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

cicerone imposter wrote:

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

No it hasn't been proven.

Read my post and if you still want to use the term "proven", then give me a proof.

0 Replies

ebrown, I know it's not necessary for me to repeat religious history - past and current.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ebrown, I know it's not necessary for me to repeat religious history - past and current.

You are right since that wouldn't prove anything.

To prove your thesis that religion "is a killer", you will , you would have to show that in the absence of religion reduced the amount of killing. Simply giving a list of religious people having wars and using the the religious language to justify it doesn't prove anything.

In most cases the religious people do exactly what the non-religious people do. They commit acts of violence and use any convenient part of their culture to justify it. Religious wars have the same traits as non-religious wars. There are the similar conflicts over resources and power between different tribal groups. There is the same violence and brutality against the "other" group whether the rhetoric is racial or ethic or religious.

Violence is caused by something fundamental in human nature, but it is not caused by religion.

I could point out that most wars involve a flag. There is a lot of rhetoric about flags used to justify war.

Would you say that having a flag "is a killer"?

You haven't given anything to support your rather brash statement. But don't feel bad, I don't think it is supportable.

0 Replies

ebrown, It's unsupportable to you, because you have blinders on. It's no use trying to explain how on the basis of religion, people have caused death and mayhem, because you see it as a human trait. Yes, there are regional, tribal, and cultural wars, but that doesn't deny that religion has also played a part in many wars. I guess it's no use trying to explain bin Laden to you. His suicide killers do it in the name of allah. You have a form of myopia that's impossible to correct - in your brain.

0 Replies

I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

0 Replies

Cicerone,

I am not asking how you explain Bin Ladin to me. What I am asking is how you explain Pol Pot? One uses religious rhetoric, one used anti-religious rhetoric. Yet they both justify violence.

If it is religion that causes violence, Pol Pot and his followers would have been peaceful. If religion causes violence, Martin Luther King would have been violent.

I have no blinders. I just look at all the facts. Showing examples of religious men who use violence does not prove that religion causes violence.

That there are examples of violent men who where anti-religious and peaceful men who were religious disproves your thesis.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Hi Kicky, yeh, I see EBrown's point also, but I think it's granularity and adherance to pure theory, misses the reality of the human condition and of history. However, I'm still trying to figure out how to phrase my disagreement to his argument cleanly. I'm thinking that it has something to do with differentiating cultural behavior from religion, but I can't quite boil it down yet.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Kicky, religion is no more an enabler than any other idealogy, including ones you would agree with, such as "democracy".

Any belief can be used as an enabler for war.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Won't there always be a cause? Things that divide us? I think ebrown is correct. If it weren't for religion there would be other incarnations.

Countries expanding

Different forms of government clashing

Soccer

The individuals distort the cause. They'll find a new one if the old one is abolished.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm thinking that it has something to do with differentiating cultural behavior from religion, but I can't quite boil it down yet.

Rosborne,

That is the way to answer my logic. But differentiating culture behavior from religion is a very difficult task indeed. I look forward to it Wink

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Kicky, religion is no more an enabler than any other idealogy, including ones you would agree with, such as "democracy".

Any belief can be used as an enabler for war.

So are you saying that religion *is* a cause for war, it's just no different than any other ideology? This would seem counter to your original contention, that religion is not the underlying cause for any war.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
kickycan wrote:
I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Kicky, religion is no more an enabler than any other idealogy, including ones you would agree with, such as "democracy".

Any belief can be used as an enabler for war.

So are you saying that religion *is* a cause for war, it's just no different than any other ideology? This would seem counter to your original contention, that religion is not the underlying cause for any war.

My main contention is that religion is no differerent than any other ideology. Any ideology (e.g. democracy) can be used to "enable" (kicky's term, but I take this to mean "justify") a war.

Saying that "religion causes war" is simply wrong. It is not justified by the facts.

I am going further than that. I am noting that wars that are "religious", meaning they have religious rhetoric, are no different from wars that are "non-religious". It seems like people will have the same sorts of wars with the same ethnic conflects and struggles for resources whether they are religious or not.

With the exception of a few remarkable religious groups that have eschewed violence like the Quakers, Ghandi and the US civil rights movement, religion doesn't seem to have any effect on the use of violence or brutality.

0 Replies

Both France and Ireland have had wars on the basis of their religious differences. Maybe you haven't yet heard of them. Here's a link on the wars between the Catholics and Protestants in France. http://www.lepg.org/wars.htm

0 Replies

Here's one in Bosnia. http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

0 Replies

And then, there's always http://www.cosmicpatriot.com/dtf/religious_wars.htm

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
kickycan wrote:
I think I see your point ebrown, and religion might not be the root cause, but it is the enabler. Without people who believe in the cause, how could there be wars?

Kicky, religion is no more an enabler than any other idealogy, including ones you would agree with, such as "democracy".

Any belief can be used as an enabler for war.

So are you saying that religion *is* a cause for war, it's just no different than any other ideology? This would seem counter to your original contention, that religion is not the underlying cause for any war.

My main contention is that religion is no differerent than any other ideology. Any ideology (e.g. democracy) can be used to "enable" (kicky's term, but I take this to mean "justify") a war.

Saying that "religion causes war" is simply wrong. It is not justified by the facts.

I am going further than that. I am noting that wars that are "religious", meaning they have religious rhetoric, are no different from wars that are "non-religious". It seems like people will have the same sorts of wars with the same ethnic conflects and struggles for resources whether they are religious or not.

With the exception of a few remarkable religious groups that have eschewed violence like the Quakers, Ghandi and the US civil rights movement, religion doesn't seem to have any effect on the use of violence or brutality.

You seem to be saying that religion does not cause any more violence; death; wars; etc., than any other ideology. If that is your contention, then, of course, you are correct. 100%
As a matter of fact, other "ideologies" cause far more death than the standard "religion."
However, as we passed through the 19th and 20th centuries and "ideologies" or "isms" replaced the old fashioned notion of religion, I suggest that the old separation of religion and ideology is no longer valid.
All religions have undergone a transformation putting their practices and beliefs into the context of twenty first century modernity. And ideologies, certainly the ones you mention (communism and naziism) have taken on the trappings and beliefs of religion.
Therefore, it boils down to "do belief systems" cause violence and death?
And, of course they do.

0 Replies

Cicerone,

You are not listening! And you are not answering my argument.

Simply giving examples of religious people who fight wars doesn't prove your point.

I ask you again How do you explain non-religious people and anti-religious people, for example Pol Pot, who fight the same types of ethnic conflicts. It is clear that religion is not the cause, or non-religious people would be peaceful and there would be no peaceful religious people. (I would ask you to read and respond to my posts of 9:40PM and 9:48 tonight).

By your logic (i.e. mindlessly listing examples that support your point while ignoring those the refute it) there is perhaps a stronger argument to be made that religion causes pacifism

Through history there are several examples of religious movements that have eschewed violence-- even heroically. Martin Luther King, the Quakers, the Menonites and others.

Can you name one example of a peace movement that was not religious.

So there. the thesis "Religion causes peace" is more logically defensible.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

You seem to be saying that religion does not cause any more violence; death; wars; etc., than any other ideology. If that is your contention, then, of course, you are correct. 100%
As a matter of fact, other "ideologies" cause far more death than the standard "religion."
However, as we passed through the 19th and 20th centuries and "ideologies" or "isms" replaced the old fashioned notion of religion, I suggest that the old separation of religion and ideology is no longer valid.
All religions have undergone a transformation putting their practices and beliefs into the context of twenty first century modernity. And ideologies, certainly the ones you mention (communism and naziism) have taken on the trappings and beliefs of religion.
Therefore, it boils down to "do belief systems" cause violence and death?
And, of course they do.

Yes Moishe, you have got it exactly correct.

However, this is not a very satisfying conclusion.

Every nation in the history of the world has had a "belief system". Our nation's belief system include "democracy", "human rights" and "liberty".

Ironically, we used these very ideologies recently to justify a war.

0 Replies

This world also has despots and tyrants - past and present. Yes, they have committed crimes against humanity based on their tyranical control of their people. Many have caused wars in their own country and tribes. If providing proof that religion have been responsible for wars, there is nothing more I can explain that will satisfy you. Non-religious and anti-religious also includes religious causes of wars. If you still believe religion had/has nothing to do with the war in Ireland, show me the beef. Just because religion may preach peace, it doesn't necessarily accomplish it. One does not need to be religious to push for peace. Maybe that's a difficult concept for you.

0 Replies

I am not saying that "religion has nothing to do with the war in Ireland" or anywhere else. I am arguing the thesis that "religion causes war".

Ireland is an ethnic conflect that involves religion. There are ethnic conflicts that are not "religious".

This means that religion is not necessary for an ethnic conflict. If the people in an ethnic conlict are religious it is obvious that their religion will be a part of the conflict. But it is certain that ethnic conflicts exist without religion.

Giving examples of religious people fighting wars does not prove your point.

I will agree that one does not need to be religious to push for peace-- although I have not been able to think of an example of a non-religious peace movement. I would love to know if you can come up with one.

But I have provided examples that prove that
1) "Religious people do not always seek war."
2) "Non-religious people fight wars and even start wars."
3) "Some Religious people eschew war."

So far you have only proven that
1) There are examples where religious people use their religion to justify war.

But I accepted that from the start.

Religious people have wars. Non-religious people have wars. We can spend all night giving examples of each. But, what's your point?

Or maybe you agree with me now...

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with me about since you haven't refuted any of the points I have made. I never said that religion "has nothing to do with" war when religious people are involved.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know