Written by ponderer on 19.12.2008 at 21:49


I'll apologize to Dane directly for being accusatory which wasn't my intention because you are clearly confused about what religion means to you. You are only 24. At 24 I started to discover the meaning of life and that our role and purpose is but a grain of sand in an infinite ocean of chaos. I think in a few more years you'll mature enough mentally to be able to throw off the chains of oppression (religion), and form your own solid opinions based on facts, and not what you were taught.

Oh boy... the good old "I'm older than you, so I am more wise than you" argument.
Congratulations on proving nothing... other than your own foolishness.
Well then I guess the same argument could be used if a 38 year old Christian were talking with a 24 year old atheist?
It works both ways. I really want to respond to you as if you were a mature adult, but honestly, it's hard to take you seriously with comments like the one quoted above.

I do agree with your whole "telephone" analogy on the Bible.
I hate to pop your balloon though, buddy, but you're not the one who thought of that. I've used it my whole life. Nice try.
My faith/belief/religion/whatever you want to call it is actually very much based around the fact that through history since the death of Christ that many selfish, greedy, self-proclaiming Christians have changed the Bible and the truth in order to confine to their own beliefs and lifestyle.
Once again, though, as I said in my last post, this does not mean all churches are to blame, rather, just the ones that were started by such hypocrites.

And Satanism is a joke... talk about a kingdom divided against itself. You don't even know what you believe, do you? Hey, whatever makes you feel unique.

This is intense...

I'll just casually mention that I'm an atheist.
If Richard Dawkins got wind of this discussion...
I honestly think that no, religion does not cause war. I agree that you've got religion on both sides of a lot of wars but is it the sole cause? I don't think so.

Someone like Hitler, for example, was going to go to war regardless of religion. he didn't invade Poland in order to exterminate the Jews or any other religious group. He did it for world domination. If the Jews did not exist, he would have found another scapegoat to vault himself to power. Thats my theory at any rate. I'd also be keen to find the religious undertones behind the first world war - which I understand was caused by throwing generals with brand new toys on opposing sides into a pot and heating.

I believe that if you took away religion, human beings would find something else to go to war over. I personally point the finger of blame at the old 'mating rights and territory' ideals - as animals we (sadly) have violence inherent in our nature. This violence isn't curbed by our daily lives. We don't compete for resources, we work for them. Society has removed a basic principal of the animal kingdom that I believe is still ingrained in us. Fight or flight, kill or be killed, etc, etc. Most of us can handle the jandal in our own ways - sports, hobbies, anything that turns our minds off and lets our base instincts take over. hobbies was a poor articulation but I'll continue as i'm on a roll. Some individuals, however, have a need to appease this violence. What do you do? Go to war. Fight for your life, for your very existence. not against nature, but against your fellow man.

I can agree that the idea of people using an excuse to go to war (oil etc) is just that, but I don't think that religion is the driving force. To say so is at best a generalization, at worst totally misguided.

Written by Entropic Silence on 13.10.2009 at 11:18

as animals we (sadly) have violence inherent in our nature. This violence isn't curbed by our daily lives. We don't compete for resources, we work for them. Society has removed a basic principal of the animal kingdom that I believe is still ingrained in us. Fight or flight, kill or be killed, etc, etc. Most of us can handle the jandal in our own ways - sports, hobbies, anything that turns our minds off and lets our base instincts take over. hobbies was a poor articulation but I'll continue as i'm on a roll. Some individuals, however, have a need to appease this violence. What do you do? Go to war. Fight for your life, for your very existence. not against nature, but against your fellow man.

I can agree that the idea of people using an excuse to go to war (oil etc) is just that, but I don't think that religion is the driving force. To say so is at best a generalization, at worst totally misguided.

I've said this before, about how nature is violent and brutal and we've surpressed it as we've become "civilised". I agree with a lot of your points, however I don't think it's sad that violence is a part of nature: It's tragic that we are violent towards other humans in the way we are now. I think before society removed that basic principal (I had to use your words because you worded it so well) then things we're a lot more balanced. It's a bit like love without hate... peace means nothing without war. Most of us have it so easy these days (compared to those times when we as a species had to fight for our lives daily) that of course that lust for violence can build up. We've all had that rush of blood to our head when we've felt like we could kill someone and it wouldn't be a problem morally (I can admit that I have).

Maybe religion is just another excuse for people to go somewhere and blow other people up (or chop them up, a few hundred years ago).

It is more difference of oppinion that causes war, not just difference of religion. And as human beings, we will always have a tendency towards violence. Why do you think movies like Saw, bands like cannibal corpse and games like Fallout 3 etc. sell so much? We as a species have a fascination with death. Maybe thats because we don't understand it, or maybe its just because we're all immensely fucked up, but its true. Another factor of war is greed. So while i'll agree that religion is a major factor in a lot of wars, it is not the only one.

So do politics &philosophy...it does not mean we will give them up or over-criticize them for that.
The problem is that religion causes irrational wars, because divinity is above logic and rationality.
This is when it becomes a problem for someone that logic is more important then the divine.

In the end I think its a combination of religious fanaticism (Al Queda) and greed. People in power will stop at nothing to gain more power and blame their reasons for starting wars on complete untruths, while in actual fact it was due to their lust for natural resources found in another country.

Religion has caused wars In history. Irrational wars dont exist at Candlemass Because war is murder its plain old legalised murder Simple as that having said that a major influence in wars is often religion

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

Written by Vombatus on 15.08.2010 at 13:37

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

Oh the cause of the crusades were most certainly religion, they wanted that land for GAWD, not just to have it. Christians just like to misdirect us to these reasons now to avoid guilt by association.

Another exellent example, the 30 years war.

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 18:35

Written by Vombatus on 15.08.2010 at 13:37

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

Oh the cause of the crusades were most certainly religion, they wanted that land for GAWD, not just to have it. Christians just like to misdirect us to these reasons now to avoid guilt by association.

Another exellent example, the 30 years war.

I do agree that there is an obvious religious background (and religion-bashers have the right to cry all over it), but to think such thing when you see the political or economical situation during the first or fourth crusade is just a fucking joke.

I can't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that in major conflicts, there ain't a single reason for war but rather a complex situation where they mix a bit everything (religion/social/political/background/economical) that propitiates the fucking conflict. Thinking other wise is just so narrow-minded and simpliflying something that ain't.

Written by [user id=35612] on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

I hope this was sarcasm... British education system cannot be that screwed...

WW1 had its underlying causes in the economic and political rivalry (see colonialism) of several large states in Europe. Main issue was the rivalry of Germany and France, especially for France wanted to avenge Germany for the loss of Elsass-Lotring in the Franco-Prussian war (which was actually caused by Napoleon III's obsession and pride). The Balkans was another source of tension and the conflict indeed started there when a Serbian organisation went to Sarajevo (part of then Austro-Hungarian Empire) to assassinate Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria declared war to Serbia. Germany covered Austria's back. Russia as a protector of Serbia went against Germany and Austria and France got the long-waited opportunity to start a war against Germany. Prince of Persia... very funny...

WW2 was basically a continuation of the tensions that were left unsolved after WW1 and the problems created by the rivalling parties both during the war and after it.

Yes... religion didn't have much to do with it. In fact, religion has never had much to do with any war, it has been used as a pretext though and a mean to brainwash and lead peoples against each other but religion itself has not been the real centre of any conflict. Even the European religious wars... even then has politics and economy been the main underlying reason...

But seriously... I hope what you write was sarcasm... these are the most basic historical facts one learns at school... I've heard British educational system is bad but I can't believe it can be that poor...

Written by Ernis on 19.03.2011 at 22:37

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

I hope this was sarcasm... British education system cannot be that screwed...

WW1 had its underlying causes in the economic and political rivalry (see colonialism) of several large states in Europe. Main issue was the rivalry of Germany and France, especially for France wanted to avenge Germany for the loss of Elsass-Lotring in the Franco-Prussian war (which was actually caused by Napoleon III's obsession and pride). The Balkans was another source of tension and the conflict indeed started there when a Serbian organisation went to Sarajevo (part of then Austro-Hungarian Empire) to assassinate Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria declared war to Serbia. Germany covered Austria's back. Russia as a protector of Serbia went against Germany and Austria and France got the long-waited opportunity to start a war against Germany. Prince of Persia... very funny...

WW2 was basically a continuation of the tensions that were left unsolved after WW1 and the problems created by the rivalling parties both during the war and after it.

Yes... religion didn't have much to do with it. In fact, religion has never had much to do with any war, it has been used as a pretext though and a mean to brainwash and lead peoples against each other but religion itself has not been the real centre of any conflict. Even the European religious wars... even then has politics and economy been the main underlying reason...

But seriously... I hope what you write was sarcasm... these are the most basic historical facts one learns at school... I've heard British educational system is bad but I can't believe it can be that poor...

Wait I'm confused...I said religion had nothing to do with WW2...you agreed...how does that equate to the British education system being bad? I said correct me if I was wrong about the nationality of the guy who got shot by the way. I mean, I'm thoroughly confused by your post, you have fantastic historical knowledge [well, about WW1 and 2 clearly] but what does any of that have to do with religion being the causal factor behind war...

Being succinct is also a skill

EDIT: I would also like to say that downplaying any knowledge [causes of WW1 and 2 being 'basic', you say?] doesn't make you look intelligent, nor does it make me look stupid.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:46

EDIT: I would also like to say that downplaying any knowledge [causes of WW1 and 2 being 'basic', you say?] doesn't make you look intelligent, nor does it make me look stupid.

Nothing personal. I was just shocked to see that you don't know the most basic facts of history. Yes, these things are basic. You do not have to attend university level history courses in order to know these things. At least here you study these already at school when you're around 12 years old, then you study them more thoroughly at the age of 17 or 18... And you can hear these things at home too from parents and grandparents (depends...)...

I am not trying to look smarter than usual. I am not. My bro studies history which makes his knowledge a lot more profound on this topic. What shocked me was that it is possible NOT to know things so simple as that.

Written by Ernis on 19.03.2011 at 23:02

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:46

EDIT: I would also like to say that downplaying any knowledge [causes of WW1 and 2 being 'basic', you say?] doesn't make you look intelligent, nor does it make me look stupid.

Nothing personal. I was just shocked to see that you don't know the most basic facts of history. Yes, these things are basic. You do not have to attend university level history courses in order to know these things. At least here you study these already at school when you're around 12 years old, then you study them more thoroughly at the age of 17 or 18... And you can hear these things at home too from parents and grandparents (depends...)...

I am not trying to look smarter than usual. I am not. My bro studies history which makes his knowledge a lot more profound on this topic. What shocked me was that it is possible NOT to know things so simple as that.

Well, my old history teachers certainly would've been shocked too...however, I don't believe knowing the causes of WW1 and 2 in as much detail as you provided is common knowledge, don't delude yourself

Written by Vombatus on 19.03.2011 at 21:58

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 18:35

Written by Vombatus on 15.08.2010 at 13:37

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

Oh the cause of the crusades were most certainly religion, they wanted that land for GAWD, not just to have it. Christians just like to misdirect us to these reasons now to avoid guilt by association.

Another exellent example, the 30 years war.

I do agree that there is an obvious religious background (and religion-bashers have the right to cry all over it), but to think such thing when you see the political or economical situation during the first or fourth crusade is just a fucking joke.

I can't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that in major conflicts, there ain't a single reason for war but rather a complex situation where they mix a bit everything (religion/social/political/background/economical) that propitiates the fucking conflict. Thinking other wise is just so narrow-minded and simpliflying something that ain't.

Hmm While I Don't see any sorta of thing during the 1st crusade, it's true the 4th crusade had a definite economic link. When they couldn't get funds they turned on fellow Christians, tis the nature of the beast, aye? However I do see things differently than most (Excuse me I'm a history, and psych buff) but I do not place the cause/and blame as much on leaders as most, each soldier especially with the crusades where most picked up the sword of their own free will to kill infidels. I see each and every last person involved as responsible for what happened, and in an age of only the elite being educated you better believe they fought and killed for superstitions. Thus the war maybe for this or that reason as well as religion, but the actual mass murder, definitly in the name of religion.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 23:29

I don't believe knowing the causes of WW1 and 2 in as much detail as you provided is common knowledge, don't delude yourself

What is common knowledge then?
Well, you don't have to know exactly the dates nor the exact political causes, that indeed is not common knowledge.
But associating WW2 with the assassination of prince of Persia?! Common knowledge should be at least that much that one does not mess up WW2 and WW1...

Written by Ernis on 19.03.2011 at 23:43

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 23:29

I don't believe knowing the causes of WW1 and 2 in as much detail as you provided is common knowledge, don't delude yourself

What is common knowledge then?
Well, you don't have to know exactly the dates nor the exact political causes, that indeed is not common knowledge.
But associating WW2 with the assassination of prince of Persia?! Common knowledge should be at least that much that one does not mess up WW2 and WW1...

Well, I did say the dudes name, that means I got the country wrong...and again, this has what to do with the topic? If you want to nitpick, do it on something a lot less esoteric, as your entire historic post and all others succeeding it have been reduced to nothing.

You know this is pointless, I know this is pointless and I grow tired of this. If I want a history lesson, I'll look at my A in college and school, I'm sure all the memories will come flooding back.

The prince was Austro-Hungarian.

I personally think the main events in history such as both world wars should at least make people think they're worth knowing. After all, it's also a part of your own country's history.


Anyway, about the theory... well, religion did not literally come from the sky, it's man-made. I doubt God has ever allowed people to do everything in order to "make the world a better place".

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 23:42

Written by Vombatus on 19.03.2011 at 21:58

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 18:35

Written by Vombatus on 15.08.2010 at 13:37

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

Oh the cause of the crusades were most certainly religion, they wanted that land for GAWD, not just to have it. Christians just like to misdirect us to these reasons now to avoid guilt by association.

Another exellent example, the 30 years war.

I do agree that there is an obvious religious background (and religion-bashers have the right to cry all over it), but to think such thing when you see the political or economical situation during the first or fourth crusade is just a fucking joke.

I can't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that in major conflicts, there ain't a single reason for war but rather a complex situation where they mix a bit everything (religion/social/political/background/economical) that propitiates the fucking conflict. Thinking other wise is just so narrow-minded and simpliflying something that ain't.

Hmm While I Don't see any sorta of thing during the 1st crusade, it's true the 4th crusade had a definite economic link. When they couldn't get funds they turned on fellow Christians, tis the nature of the beast, aye? However I do see things differently than most (Excuse me I'm a history, and psych buff) but I do not place the cause/and blame as much on leaders as most, each soldier especially with the crusades where most picked up the sword of their own free will to kill infidels. I see each and every last person involved as responsible for what happened, and in an age of only the elite being educated you better believe they fought and killed for superstitions. Thus the war maybe for this or that reason as well as religion, but the actual mass murder, definitly in the name of religion.

I agree that it is foolish to think of the SOLE reason for conflict as religion. But with the example of the crusades, there are, yes, other reasons for conflict but all of these were, to some degree, tied to religion. Religion influenced just about everything at the time, some may argue that that is still the case. When talking about the crusades, it seems to be redundant in claiming that religion was the motivator behind such conflict. Of course its going to be true that religion caused the crusades, but it also was the motivator behind just about any decision/action.

With the example of the individual soldier in the crusades, it is true that he picked up his sword with full intent to 'kill infidels'. But the implications of 'killing infidels' meant something entirely different then than it does now. To 'kill an infidel' was understood perhaps in a similar way as 'donating to a charity' in modern times, it was seen as the 'right' and 'good' thing to do. What that ultimately comes down to is 'morality', crusaders thought it was their moral obligation to 'kill infidels'. Religion is the reason such a moral view was held.

The question today is whether religion still influences our moral outlook, and whether, if it does, it pushes us towards violence.

Also, it's not so much that the crusaders 'wanted that land for GAWD' rather they thought that that land WAS GAWD's, and they needed to claim it back from the 'infidels'.

Written by R'Vannith on 21.03.2011 at 14:29

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 23:42

Written by Vombatus on 19.03.2011 at 21:58

Written by Yasmine on 19.03.2011 at 18:35

Written by Vombatus on 15.08.2010 at 13:37

Alot of wars use religion as a way to justify the conflict when the real motivations are political, social or economical interest.... like the crusades.

Oh and the two WW had nothing to do with religion (so do most modern conflicts).

Wars caused exclusively by religion are rare... maybe when you get a bunch of crazy fanatics it would be the case.

Oh the cause of the crusades were most certainly religion, they wanted that land for GAWD, not just to have it. Christians just like to misdirect us to these reasons now to avoid guilt by association.

Another exellent example, the 30 years war.

I do agree that there is an obvious religious background (and religion-bashers have the right to cry all over it), but to think such thing when you see the political or economical situation during the first or fourth crusade is just a fucking joke.

I can't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that in major conflicts, there ain't a single reason for war but rather a complex situation where they mix a bit everything (religion/social/political/background/economical) that propitiates the fucking conflict. Thinking other wise is just so narrow-minded and simpliflying something that ain't.

Hmm While I Don't see any sorta of thing during the 1st crusade, it's true the 4th crusade had a definite economic link. When they couldn't get funds they turned on fellow Christians, tis the nature of the beast, aye? However I do see things differently than most (Excuse me I'm a history, and psych buff) but I do not place the cause/and blame as much on leaders as most, each soldier especially with the crusades where most picked up the sword of their own free will to kill infidels. I see each and every last person involved as responsible for what happened, and in an age of only the elite being educated you better believe they fought and killed for superstitions. Thus the war maybe for this or that reason as well as religion, but the actual mass murder, definitly in the name of religion.

I agree that it is foolish to think of the SOLE reason for conflict as religion. But with the example of the crusades, there are, yes, other reasons for conflict but all of these were, to some degree, tied to religion. Religion influenced just about everything at the time, some may argue that that is still the case. When talking about the crusades, it seems to be redundant in claiming that religion was the motivator behind such conflict. Of course its going to be true that religion caused the crusades, but it also was the motivator behind just about any decision/action.

With the example of the individual soldier in the crusades, it is true that he picked up his sword with full intent to 'kill infidels'. But the implications of 'killing infidels' meant something entirely different then than it does now. To 'kill an infidel' was understood perhaps in a similar way as 'donating to a charity' in modern times, it was seen as the 'right' and 'good' thing to do. What that ultimately comes down to is 'morality', crusaders thought it was their moral obligation to 'kill infidels'. Religion is the reason such a moral view was held.

The question today is whether religion still influences our moral outlook, and whether, if it does, it pushes us towards violence.

Also, it's not so much that the crusaders 'wanted that land for GAWD' rather they thought that that land WAS GAWD's, and they needed to claim it back from the 'infidels'.

Absolutely, my wording comes from being an atheist I admit.

However this comes down to then, I simple matter of ignorance, and it being a way of daily life make it excused. IMO the answer is clearly no.

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by [user id=35612] on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Written by [user id=35612] on 22.03.2011 at 14:59

Written by [user id=107773] on 19.03.2011 at 22:23

Written by [user id=35612] on 19.09.2010 at 15:05

I dont think its a theory, people are actually slaying eachother in the name of some god. It might not be of WWII proportions, but still though. Islamic extremists even advertise with it calling it Jihad.
Religion demonizes, alienates and sometimes even kills other people, wich is exactly why i hate it. Religion is way too serious.
Imagine us killing people because they say something nasty about Slayer. And i definitely dare to state my lifestyle means as much to me as god to them.

I'm interested as to why you only mention Islam? There are several religions...

I'm also interested as to why you so strongly believe religion is the causal factor behind war AND mention World War II...far as I know, religion had absolutely nothing to do with WW2...[correct me if I'm wrong, but it had something to do with the assassination of a Persian prince? Ferdinandz or something?]

War is caused by many factors, religion certainly being one of them, but in this day and age? No. Socioeconomic factors are the key causes of religion, and probably have been since the 20th century.

I do not only mention Islam, you should re-read my post.
My mentioning of world war 2 is in a different context, and that religion causes wars would be evident. Do note "war" in my eyes can be waged between 2 individuals.
The evidence of religion causing "uncomfortable" situations to say the least in daily life to me are evident. Unfortunately for the beleivers, Islam proves this point best at the moment. (I refer to protests in UK for example, where people believe those who insult Islam should be beheaded.)

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

As a student of history and academic theology (and not a representative of any religious group), I'm very skeptical about claims like this. You don't see too many qualified scholars analysing and explaining politics or war from the perspective of religion. Usually, there are other, more immediate and fundamental explanations to be found. There's no doubt that religion has its role in war, especially in the rhetoric that justifies the war. The true motivations that mobilize nations are primarily something different, grounded in economy, security and politics. Religious discourse is, in the majority of cases, the icing on the cake. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of large-scale war and international conflict in history whose only or even most fundamental motivation was religion. Even the Crusades were thoroughly political. (If you seriously think any notable portion of the Crusades' soldiers left their home and livelihood because it was right to kill infidels, rather than for other social and economic reasons, you'll have to find a lot of convincing evidence. Medieval times in general are still treated with unfounded bias stemming from Enlightenment propaganda and anti-religious attitudes, anyway; they probably had greater freedom of speech and more cultural diversity than the next four centuries. The "Dark Ages" are a myth that's been busted by historians long ago, but the general public missed that train.)

As I said, the role religion plays in war is not to be ignored. However, it's not very surprising: religion is a part of human psyche and society, it's a fundamental category of interpreting phenomena and it will never go away. In some form or another (not necessarily in its traditional, insitutional forms) religion penetrates almost every aspect of life and society. It's just like politics or economy in that regard. That's why it's pretty naive and unfair to be all humanistically anti-religious due to religions' part in wars; nobody hates social decision-making and getting paid for your job just because politics and economic systems have their roles in wars, either. And in fact, it's ultimately people who cause wars but nobody (apart from a few comical and intellectually dishonest misantrophes) wants to get rid of humanity for it. It's not very perceptive or fair to treat religion differently.

I would like to see more depth and scope in modern discussions about religion, anyway. Religion is not just a bunch of institutionalized religions, nor is it some private spirituality. In fact, you shouldn't think of it just as an ontological entity, either. Religion doesn't only encompass existing religious systems. Religion is a category of experience and it's a perspective of interpretation. You grossly misunderstand religion if you reduce it to one phenomenon or another. If it's used as a tool of interpretation, you can uncover models of religious behaviour in things like public rhetoric, bodybuilding, anorexia and Jimi Hendrix's relationship to his music (all of which have been discussed in excellent studies in the field comparative religion/religious studies). If you stick to some narrow and static view of religion as historical institutions and/or inner spirituality, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities to understand human behaviour and society in depth.

Written by IronAngel on 26.03.2011 at 00:40

As a student of history and academic theology (and not a representative of any religious group), I'm very skeptical about claims like this. You don't see too many qualified scholars analysing and explaining politics or war from the perspective of religion. Usually, there are other, more immediate and fundamental explanations to be found. There's no doubt that religion has its role in war, especially in the rhetoric that justifies the war. The true motivations that mobilize nations are primarily something different, grounded in economy, security and politics. Religious discourse is, in the majority of cases, the icing on the cake. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of large-scale war and international conflict in history whose only or even most fundamental motivation was religion. Even the Crusades were thoroughly political. (If you seriously think any notable portion of the Crusades' soldiers left their home and livelihood because it was right to kill infidels, rather than for other social and economic reasons, you'll have to find a lot of convincing evidence. Medieval times in general are still treated with unfounded bias stemming from Enlightenment propaganda and anti-religious attitudes, anyway; they probably had greater freedom of speech and more cultural diversity than the next four centuries. The "Dark Ages" are a myth that's been busted by historians long ago, but the general public missed that train.)

As I said, the role religion plays in war is not to be ignored. However, it's not very surprising: religion is a part of human psyche and society, it's a fundamental category of interpreting phenomena and it will never go away. In some form or another (not necessarily in its traditional, insitutional forms) religion penetrates almost every aspect of life and society. It's just like politics or economy in that regard. That's why it's pretty naive and unfair to be all humanistically anti-religious due to religions' part in wars; nobody hates social decision-making and getting paid for your job just because politics and economic systems have their roles in wars, either. And in fact, it's ultimately people who cause wars but nobody (apart from a few comical and intellectually dishonest misantrophes) wants to get rid of humanity for it. It's not very perceptive or fair to treat religion differently.

I would like to see more depth and scope in modern discussions about religion, anyway. Religion is not just a bunch of institutionalized religions, nor is it some private spirituality. In fact, you shouldn't think of it just as an ontological entity, either. Religion doesn't only encompass existing religious systems. Religion is a category of experience and it's a perspective of interpretation. You grossly misunderstand religion if you reduce it to one phenomenon or another. If it's used as a tool of interpretation, you can uncover models of religious behaviour in things like public rhetoric, bodybuilding, anorexia and Jimi Hendrix's relationship to his music (all of which have been discussed in excellent studies in the field comparative religion/religious studies). If you stick to some narrow and static view of religion as historical institutions and/or inner spirituality, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities to understand human behaviour and society in depth.

Again, all ya did was skip an issue already discussed, those nations leaders, they don't fight. Soldiers mass murder and what are the soldiers causes? None other than religion.

That was one huge side step, and "No religious affilation"? Or do you mean, none that you want to admit to? Religion is an experience? LOL Sorry man that gives you away dead to rights. Religion is much more simple than you'd have us believe, it exist in a slow evolving state of the comfort blanket? Remember the one you mom took away from you? Yes just like that. Religion is not an experience, you can not experience religion, only it's members. Were someone to go up in total isolation there'd NEVER, 100000 times out of 100000 times be any sort of experience, thus religion is a state of thought past on by other with the psychosis.

Written by IronAngel on 26.03.2011 at 00:40

As a student of history and academic theology (and not a representative of any religious group), I'm very skeptical about claims like this. You don't see too many qualified scholars analysing and explaining politics or war from the perspective of religion. Usually, there are other, more immediate and fundamental explanations to be found. There's no doubt that religion has its role in war, especially in the rhetoric that justifies the war. The true motivations that mobilize nations are primarily something different, grounded in economy, security and politics. Religious discourse is, in the majority of cases, the icing on the cake. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single example of large-scale war and international conflict in history whose only or even most fundamental motivation was religion. Even the Crusades were thoroughly political. (If you seriously think any notable portion of the Crusades' soldiers left their home and livelihood because it was right to kill infidels, rather than for other social and economic reasons, you'll have to find a lot of convincing evidence. Medieval times in general are still treated with unfounded bias stemming from Enlightenment propaganda and anti-religious attitudes, anyway; they probably had greater freedom of speech and more cultural diversity than the next four centuries. The "Dark Ages" are a myth that's been busted by historians long ago, but the general public missed that train.)

As I said, the role religion plays in war is not to be ignored. However, it's not very surprising: religion is a part of human psyche and society, it's a fundamental category of interpreting phenomena and it will never go away. In some form or another (not necessarily in its traditional, insitutional forms) religion penetrates almost every aspect of life and society. It's just like politics or economy in that regard. That's why it's pretty naive and unfair to be all humanistically anti-religious due to religions' part in wars; nobody hates social decision-making and getting paid for your job just because politics and economic systems have their roles in wars, either. And in fact, it's ultimately people who cause wars but nobody (apart from a few comical and intellectually dishonest misantrophes) wants to get rid of humanity for it. It's not very perceptive or fair to treat religion differently.

I would like to see more depth and scope in modern discussions about religion, anyway. Religion is not just a bunch of institutionalized religions, nor is it some private spirituality. In fact, you shouldn't think of it just as an ontological entity, either. Religion doesn't only encompass existing religious systems. Religion is a category of experience and it's a perspective of interpretation. You grossly misunderstand religion if you reduce it to one phenomenon or another. If it's used as a tool of interpretation, you can uncover models of religious behaviour in things like public rhetoric, bodybuilding, anorexia and Jimi Hendrix's relationship to his music (all of which have been discussed in excellent studies in the field comparative religion/religious studies). If you stick to some narrow and static view of religion as historical institutions and/or inner spirituality, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities to understand human behaviour and society in depth.

I couldn't agree more with some of the things you've said, most especially that the medieval period is unfairly considered by the general modern public. I do however think that you downplay the role of religion significantly in such conflicts as the Crusades. The Crusades, by the very nature of the term, are inextricably linked with religious attitudes of the time. Sure, politics was the 'mover', so to speak, it was the mechanics behind the Crusades, but 'religion' was also largely important. By 'religion' I mean not only religious attitudes/moral outlook but also the Latin Church. The church itself was a political entity, the role the church played in the crusades was absolutely fundamental. When you say that the crusades were thoroughly political, this is indeed an accurate statement, but surely you understand that politics at the time was thoroughly religious? Any political leader of the time would have known that going against certain religious attitudes exhibited and declared by the church was risky business. And when it came around to Pope Urban II declaring the first crusade, many leaders would have thought it a wise idea to take part in this, both for their own image as Christian rulers as well as for the obvious political and economic potential which was presented to them.

I don't "seriously think any notable portion of the Crusades' soldiers left their home and livelihood because it was right to kill infidels, rather than for other social and economic reasons", but I do think that these social and economics reasons were influenced to quite a significant extent by religion, particularly the political entity of the church. Regardless, it is totally irrelevant what the individual crusader's intentions were, they were part of a feudal system and were thus obliged to partake in the crusades.

Religious attitudes as they exist purely within each individual was most certainly not the instigator of the crusades, but the fact that a hugely influential and powerful political entity, namely the Catholic Church, shared/held such religious attitudes makes it impossible to deny the role of religion within the conflict. Politics was the 'mover', religion the 'motivator'.

As for exactly what 'religion' refers to is indeed extremely ambiguous. But you cannot simply say; well it's just too vague a concept or you clearly don't know enough about said concept, so therefore you can't really make an argument by referring to simply 'religion'. As long as you can clarify what you mean when you say 'religion' it is possible to make an argument. I agree when you say that 'Religion' is not a concise concept, I would also say that it isn't a 'fixed' concept either. What religion means is always in flux. Religion itself meant something distinct to what religion means today.

In this sense it is difficult to simply say 'religion causes conflict/war', you need to make some clarifications about what exactly you mean by 'religion'. Your understanding of religion may be different to another's, but this does not exclude one from using 'religion' as a point of debate/argument/discussion. Religion is an umbrella term for an array of related concepts, but simply because you have a "narrow and static view" of religion, does not mean you cannot use the term without falling into some fallacy. Again, as long as it is clear by what you mean when you use the term 'religion', it can be used correctly.

Clearly though, you claim to have some sort of 'higher' conception of religion which is beyond the understandings commonly held, in this regard I think you do exaggerate, religion may be a vague term and there is more to it than is commonly understood. I doubt however that it is a 'category of experience', what exactly do you mean by this?

Impeckable: I mostly agree with you. Perhaps I downplay the role of religion, but I think it's a justified exaggeration in a situation where the vast majority overestimates it and conveniently evaluates other aspects of life with more lenient standards. It's cool and socially acceptable to dismiss religion as antiquated and harmful, but it's not very honest inellectually. When fighting overwhelming odds, I reckon it's alright to exaggerate a little! I think it's in fact a bit artificial to seperate religion and politics and other factors into neat little boxes, because they're irreversibly intertwined in any historical situation. As you well said, politics was thoroughly religious (and still is and always will be to some extent, though the form and magnitude will change with the times). But in a crass charicature, I'd say religion typically plays the role of the rhetorical justifier whereas money and influence mobilizes the powers that be and social necessity and need for security motivates individuals.

As for how religion can be understood, I already gave examples of academic studies where things like anorexia, bodybuilding and public rhetoric are successfully and fruitfully analyzed from a religious perspective. That is to say, religious logic and modes of behaviour are discovered in areas of life traditionally not thought to be religious at all. This gives a deeper understanding of humans and society, and suggests religion is not restricted to some seemingly autonomous institutions of systematic faith. There's no common consensus on what religion means among scholars, and definetely not a fixed definition. In that sense, it can useful and productive to use religion as a perspective on phenomena. And whether or not a concept is useful is the basis on which we should decide to use or not to use it. It has to be said that this is how I feel about all sorts of human concepts: it's our categories of experience (meant in a Kantish way, but more down-to-earth and empirical) that give meaning to random stuff in the world. Nothing is "religion" by virtue of itself, it's only religion if it's perceived and categorized as such. Religion as a concept can be used in analysis just like power, economy, gender. Just like Foucault, Beauvoir, Bourdieu or Marxists economists use their theoretical concepts to analyze phenomena and reveal surprising things, religion can be used as a similar tool of research. As you said, religion is vague and can mean many things. That's why I think it's dangerous to use it loosely in topics like this. People will have different ideas and there will be miconceptions and unfounded generalizations. And considering religion in one shape or another has played its role in just about everything that's happened throughout history, it's not very informative to say "religion causes war." That's like saying "power struggles cause war" or "economic factors cause war". It can be defended, no doubt, but it would be much more informative and accurate to analyse concrete examples and stick to more uncontroversial and understandable terminology.

Yasmine: by no religious affiliation, I mean just that. I am not religious at all. I don't even label myself agnostic, because I simply don't feel a personal relevance strong enough to bother doing even that, though epistemologically I have to be agnostic. I study religion and I'm fascinated by religion as a phenomenon (paradoxically enough), so I think it's my job defend the field from common polarizations and misconceptions. I try to keep an academic and scientific attitude: it's not my place to say whether religion is good or bad, but I can certainly bust false arguments in favor of either view. But that is beside the point: your ad hominem is cute but irrelevant to the validity of anything I say. Even if I was part of the Westboro Baptist Church, that wouldn't affect the validity or invalidity of my argument. You're right in that religious modes of behaviour and thought are social, but so is almost every higher function of the human mind. Speech, logic, morality are all products of socialization. When I say religion is a fundamental part of humanity and society and that it manifests in ways beyond historical institutions, that is not to give it some inherent value or respect. It's simply stating a fact we have to live with, whether we like it or not. For our own peace of mind, it seems smarter to be OK with things we can't change, don't you think? Religion isn't something we can get rid of, and religion is OK. It has its rotten manifestations, just like power, politics, economy and morality, but we'd lose our social reality if we gave up any of those concepts.

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

As a Christian I do not consider Westboro Baptists Christians... please don't base your impression and knowledge of a religion on some sect or cult... There are loads of subgroups even under every branch of Christianity and a lot of them are so far from Christianity itself that they are the exact opposite of it.

Written by Ernis on 26.03.2011 at 16:00

Written by Yasmine on 24.03.2011 at 21:50

Nah Christianity is as good an example of this as Islam, see the Westboro Baptist Church.

As a Christian I do not consider Westboro Baptists Christians... please don't base your impression and knowledge of a religion on some sect or cult... There are loads of subgroups even under every branch of Christianity and a lot of them are so far from Christianity itself that they are the exact opposite of it.

Fallacy = No true Scottsman, Example, No true Scottsman would refuse a drink!

In fact they're very devout Christians as was the vast vast vast majority of the Nazi army. I know it's very hard to come to grips with, and I mean no offense but I know some very nice Christian people, you're probably one of them.

I will say this, Christians like you do need to say more about Christians like WBC, they give you guys a very bad name.

I just had a good convo with a friend of mine who's a Chrisitian. I after 4 years of friendship just told her my BIG BIG BIG BIG secret, and she loves me still. lol So I realize great Christians exist. lol