Oxymandias wrote:All your doing is rewording your words. Perpetuate is a synonym of cause and ergo cause is a synonym of perpetuate. Therefore we can replace perpetuate with cause and vice versa.
Wtf?
The socioeconomic factors ("the core") drive the Muslim world (I know you don't like the term but I'll use it for the time being) towards modernity, Islam acts as a brake on that. I see religion as a force (or a tool) of conservation. It's anti-progressive, or has been for most of its history.
Oxymandias wrote:It cannot be an instrument of a conflict and be the core reason for it.
Sure it can. It can be both in different circumstances. It is very hard to argue for example that Christianity has not been the core reason behind some conflicts in the religious wars in Europe. I'm also not sure Christianity was conceived as an instrument. Jesus and his followers might actually have believed it, though we obviously don't know it. Either way, I don't really care about that part because to goal stays the same regardless.
Oxymandias wrote:Here you are admitting that most of religious moral code is trivial and non-controversial and that many religions share. If you describe religious moral code as trivial and non-controversial then you must not have a problem with it.
Now you're getting silly. I reject and always will reject the basic premise of (the major) religions, namely that we must utilize superstition to enforce morality in our societies.
As for "trivial and non-controversial", you deliberately missed the "barbaric nonsense" part. In the case religions would be all "trivial and non-controversial", which they are not, I guess I would not have a problem with them in the sense that their existence would be irrelevant to political life.
Oxymandias wrote:If you assume that Islam causes most of the problems of the world today
Strawman, I didn't say that.