re: What makes you a science denier?

The difference is, Dawkins, an admitted atheist, practically attacks religious believers. The very title of the book confirms that. Dowd's book is written to address all audiences.

Dawkins' purpose in writing that book was almost solely to attack religion. While he does make valid points about morality (you don't have to have religion to be moral), that is the extent of my agreement with him.

While it is of no consequence to a man like Dawkins, I take issue with him and anyone that thinks religion is the sole problem this world has. This idea that religion is holding mankind back from some greater purpose or evolution is ridiculous. What is the greater purpose or evolution that religious deniers claim religion is holding us back from? If everyone stopped believing in religion, does all violence stop? Do all wars cease?

So every war that has ever occurred was driven by religion? Every violent crime driven by religion? Poverty exists because of religion?

Can anyone justify that unified belief in any one system would solve all of the world's problems? No. Well, maybe I'm wrong. If everyone would just embrace that old "Golden Rule", maybe the world would be a better place.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."