[milo]

I'm not going to re-quote as it gets incredibly annoying to anyone reading, but i do understand your position a little better with that. I still stand by what i originally said though, he may want to understand the way people think, but them thinking the way they do because it comforts them seems perfectly valid to me. To give the reciprocal, would he suggest believing in something that makes you uncomfortable is somehow more 'worthwhile'? Id be genuinely interested if he has some separate argument on why finding comfort in an idea is bad from an evolutionary standpoint.

As to your personal standpoint id say your offence is irrelevant, or as irrelevant as anyone who takes offence at dawkins because he questions their faith. I'm not saying this in an accusatory way but you have a tendency to see your world view as inherently rational, and those who disagree as deluding themselves ('it is intellectually dishonest to believe something purely because you want it to be true'). For the sake of argument lets say the society around you is completely founded on Christian belief, and as you say people won't be rational. In what sense is that harmful so society? Society has chosen its own way and is apparently happy with that choice despite being shown arguments to the contrary. It may be harmful from the perspective of your personal philosophy, but why should your personal philosophy be a better 'judge' of what others do?

I don't have a problem with pointing out something is absurd, but im curious what you desire from all this? If your day-to-day activities are being repressed by the masses id understand, but if they aren't dictating a way of life to you - why bother with the irrationality of others? And why religion? The vast majority of deaths in the 20th century were caused by political theories, surely its a bigger threat?