Godless6 writes << As you say, definitions vary. I was thinking less of the
wider scale activities you refer to, and more about the bombings which occur
so randomly. >>

I understand. My apologies if I took the topic off on a tangent. However, I
did so to clarify important distinctions and make relevant points.

Godless6 writes << You extend your argument to collective ideologies, but
they don't produce suicide bombers. >>

There's no reason why they cannot. Indeed, Islam is extremely collectivistic
(the individual is nothing without the group), and the only suicide bombers
that I know of in recent memory have been Muslims.

Godless6 asks << No athiest would likely engage in that particular
heaven-hunt, would he? >>

Well, there are atheists out there who act on some very strange ideas, so I
would not put such inconsistencies past some of them. Remember that simply
being an atheist as such is no guarantee that one will be rational. But
while an atheist might be a militant environmentalist who has swallowed his
ideology to such a degree that he feels obligated to sacrifice himself for
"the cause" of the green-toed tulip newt, I don't think he would be
expecting to wake up in "heaven" (or in any other fantasy land) after he
pulls the pin. So in that sense, your point is taken. But again, we're
discussing the actions and choices of irrational people, so trying to
determine their motives can quickly become moot.

Godless6 writes << I suggest you consult Dawkins "religions guided missiles"
as a primer to enable you to recognise the inherent dangers posed by
religious belief. >>

Thanks for the pointer. I'll keep it in mind. However, I'm already aware of
what kind of consequences to expect when men surrender their reason and pray
to the supernatural. If they take it seriously, the consequences can indeed
be lethal, and the lessons of history certainly demonstrate this (but
there's always another group which pops up which says it has the "right"
interpretations to avoid the errors of their predecessors). I do not need to
read Dawkins to recognize this, as I already recognize it very clearly.

Godless6 writes << athiests parading as apologists for religion is hardly
responsible either, >>

I really do not understand what this was intended to mean.