1) Thank you for posting the Wiki link, but after reading the definition of "false dilemma" I don't think my post qualifies...I didn't present a dichotomy...I INTENTIONALLY used the word "potential" because I know that nothing is "black n white" this evidenced in my posting history...
In fact, the reason I post extreme views is NOT to troll people, but to show that CONTEXT is very important when making decisions...You have to be able to adapt...
2) There is NO proof that the world would be better under one religion...Even when Europe was ruled by the Popes, they still fought many wars with each other...Religion has very little to do with the real reason why people do what they do...Just my opinion...
I'll bite.
Fair enough it doesn't fit the rigid standard of the definition, so I'll not argue semantics but suggest that if you want to discuss context then point that out in the question or it looks like bait.
So to answer your question the statement is pointless because it creates a situation where one is forced to either agree that they are potentially dangerous or that their religion is worthless there is, at least at face value, no alternative. That being said YES context is extremely important and NO, religion isn't the root of the problem. However, if everyone believed the same thing the world would still be a better place as there would be ONE less thing to argue/go to war about, that's not to say people wouldn't still go to war. I get the point you're trying to make though and have argued in favor of it many times.
Religion is used by those in power to maintain power, were religion out of the equation those in power would simply find another means. Religion is the convenient choice because it's such low hanging fruit. When trying to justify an action what better way than to say "because GOD said so?" I mean who wants to argue with God?
Last point in terms of your approach because I think you have something to say...
Never open with hyperbole if you really want to discuss something, particularly on a board prone to argument for the sake of argument.