & Anime: Ginga Tetsudou 999

yikes! That must be a real bitch.

(sorry)

Why would I care? I'd be dead :)

To quote Epicurus: When we are, Death is not; When Death is, we are not.

Somalia, South Sudan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Congo, Nigeria: Did you mean all those countries where the majority of the population following Islam and/or Christianity? Or did you mean all those countries with low levels of literacy? Or did you mean all those countries where the vast majority of people affected are victims?

Children: If you weren't indoctrinated, then what's the harm in letting your children make that decision for themselves once they are 16 or so?

Valid ridicule/criticism: Sure.

Bread and Water: Unfortunately, that's not the stance of many Christians. In fact, the amount of poetic licence taken with the Bible is quite staggering. Until year X, Fact A was considered a fact. Once Fact A was disproved somehow, it ceases to be Biblical Fact and takes on a guise of Biblical Symbology. I could extend this to all religion as such. If an argument is made against Religion A, the retort is that Religion A is not the true religion and that it's Religion B. If an argument is made about a fact in Religion B, the retort will be about revisionism and that Book A is outdated and wrong. It's only Book B which should be seriously considered. If a fact is brought up about Book B, then some quote is made from Book A (which in the meanwhile has made a confession and is therefore forgiven for all sins) which has some semblance of twisted logic. If it's neither of them, then it's a particular edition that is brought up with a different translation to the problem. Frequently, there's also a segue into the different factions (and sub-factions) within Religion B, of which some are true and others not. Religion is like putty. You can twist it any which way as per your needs regardless of any inherent logical fallacy undermining its entire structure.

Hurting no one: Homosexuality hurts no one either. Most religions and the religious don't much care for it and actively oppose it.

Church and personal rights: I give you apostasy, heresy, proselytisation, forced conversions and blackmail.

Incidentally, my earlier question still stands: How long will the instruction manual for your faith be if distilled down sans all the frippery?

P.S. AFK till Monday.
P.P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandment_Alternatives :)

I should have emphasised the word particularly in my last comment. What fermion stated applies universally to just about any discussion between polarised parties.

I believe that there's also a big difference between atheism and antitheism. I'm also not convinced that a lack of belief in the irrational necessarily makes your position itself irrational. That's .. irrational :)

I believe that the fraud that he's alluding to is to do with the word "religious" rather than the term "religious organisation". ;)

Most human beings do practice them. Many of them do it, as you do, apparently because their faith instructs them to do so. Many of them do it simply because it is morally right. Who do you believe do not practice them? ... and how about those who do not practice them and are still devoutly religious? I'm not going to bother pointing fingers at paedophile priests and the like. But I guess I just did :|

Why does there need to be more to your faith? Why do your children need to be schooled in its doctrine right from a very young age? Can they not be schooled once they reach the age of reason and decide for themselves?

Nobody's questioning your personal right to do whatever you want with your life. But just because it's your "religion" or your "personal belief" does not mean that you are above ridicule or criticism. This is especially true when you eat bread and drink water apparently in the belief that you are eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. Or would that apply only to bread and wine? ... and even if your religion is your personal right, your Church (very likely) does not hold such rights in the same esteem.

.. and is that all that your faith instructs you to do? Did you need your faith to tell you that these are the right things to do? Are they not self-evident? Does your faith tell you that you will be punished if you stop following it or do not do what it states? Has your faith always been right? Is your faith factually correct?

How long will the instruction manual for your faith be if distilled down sans all the frippery?

... and how about your children? Will they be inducted into all the rites, rituals and other psycho-babble that very likely pervades through your faith? Will they be allowed to exercise their own freedom in choosing which faith, if any, they will follow? Will they turn into bad apples if they are not instructed in your faith? What will happen if you simply communicate these maxims that you have concluded are the core requirements for a healthy lifestyle without all the embellishments (including God)?

I'm not sure how your viewpoint is particularly pertinent to sceptics and religious fanatics. Civilised debate and courtesy is a universal requirement for productive discussion. There will always be idiots on the Internet and on your local radio station.

Your examples amount to very little without links.

IIRC, at the age of 120, Jeanne Calment claimed, "I have only one wrinkle and I'm sitting on it!" :D Lots of olive oil, el vino tinto and cigarettes were apparently her secret :o

While virtual classrooms, online curricula etc. will certainly drive such a change, I believe that it will be cost-effectiveness and efficiency which will be the primary reason for such a shift. IMO, 20th century school systems will still exist within a niche targeting the rich.

There's also the question of how pervasive such a shift will be - middle school, high school, university etc.