Myth: Religion is one of history's leading causes of war and bloodshed.

[Ravi]

You know, JB, if you weren't such a prick you wouldn't be such a prick.

Learn to read for comprehension.

 

[manifold]

Now JB's know-it-all bullshit extends into what resides in the hearts of men... all men!

Watch out KK, your title is in serious jeopardy.

 

[JBeukema]

And now Ravi tries to backpedal and manifold build men from straw

 

[manifold]

JB,

You should probably learn what that term means before you use it. You might appear to be slightly less retarded. Well... maybe.

 

[JBeukema]

You, Mani, were among those who claimed to know the hearts of men and why they fight, attributing to greed and dismissing their loyalties to their gods

that is what makes your later post self-refuting and hypocritical

you then build a strawman by saying I claimed to know 'what resides in the hearts of men... all men', when I never said such a thing. By misrepresenting my post and then attacking your lies, you build a strawman (you'd know that if you understood what the term means ). By attacking me and not my points, you simultenously commit an ad hom attack


thus, you end up looking like a fool

 

[manu1959]

All religions are violent, jihad, crusade... sanctioned war by the clergy or their books. It's all about subjugating women and conquering/converting as much land, money and people as possible. Has nothing to do with greed of man... it's the religion that's greedy.

religion in the hands of evil men are violent.....men kill in the name of religion.....religion does not kill in the name of man.....

 

[mightypeon]

I've always heard the reason for war is money. If you follow the reasoning back to the source you always find money. Yes, religion is used to unite people to a cause, but it isn't the cause, just a tool that is used.

I disagree, the reason of "religious wars" in times earlier than around 500 years ago was land and not money.

Lets us start with the archetype of a "religious war". The 30 years war in Germany.

So basically: what happened?

Bohemia, a once powerfull nation later inherited by the Habsburgs, was pissed.
Not only did their Habsburg gouvernors refuse to speak a single word of Czech, no, they also used Bohemian money to improve Vienna, used Bohemian soldiers to fight the turks and used the Bohemian electoral vote to improve the stranglehold on the tital of Holy Roman Emperor.
The Habsburg saw the Catholic chuch as instrumental in "taming" the Bohemians, and up to 30% of the lands in Bohemia were Church owned.
When a certain guy named Luther got wind of it, they got a bit more pissed, litterally threw caution (more precisly their Habsburg gouvernors) out of the window and basically inserated the following "wanted" add.
"Bohemia, rich kingdom seeks a King. Must be Christian, non Catholic and weak enough to be controlled by the Bohemian Nobles."

Beeing no slouched in the inserating adds department, the Austrian Habsburgs quickly added this one:
"Any one who takes the Bohemian crown will get his arse kicked be the Holy Roman Emperor and his countless legions of royal cousins!".

After England (not enough man, too far away), Sweden, Danemark and Brandenburg werent quite interested, the Palatinate (a german medium state, about as strong as todays Belgium) was brave (or crazy) enough to say yes.

It took the Habsburg exactly one winter to kick the Protestants out of Bohemia, fend of a turksih invasion and have the Spanish-Habsburgs occupy the Palatinate homelands.
It took the another year to make other protestant german states run to their mommys. This lead to the first "mommy of Protestantism", Denemark, to intervene. Well, it didnt take too long for the Habsburgs to kick them back to precisly where they came from too. Since the Netherlands were a bit preoccupied with the Spanish Habsburgs, and England got the idea that not beeing invovled in the collosal slugfest on the continent was smart, Sweden stepped up to the challenge. Proclaiming itself as the "Defender of Protestantism", the Swedes invaded Northern Germany and didnt care at all precisly who they were killing, pillagin and looting.

When the Swedes got their leader killed, they settled for a fairly advantadgeous peace (for them that is) which left the Habsburgs in control of most of Northern Germany.
Obviously, France wouldnt have that, and declared war on the Habsburgs. Apperantly, the times for Protenstantism were so harsh that beeing Protestant was no longer a requirement for protecting "German Protestantism", (and the France were about as protective as the Swedes, concerning the common peasant).
In the end, the Habsburgs got beaten back to the Status Quo Ante Bellum, Germany was devastated, Sweden became a major power, Great britain got the great idea of "splendid isolation" and Brandenburg got paranoid about having an oversized army.


In the end, the war had everything to do with territorial aquisitions and not much with religion. For your interested, the Catholic dukes confiscated as much chruch property as the protestant ones.

 

[manifold]

JB, you said, and I quote:

the common man has fought and died more for his gods than for any other reason

Then you said, and I quote:

you then build a strawman by saying I claimed to know 'what resides in the hearts of men... all men', when I never said such a thing.

And you call me a fool.

 

[JBeukema]

One need not be psychic or omniscient to understand history )

Not even if one include every declared religious war and actually believed that those wars were actually motivated by religious conviction.

The vast majority of wars are wars for territory and booty, power and control, plain and simple.

Even the so-called religious wars (the Christian crusades and the Islamic expansion) are more typically motivated by more earthly motives than pleasing GOD.

.

Agreed.

You agree w/ manifold in claiming to know that the hearts of all those who fought in wars where their god was even their calling cry- even better than they themselves


Yet you attack me for citing the motivations evident and obvious


You truly are a fool

 

[Ravi]

This is excellent! Two blowhards trying to out idiot each other.

Maybe we need a poll on biggest strawman abuser.

 

[manifold]

Jesus Christ JB, learn to fuck'n quote already would ya?

 

[manifold]

We already had such a poll Ravi, you won in a landslide.

Friggin artard.

 

[JBeukema]

I like it better w/ his in the blue and yours in the white

 

[JBeukema]

.

I think it looks better this way

 

[manifold]

Way to pull a shogunny.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I've seen many a simpleton opine that religion is the single greatest cause of war. This is simply not true. Religion is however, one of history's most successful tools for unifying a populace and maintaining public order. And yes, this very element has oft been exploited by leaders of men as a means to arrouse support and justifcation for going to war. But that makes evil those that exploit the tool for evil, not the tool itself. If a man hacked up your family with a hatchet, would you blame the hatchet or the man? On the whole, religion has been an absolute boon for humanity in terms of both survival and prosperity. Without which we may very well not be here talking about it today. To categorically dismiss religion as a scourge of humanity is to betray a marked dearth of wisdom and maturity.

I would blame the man's mental illness or reason for doing it as well.

Islam is one of those religions that has brought prosperity to the world.

Your argument of blaming the man not the hatchet would apply to all the benefits as well. It was the nice man not the tool. If religion is a corruptable tool that can be replaced by other means why wouldn't we want get rid of it?

I appreciate both viewpoints. To me the historic ramifications of religion being in bed with human politics had more to do with the relative ease with which political leaders were able to use religion to demonize other nations, cultures and peoples to facilitate the taking of their resources.

Whenever there is injustice you can sometimes follow the religion back to the source, but you can ALWAYS follow the money.

-Joe

 

[dilloduck]

Ah, you all mix up religion and God.

btw, if you believe in God then he is the one and only cause of war.

and the one and only cause of peace, back to square one, Ravir.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have a different take on this.

Yes--religion is a leading excuse for men to kill each other, but religion itself is not the motivating factor that encourages murder. The motivating factors are envy, greed, desire, pride, and mistrusts of others intentions(fear). Religion is used to gain suport among those who are under the sway of these motivating factors.

I guess I am not being a good Atheists today. Maybe It is because I am a little groggy still, what do you guys think?

I think you hit it pretty square, brother.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your argument of blaming the man not the hatchet would apply to all the benefits as well. It was the nice man not the tool.

Agreed

If religion is a corruptable tool that can be replaced by other means why wouldn't we want get rid of it?

Can you give me an example of other means that would be equally beneficial and at the same time less corruptable?

Nobody who can think in terms of the future is without religion. We all have some sort of belief set that helps to shape our day to day lives. Specifically separating church and state is a good start towards removing organized religion from the toolbox of the unscrupulous politician. The next step is to convince every member of every belief set that everyone else has the exact same right to be wrong, and if the law of the land does not quite meet their standards, tough.

-Joe

 

[Ravi]

Ah, you all mix up religion and God.

btw, if you believe in God then he is the one and only cause of war.

and the one and only cause of peace, back to square one, Ravir.

And that changes my point how?