If no one beleived in god, would there be kaos or peace?

Re: If no one beleived in god, would there be kaos or peace?

clubernj wrote:

It seems to me that there are two sides to this argument/

1) Fear of hell keeps the majority of man kind from committting crimes.

I think you're generalizing here. I can't speak for most of mankind, but I don't think most religions believe in heaven and hell.

"I really despise people who beleive that their religion is going to heaven while everyone else is not. This is probably a form for people with nothing in their lives to feel superior over the rest of the world. "

I agree with you. Any religion that says only its followers get some sort of eternal reward are wrong. It turns the rest of humanity into lesser beings.

Dauer

0 Replies

I am a Buddhist. I believe in humanity. Let's start from there. Heaven and Hell exist within ones own heart. I am proud that there has never been a war started in the name of Buddhism.

0 Replies

Re: If no one beleived in god, would there be kaos or peace?

clubernj wrote:

1) Fear of hell keeps the majority of man kind from committting crimes.

I've heard this sentiment expressed in support of religion before, but I've never bought it.

I think that compassion and respect are primarily a culturally based behavior beneficial to holding communities together. Humans are pack animals, so there is obvious benefit in learning to coexist, but almost all animals have reasons not to kill and anger their own kind. Many other animals evolve complex ritualized behaviors to prevent mutual damage.

0 Replies

1) Religion is quite a bit more than a deterrent fear. Religion is a integral part of most cultures and defines ones identity and values. It has been an inspiration for heroism-- Martin Luther King for example. It has often motivated people to make the world a better place buy creating programs for the poor and building hospitals.

2) Religion is never a cause of violence, rather it is an excuse. Most wars are at their core over land or resources. There are perhaps a few exceptions to this, but not many.

There is a question about whether religion is necessary now (I would argue it is), but historically speaking it was essential. Look at the important role that religion played in our culture (or any other culture). Sure religion has been both bad and good, but it is certain that our culture would be drastically different if it developed without religion.

Whether we would have advanced at all is questionable.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

2) Religion is never a cause of violence, rather it is an excuse. Most wars are at their core over land or resources. There are perhaps a few exceptions to this, but not many.

Are you *sure* about this EBrown? I was under the impression that history was repleat with examples of wars and murder occuring for religious reasons.

Your statement seems so unrealistic to me that I'm having trouble grasping it. Maybe I read it wrong, or misunderstood your meaning? ... I'll have to reread this again.

0 Replies

Ok, I think I see now, I'm guessing that you're suggesting that underlying all religous conflicts, there is a simple desire for land or resources, merly dressed up in religous garb...

If this is what you're suggesting, I'm still not sure I agree though.

0 Replies

The curse of mankind. By far the greatest precursor to, war, massacre, pogrom, intolerance and divisiveness known to man. As for would there be peace. No as long as there is man on this planet there will not be peace. However, without religion a major cause of friction will be eliminated.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Whether we would have advanced at all is questionable.

Well, that's in interesting suggestion, but it's not questionable to me. I'm sure we would have advanced just as well, though I'm also sure our history would have been much different.

To suggest that our advancement would have been questionable seems to imply that you believe that religion augments our ability to learn or survive in some way. Can you give an example of how it does either of these things, where other behaviors would not?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Ok, I think I see now, I'm guessing that you're suggesting that underlying all religous conflicts, there is a simple desire for land or resources, merly dressed up in religous garb...

If this is what you're suggesting, I'm still not sure I agree though.

Yes, this is what I am suggesting.

A challenge for you, can you give me one example of a war with religion as it core cause?

There is the matter of tribalism that is still a deep part of human nature. If one member of a cultural group identifies with another member of the same group facing an injustice the instinct is to defend them. This is the most common use of religious rhetoric, but the purpose of religion is to express a tribal common interest. There are many examples of the same phenominon with less-religious rhetoric, but religion is a powerful way to express culture.

I can't think of any war that I would consider "religious".

0 Replies

Re: If no one beleived in god, would there be kaos or peace?

clubernj wrote:

1) Fear of hell keeps the majority of man kind from committting crimes.

For many people, it is enough to use religious teachings as guidelines for leading peaceful lives and creating beneficial personal relationships.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Whether we would have advanced at all is questionable.

Well, that's in interesting suggestion, but it's not questionable to me. I'm sure we would have advanced just as well, though I'm also sure our history would have been much different.

To suggest that our advancement would have been questionable seems to imply that you believe that religion augments our ability to learn or survive in some way. Can you give an example of how it does either of these things, where other behaviors would not?

I need time to flush out this argument a bit, but my basic point is this.

Any society has cultural needs it must meet in order to survive as a coherent society. The members of a culture must have a common identity and common values.

Reasonable, universally accepted values are not obvious. Each culture has their own values. There is no set of values that is any more "logical" or "scientific" than any others. The basic values of a culture can not be proven, they must just be accepted.

Depending on how you define the term "religious" I would argue that any value system is at its core "religious" as it must be accepted by members of a society with no way to prove them. By any definition, religion has provided a very convenient way for diverse cultures to meet these basic needs, develop and thrive.

Are there any cultures that have not invoke "divine" principles. Again I would love to discuss an example if one exists.

Our current culture is still based on "divine" principles. We all believe deeply in "liberty" and "equality", even though there is scientific or mathematical reason that these values have any value. We all find slavery and rape reprehensible. Again these are values we hold without a logical proof that they are wrong.

Even people who don't hold to the idea of a sentient deity still invoke "divine" (i.e. unprovable) principles.

Religion has been and continues to be an important part of our culture.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Ok, I think I see now, I'm guessing that you're suggesting that underlying all religous conflicts, there is a simple desire for land or resources, merly dressed up in religous garb...

If this is what you're suggesting, I'm still not sure I agree though.

Yes, this is what I am suggesting.

A challenge for you, can you give me one example of a war with religion as it core cause?

In 16th and 17th century Europe (1550-1650), wars between Protestant and Catholic rulers brought much bloodshed.

There were czarist pogroms against the Jews--often with religious justification.

Mohandas K. Gandhi was killed by a militant Hindu in 1948

Sri Lanka's prime minister was assassinated by a Buddhist monk in 1959.

Catholics and Protestants fighting in Northern Ireland.

Hindus and Muslims fighting one another in India.

Buddhists and Hindus fighting in Sri Lanka.

The Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the death of Salman Rushdie because of his Satanic Verses.

And in the name of Christ, Crusaders marched to take land back that was previously under Christendom.

You might argue that the last example was a crusade fought over land, but I could argue that it was the difference in religion which prevented two cultures from merging into that one land. Religion binds people and divides them. It allows for the formation of groups which support each other, and often have a hard time tollerating groups with a different religion. If people were unified in every sense, then the land they occupied would not be a problem, they would simply merge.

This tendency in human history is not just due to religion. Races, cultures and languages also have this effect. Anything which serves to differentiate groups leads to divisions which aften end up in competition with each other.

Religion is not the only source of division, but it's a large one.

0 Replies

You are right about my response to the Crusades. This was a fight over land and trade with huge economic stakes. The wealthy lords who organized and financed the Crusades did not have very religious motivation.

It is very hard to claim that Northern Ireland is a religious war. Doctrine is not at all an issue, it is two tribal groups fighting over power.

Likewise the battles between "Protestant and Catholic" rulers in Europe were primarily battles between rulers. They weren't religious, except as a way to justify their reigns and motivate their subjects.

Thre is no difference between the czarist pograms against the Jews often with religious justification, and the Nazi campaign of genocide that was clearly racially, not religiously based. These are the same phenomina. The fact that one was based on religious rhetoric does not make it any different from the tribalistic depths of human nature.

I don't know much about the ethnic fighting in India or Sri Lanka. Is there any reaon that these conflcts are different that the tribal conflicts in Europe?

The one example that may have merit is the death sentence of Rushdie. But this is a priest calling for an assassination, not a war.

Wars are caused by tribalism. People group together in cultures with perceived common interest and then fight any other culture that is competing for resources or otherwise seen as a threat. There is always a demonization of the other culture. As religion is a central part of most cultures, attacking the culture often takes the form of attacking their gods.

But in all of these examples, religion is not a cause of the wars. "Relgious" wars are no different then non-religious ones. One tribe feels another tribe is a threat and chooses violence. The justification for this violence will take use the values of the culture, whether that be "God", or "liberty", or "democracy", or "racial purity".

The religion is not the cause, just the excuse.

0 Replies

Brown
Suggest you check out the link listed herein.

Wars of religion
http://www.lepg.org/wars.htm

Regarding discrimination and murder of Jews in Europe over the centuries to call it anything other than for religious reasons is revisionist history.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I am a Buddhist. I believe in humanity. Let's start from there. Heaven and Hell exist within ones own heart. I am proud that there has never been a war started in the name of Buddhism.

Nick, I am not one to try and throw cold water on one's religious beliefs, but I have seen you posit this idea several times in various threads.
So, just in case you're interested:
Buddhism and Violence

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

...............
The one example that may have merit is the death sentence of Rushdie. But this is a priest calling for an assassination, not a war.

Wars are caused by tribalism. People group together in cultures with perceived common interest and then fight any other culture that is competing for resources or otherwise seen as a threat. There is always a demonization of the other culture. As religion is a central part of most cultures, attacking the culture often takes the form of attacking their gods.

But in all of these examples, religion is not a cause of the wars. "Relgious" wars are no different then non-religious ones. One tribe feels another tribe is a threat and chooses violence. The justification for this violence will take use the values of the culture, whether that be "God", or "liberty", or "democracy", or "racial purity".

The religion is not the cause, just the excuse.

What is your definition of war? If "nation" is part of that definition, then of course war cannot be caused by religion.
But, was the colonization of North and South America a war(s)?
The slave trade in Africa?
Was the Chinese Communist revolution a war?
And so on...

I would posit that your definition above has to do with ideology which is religion by another name...

0 Replies

The basic question I am trying to answer is:

... Does religion cause violence?

It is clear that people professing a religion have commited violence. It is also clear that religious rhetoric has been used to support and justify violence and wars.

But does religion cause violence?

The facts indicate that it doesn't. Religion and Violence are both parts of human nature and thus are often coincident. Religion permeates a culture and religious expressions are used to express all kinds of cultural themes, including war. But, one does not cause the other.

Any examples where religious people commit violence or religious rhetoric is used with violence do not prove a causal link.

If religion caused violence than you would expect that less religious societies would be less violent.

The opposite is the case. The alledly religous conflects that are being given as examples are not unique to religious societies. The same types of conflcts happen in less religious societies. This suggests there is another common cause behind these conflicts.

Some Pograms against Jews were "religiously motivated". But if the religion caused the violence why did Stalin and Hitler, decidedly non-religious dictators rule over the same type of violence.

The Rwandan conflict is very similar to any tribal conflict and reminiscent of the alledgedly "religious" conflicts in europe.

Likewise if religion causes violence, how do you explain the movements based on highly religious values and rhetoric that were non-violent? Ghandi and the Martin Luther King are great examples where religion existed at the foundation of peaceful movements.

All of the conflicts mentioned so far are tribal conflicts. There is nothing to distinguish the "religious" from the "non-religious". In each conflect one "tribe" (or cultural group) commits violent acts against another. The cultural groups at times happen to have different religions, but there is no evidence that the religion is the cause.

The examples of the same types of conflicts that happen without reglious rhetoric or even differences show that religion is not the cause.

Religion and violence are both parts of human nature. Religion has been used for both good and bad, but it is neither more or less than an important part of culture.

0 Replies

More peace and less chaos. Religion has been proven to be a killer.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

[

What is your definition of war? If "nation" is part of that definition, then of course war cannot be caused by religion.
But, was the colonization of North and South America a war(s)?
The slave trade in Africa?
Was the Chinese Communist revolution a war?
And so on...

I would posit that your definition above has to do with ideology which is religion by another name...

I am not sure what you are getting at? Is there a nation that does not have an ideology?

Every nation that went to war has an ideology, but this doesn't say very much since every nation that every existed has an ideology.

0 Replies

If no one beleived in god, would there be kaos or peace?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know