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

My first instinct when answering the original question "if no one believed in god, would there be kaos?" was to say that if there were no belief in gods, we would invent something else to divide us. Religion is one of many things that we use to divide ourselves up.

Our nature, collectively, is to divide ourselves, and it doesn't matter what the "ism" or the idealogy is, we will always create something that divides us.

The big irony is that all of these belief systems simultaneously promise the security of being united behind something bigger than ourselves. Oh, the duality of it all!

Ebrown to answer you question you can look at a few wars:

1) WW2 - concentration camps
2) U.S. vs Iraq, Afghanastan, and maybe iran
3) Israel six day war
4) Israel yom kipur war
5) Palestine intifada

and on and on

[sigh]

clubernj, What is your point?

You all continue to prove that religous people have wars, and that when they do, they use religious rhetoric to justify it.

No one has shown any evidence that religious people are any different in this respect than any other people. War is just a part of human nature that exists regardless of their religion or lack of relgion.

However if you take religion out of the equation people still have wars. In recent history there have been several societies with directed attempts to remove religion. Under Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, religion was specifically outlawed and widely eliminated. However their societies did not appear any more peaceful.

So these lists of wars prove that people, including religious people, have wars. To say that religion is responsible for war, you need to show that societies without religion don't have war.

Stop these inane lists of religious people doing what all people do. Show me the societies that don't have war becauese they don't have religion.

Brown
You keep citing instances where religion and war, massacre and, etc., have not been caused by religion. I think that was agreed upon early on in the discussion. Not all conflict is caused by religion. However, you chose to ignore the fact that in many instances religion is the precursor to these actions. I concede that there will be war and conflict with or without religion. Will you concede that much of the worlds conflicts are religion driven and without the irritant of religion the world would be a safer and more peaceful place.

No.

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests this is the case. As I noted, Pol Pot and Mao and Stalin took your suggestion and got rid of the "irritant of religion". Their countries were not safer or any more peaceful.

There is no evidence that religous people are any more violent than non-religious. Ethnic conflicts happen in religious cultures as well as non-relgious ones. This suggests that religion is not a "driving" cause, but rather gets involved in conflicts as part of the culture, a way to justify and express national interests. If there is no religion, cultures simply choose another part of their culture as a rallying point and the violent part of human nature is fulfilled.

Saying that without religion the world would be safer and more peace is ridiculous.

People kill each other just fine whether they are religious or not.

The fact seems to remain that all peace movements are religiously based. No one has provided a single counter-example. So, on balance, if anything religion has made us a bit more peaceful.

War is just a part of human nature. That religious people have wars simply shows that relgious people are human. They do what everyone else does.

Religion does not make us more warlike.

Brown
Not nice. You took only the part of the statement and question you wished to address and than expanded on it.

Brown,

What do you think about the conservative religious faction that tries to enforce their values on all of us?

i.e. pro life - murdering abortion doctors

There are many political factions in our democracy. All of them are trying to "enforce their values" on us. Whether a political faction is religious or non-religious doesn't appear to make much difference.

The abolition movement (ending slavery) forced their values on the country at large. Their movement included a faction that used murder (i.e. John Brown) that most of them disavowed.

The civil rights movement movement forced their values on us as well. Americans had to accept segregated schools and lunch counters.

The gun control movement, anti-child labor folks etc. etc. etc. All of them worked to "impose" their values on society at large. Thats part of being a democratic societly.

If a political movement is right, I will support them. If they are wrong I wlil oppose them. The religion shouldn't matter at all.

If any movement be it the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, or Pro-Life militants using violence I will disagree with their tactics even if I agree with their basic goals.

Do you oppose political movements simply because they are religious?

I believe in a free country with minimum governement intervention. Most choices should be left to the individuals to decide. The government should only intervene if there is a discriminatory or fraudulent issue occuring.

The problem is that this is a realy broad statement, If I had a better solution I would run for office, but I don't. LOL.