I'm curious about something that keeps popping up on a number of threads. Specifically: How is it that religions start wars? I can understand it in a few cases (such as the Catholics against the Cathars or, stretching it, the Crusades), but in far too many cases there isn't even a shred of religious concern in the war. Even in WWII, the reasons for the war were basically resources (Japan didn't have many to begin with) and revenge (Germany had been pretty much nailed in the Treaty of Versailles). Even though the genocides could have been a major issue, they were pretty much ignored until the end of the war. Even the American Civil War had at its heart a number of reasons other than slavery.
There just simply aren't a huge number of wars that had even the slightest thing to do with religion, and yet religion keeps getting nailed as the major cause of wars. What exactly is the logic on this?
[And I don't want to see anything like, "It's so obvious" because, well, it isn't...]
HM
My opinion: religions don't start wars. People do. And when they do they need a good reason to do it, because they have to motivate people to support their war. A lot of times they revert to religion because of this, although most people can see the real reasons behind the war.
In reality wars are, as you already pointed out, about revenge, resources, power, etc.
People often state that a war is caused by religion, because they don't (want to) understand that the religous 'motive' is a cover up for the real motive.
It's just a convenient reason. Which sounds better, telling them that you are just going to take it because you can, or using a religious reason like "Take thier land and resources because they defy your God!!". To an ignorant person who believes what his religious leader tells him, that's justification enough. In many cases this sense of moral superiority(You can't be right, because I'm right!) is used quite effectively to mask actions whose main motivations would cause political fallout(things fueled by racism, greed, power over others, etc.).
| Quote: |
| My opinion: religions don't start wars. People do. |
Thats like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but guns are what they use to kill people. Its similar with religion, when you take the idea that only those who believe go to heaven, God is good, God is on your side, some bible quotes and the right circumstances, you got not only the justification but a cause (see crusade, and conquistadors). But most often, religion is not the soul cause but a major player in the cause of a war. Just look at the middle east. Most of the problems and wars have a partial basis in religion, all 3 involved (Christianity Judaism and Islam).
I'd post more but its real;y starting to storm out and my house isn't grounded. I'll post more later. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Quote: | | My opinion: religions don't start wars. People do. |
Thats like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but guns are what they use to kill people. Its similar with religion, when you take the idea that only those who believe go to heaven, God is good, God is on your side, some bible quotes and the right circumstances, you got not only the justification but a cause (see crusade, and conquistadors). But most often, religion is not the soul cause but a major player in the cause of a war. Just look at the middle east. Most of the problems and wars have a partial basis in religion, all 3 involved (Christianity Judaism and Islam).
I'd post more but its real;y starting to storm out and my house isn't grounded. I'll post more later. |
You confuse goals, and the means to reach that goals. The guns and religion are the means in this case, the goals to which they are used are killing people and justifying war respectively.
Besides that: let's take knifes. They are used to kill people. I say: "knifes don't kill people , people kill people". Then you respond: "but knifes are what they use to kill people". But knifes are normally used to eat. It's not the knives that are bad, but the people who use them to kill.Most wars use religion as the excuse(and reason) to achieve their goal.
They are to selfish in their beliefs, imagine two kids shouting "You are wrong! ""No, You are Wrong!". they simply think they are right and because they can't win the argument they turn to violence to let out their anger and frustration. Most 'religious' wars were just a clash of interests or a jealous attempt to take something one does not have from the other.
We all know of the 9/11 attacks, 'Holy War' the called it, so god wants us to kill innocent people in his name? or is it our own reason? that our views differ? In my oppinion any religion that sparked a war or violence should immidiately be renamed terrorism. And God has nothing to do with it.
(sorry if i offended anyone, but that is how i feel about the subject, and i wont hange my views unless i was proven wrong)
I would imagine the scenario plays out like this (in a very generalized way), in some previous era...
| Quote: |
Your a peasant. You work the land to keep your family alive.
Your life is miserable from contant self-sustaining work. Back-bent you work until the day of your death.
A rumour springs up among your neighbors.
"I was told that if we're good and pious in this life we'll have eternal bliss with a divine creator when we die, but if we don't, hellfire!"
Up till this point you've known nothing but suffering. What sweet promises pur into your ear, such wonderful ideas!
You go about your toils, maybe a little happier believing such things exist.
Soon a smart and determined leader forms a group within your town, promising salvation for your wrongs. If you attend and follow the given faith, the toils of your earthly being will all lead up to heavenly happiness within the clouds.
You attend this group every day, possible even happier and more determined to work hard in the fields.
Unknown to you, the leader is eyeing the wealth of a neighboring county. What a fine worship building their wealth would bring! But how is he going to get it?
The next day the leader stands before his flock and announces, "The heathens of our neighboring country do not worship the same way we do. They must be brought to believe what we do. Or else, or else they'll burn, and us for not intervening within our power!" |
As you can see from my little story, religion has infused a greater tool unto the hands of an already curropt individual. This leader promises happiness, which is heavier then any sack of gold. For what is gold if you die in battle before you can spend it? What is land to you when your dead? Nothing. He promises something more divine. He makes his soldiers deadlier by giving them a reason to fight, and die...for a freedom of a different sort.
Religion is not evil, and it does not start wars. However, it is the deadliest tool of war. It makes the difference between a an army of mercenaries, and an army of those who individually are willing to die for pure happiness.
Look at the current state of the middle east, how their "soldiers" are willing to blow themselves up for what they believe to be right. They see as a true devils. If the US were to be infused with such a religious vigor, what could stop us? It's a scary thought. Only three problems with that:
1) I'm looking at it throughout the ages. Only recently were the lower classes allowed to fight; you really needed your serfs out in the fields, and even merchants and guildsmen were better applied away from battle. Also, few people actually owned their own land; it was usually in the hands of the local lord.
In other words, it's nifty to say, "Yo, peasants, let's go kick butt in the name of our Lord", but it's just not historically accurate...
2) It's interesting to note that the non-theistic religions are more likely to be responsible for suicide than the theistic ones. Note the Buddhist monks that burned themselves up in protest or the samurai that committed seppuku due to humiliation.
That said, even the Islamic suiciders are doing it more politic reasons than religious ones, if the hope is for heaven.
3) Also, most of the soldiers until recently were mercenaries rather than standing forces. Even when there are standing forces, their more likely to be filled by people that our looking for careers, glory, or economic advantage, and rarely for religious purposes. This isn't to say that soldiers aren't religious or spiritual, just that those concerns aren't part of what motivates them. So the religious component just isn't as powerful as you would think...
HM
I wasn't shooting for historical accuracy in that fable, just an example easilly understood. I don't believe the basic idea is false in theory.
I believe I may of used Religion as a small term. When I speak of religion as the greatest tool of war, I stress the fact of what it offers. It offers a divine profit to which be gained from fighting
/dieing, to participating in the politics of war, or simple resisting a foreign power. Hell, it adds power to many things non-violent. I'll add to your examples, take Gandhi. He had his political reasons for sure, but most action was fueled in the background from his belief structure.
It's also true that many of armies were indeed mercenaries. If I misled you into thinking I believed anything beyond a smal minority had some influence to religion, my bad. I simple stressed the power religion has to a fight, possible more then the other players. The other players are never out of the equation.
I've never been back in time and stood on some ancient frontline, so I can't make any concrete comments on what most of the soldier may of felt. Yes, reason suggests that they probably had many alterior motives. But how do I know what motivates such of a man? I can Philisophize to either side of the argument, where one side is greed and the other side religious ferver. this was never my intention though. I believe its a happy mixture. Greed and power is the handle, shaft, and metal strut of some mighty political sword, and religion is the mere centimeters of finely sharpened edge. No means a huge part of the force, but as you can imagine with any blade, it makes all the difference.
So, it seems false to exlude this player in a "religious" war. Just like it would be false not to believe some form of greed wasn't hiding behind the banners of jihad. The religious component may be small and sometimes disgarded, but it and will always remain a power additive to a horrible scenario.
So....What was the point of the fable? Not trying to be a jerk; it's just that I'm trying to find out why religion is said to start so many wars when it usually has so little to do with them, rather than how it motivates the soldiers in question.
Your "fable" looked at an area that just doesn't apply: The peasants. Even in a religious war, the soldiers usually picked are from the middle class (even most suicide bombers keep with this); they have the least to lose, are the most expendable, and glory is the only thing they have. Peasants (or those considered on the lower rung) are actually too valuable, and not considered acceptable in any case.
Again, I'm trying to find out why religion is considered THE source of wars, not merely a motivator for the troops...
HM
Well, basically religion was used to justify wars fought for other reasons in the last centuries. But with the age of enlightenment the focus on religion faded and now other justifications are needed, like spreading democracy and freedom etc.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
Only three problems with that:
1) I'm looking at it throughout the ages. Only recently were the lower classes allowed to fight; you really needed your serfs out in the fields, and even merchants and guildsmen were better applied away from battle. Also, few people actually owned their own land; it was usually in the hands of the local lord. |
No. The vast majority of any army at any time of history were peasants. It sonly at a few points in history when upper class warriors were prised but even then there were few of them.
| Quote: |
| 2) It's interesting to note that the non-theistic religions are more likely to be responsible for suicide than the theistic ones. Note the Buddhist monks that burned themselves up in protest or the samurai that committed seppuku due to humiliation. |
A+B dose not equal 8.
Seppuku was a cultural not religions based. Theistic or non-theistic, it has no effect of suicide rates. In fact outside of suicide in warfare and cultural roots religious and nonreligious people have the same suicide rates.
3) Also, most of the soldiers until recently were mercenaries rather than standing forces. Even when there are standing forces, their more likely to be filled by people that our looking for careers, glory, or economic advantage, and rarely for religious purposes. This isn't to say that soldiers aren't religious or spiritual, just that those concerns aren't part of what motivates them. So the religious component just isn't as powerful as you would think...[/quote]
Solders don't start wars, leaders do and religion can and dose lead people to joining a military, gorilla group or militia. | The Conspirator wrote: |
No. The vast majority of any army at any time of history were peasants. It sonly at a few points in history when upper class warriors were prised but even then there were few of them. |
Actually, history doesn't really support you on that. Peasants weren't allowed weapons, and definitely weren't given training; the easiest way to prevent revolt is to make sure that those that can revolt don't have the tools to do so.
The lowest class usually used were merchant sons; there were a lot of them, and most unlikely to gain anything through inheritance, and they were able to afford weapons (bear in mind that giving soldiers weapons is, again, a new-fangled fancy).
| Quote: |
| Seppuku was a cultural not religions based. Theistic or non-theistic, it has no effect of suicide rates. In fact outside of suicide in warfare and cultural roots religious and nonreligious people have the same suicide rates. |
Except that the religion had to allow for suicide in the first place. You can't have someone of a culture see suicide as as unwelcome if your religion doesn't allow for it. Also, does that take into account suicides as protest rather than suicides due to emotional distress?
| Quote: |
| Solders don't start wars, leaders do and religion can and dose lead people to joining a military, gorilla group or militia. |
Note: You have religion as a motivating force for the soldiers. Nifty. So what?
How does religion start the war in the first place, rather than keep it its soldiers going?
HMPersonally, here is my take on things.
Certain religions proffer belief as fact. And when people of different religions present a different view (which to them is false and simply not fact) they get extremely defensive and become violent.
[quote="HereticMonkey"] | The Conspirator wrote: |
No. The vast majority of any army at any time of history were peasants. It sonly at a few points in history when upper class warriors were prised but even then there were few of them. |
Actually, history doesn't really support you on that. Peasants weren't allowed weapons, and definitely weren't given training; the easiest way to prevent revolt is to make sure that those that can revolt don't have the tools to do so.
The lowest class usually used were merchant sons; there were a lot of them, and most unlikely to gain anything through inheritance, and they were able to afford weapons (bear in mind that giving soldiers weapons is, again, a new-fangled fancy).[quote]
Your confusing romanticized medieval Europe and Japan with the way wars where actually fought. The wealthy aristocrats are few and even if a knight is well armored he is no match for a dozen peasants. Any army that consists of only aristocrats is going to be wiped out by and army of peasants simply by numbers.
Peasants are the back bone of any army, even though you only hear of knights,, in medieval Europe the bulk of the army where peasants, in feudal japan, anyone could be a samurai, it wasn't until Toyotomi Hideyoshi united japan that that was changed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Seppuku was a cultural not religions based. Theistic or non-theistic, it has no effect of suicide rates. In fact outside of suicide in warfare and cultural roots religious and nonreligious people have the same suicide rates. |
Except that the religion had to allow for suicide in the first place. You can't have someone of a culture see suicide as as unwelcome if your religion doesn't allow for it. Also, does that take into account suicides as protest rather than suicides due to emotional distress? |
Suicide is generally frond upon by morel systems. But suicide in all morel systems has some "justified" reasons. Honer, defeat and suicide missions have been reasons for suicide even in among Christan, Jewish and Muslims.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Solders don't start wars, leaders do and religion can and dose lead people to joining a military, gorilla group or militia. |
Note: You have religion as a motivating force for the soldiers. Nifty. So what?
How does religion start the war in the first place, rather than keep it its soldiers going? |
I've explained that many times. Ritual warfare, fighting to convert people, fighting cause you believe God wonts you too, cause you think God is on your side, fighting n the name of God. Erg....
1) Peasants weren't the backbone by any stretch. Lower classes above peasants, yes, but not the peasants. This isn't to say that armies didn't include them (after all, there was always the possibility that you could capture a noble and hold that noble for ransom), just that peasants didn't make up the majority of the army. Any leader that sends a peasant off is screwing himself in the end: Bear in mind that 97% of the population was required to farm, as the agricultural system just wasn't up to where it would be when the Industrial Revolution hit (cities, for example, required a lot of farming in order to keep the people fed). So any peasants in battle weren't farming, and wold thus hurt the leader who used too often.
Also, you don't want to give your lowest class combat skills, in case they revolted. A combat-hardened peasant, after all, has a lot of time to practice skills you don't want him to, such as the ability to hit a particular helmet with an arrow from long-distance.
2) Keep in mind that there is a big difference between "freeman" and "peasant". The majority of soldiers were freemen, who were responsible for manning the armies. They also tended to make the lowest class in cities, and highest class in the towns (towns usually having just a few buildings back then). Peasants were usually serfs, and therefore usually tied legally to the area that they were born in. But at least they were a step above slave...
3) Suicide isn't always frowned on by moral systems; that's a specifically Western belief. With a reincarnation system in place, suicide just have the sting it does in other systems. Also, a noble suicide isn't frowned on in any religion; even Christians believe that a suicide that saves lives will enable the person to reach Heaven.
Keep in mind that I'm not looking at suicide from traumatic episodes; I'm looking at it as a response to extreme failure or in your cause, both of which were acceptable reasons for suicide, and which happened a lot. Killing yourself as protest was part of both; after all, you had failed to make your point, and embarrassingly so, and it would serve your cause. Not that it happened everyday, but it did happen with some routine.
4) | Quote: |
| Ritual warfare, fighting to convert people, fighting cause you believe God wonts you too, cause you think God is on your side, fighting n the name of God. |
So...why don't these apply to most battles? You're usually fighting in the name of your leader or legal reasons, and it's hard to believe God is on your side when you can see the noble that drafted you. How do you convert someone that's dead or wants revenge on you? God may be on your side; but you know that he's on the other guy's side as well.
And ritual combat...? Outside of temples and colloseums, when did that ever apply to warfare?
HM[/quote] No, peasants were the back bone of army's. What you think is a romanticized version of medieval Europe and Japan. There where no such thing as "freemen". Army's where not aristocrats only, aristocrats where few. Look at the numbers, Roman legions consisted of 3000 to 5000 solder, 200 to 300 cavalry, at the battle of Thermopile the Persians numbed over 20000, at the battle of Salamis the Greeks had over 300 ships (and those ships were man powered, hundreds of men usng giant ores to people the ships), at the battle of Plataea the Greeks had 110,000 solders, the Persians had 300,000 solders.
The peasants where the back bone, there were far more peasants than any other classes (except sometimes slaves)
| Quote: |
| So...why don't these apply to most battles? You're usually fighting in the name of your leader or legal reasons, and it's hard to believe God is on your side when you can see the noble that drafted you. How do you convert someone that's dead or wants revenge on you? God may be on your side; but you know that he's on the other guy's side as well. |
The question was "How does religion start the war in the first place, rather than keep it its soldiers going?".
| Quote: |
| And ritual combat...? Outside of temples and colloseums, when did that ever apply to warfare? |
Retiel war not combat. Its usely religus baced. The aztecs fought rituel warfair (flower war) | The Conspirator wrote: |
| No, peasants were the back bone of army's. What you think is a romanticized version of medieval Europe and Japan. There where no such thing as "freemen". |
Then why are so many medieval legal codes based on the difference?
As a side note: It takes a romanticized view to see peasants in the army, as it was a route to riches and advancement, something most peasants weren't allowed by virtue of their class.
| Quote: |
| Army's where not aristocrats only, aristocrats where few. |
Not disagreeing by any means on this count. Just trying to point that the true peasants weren't used in wars. In fact, Japan had very strict rules about peasants and weapons; any weapon caught with a weapon was killed on the spot. And you have entire armies of peasants with weapons?
| Quote: |
| The peasants where the back bone, there were far more peasants than any other classes (except sometimes slaves) |
Again, non-ish. Just debating how many peasants were in the actual armies. I'm not saying that peasants weren't in armies; just that they didn't make up as much of the army as you think they did...
| Quote: |
| The question was "How does religion start the war in the first place, rather than keep it its soldiers going?". |
The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going...
| Quote: |
| Retiel war not combat. Its usely religus baced. The aztecs fought rituel warfair (flower war) |
Point made. Did anyone else?In a way you are both partially correct. Peasants were levied into military service, also mercenary forces were used. In times of peace a large standing army was impractical and expensive to maintain. In times of war peasants could be levied and sent to battle with little more then the clothes on their back and a spear (basic infantry weapon) or pike (anti-cavalry weapon, both relatively cheap weapons that were basicly a dagger on a wooden pole).
I know some folks like to debate, but debate is more then just the constant reiteration of personal opinion. Sources of knowledge can also be introduced to prove a point, and I will do so. Behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Recruiting_or_drafting_soldiers
And if you don't feel like checking the link a quote:
| Quote: |
Recruiting or drafting soldiers
In the early Middle Ages it was the obligation of every noble to respond to the call to battle with his own equipment and archer, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time, but led to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities.
As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. England was one of the most centralized states in the Middle Ages, and the armies that fought the Hundred Years' War were mostly paid professionals. In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent. Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army.
As the Middle Ages progressed, the wealthier parts of Europe, especially Italy, began to rely mostly on mercenaries to do their fighting. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers as long as their morale held out, but they would often break and flee as soon as they determined themselves to be losing. This made them considerably less reliable than a standing army. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare also led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on maneuver as on battles.
The knights were drawn to battle by feudal and social obligation, and also by the prospect of profit and advancement. Those who performed well were likely to increase their landholdings and advance in the social hierarchy. The prospect of significant income from pillage and ransoming prisoners was also important. For the mounted knight Medieval Warfare was a relatively low risk affair. Nobles avoided killing each other for several reasons—for one thing, many were related to each other, had fought along side one another, and they were all (more or less) members of the same elite culture; for another, a noble's ransom could be very high, and indeed some made a living by capturing and ransoming nobles in battle. Even peasants, who did not share the bonds of kinship and culture, would often avoid killing a nobleman, valuing the high ransom that a live capture could bring, as well as the valuable horse, armor and equipment that came with him. |
Now that the hijacking side issue is dealt with, back to the original issue of religion starting war.
Religions do not start wars (ask any worshiper of war-like Gods such as Thor or Ares or even the Morrigan). There is always an underlying reason other then religion to start wars. The Crusades? An exercise in conquest comparable to Hitler's "Lebensraum" was conducted primarily by Nobels who were not heirs at home.
When I was young there was a lot of coverage of "The Troubles" in Ireland, and the sides were generally described as "Catholic" and "Protestant". In spite of that "The Troubles" was not a religious war. It was a label used by the media. War is 99.9% always about greed (attacker) or survival (defender). Take for example the current U.S. involvement in Iraq. First the reasons given were WMD's (a preemptive strike to insure survival). When no WMD's were found it became benevolence (freedom for the Iraqi people). I suspect the real reason is that the world is reaching the point of peak oil production http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ and Iraq has oil. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | No, peasants were the back bone of army's. What you think is a romanticized version of medieval Europe and Japan. There where no such thing as "freemen". |
Then why are so many medieval legal codes based on the difference? |
Again a romanticized idea of develop and Japan.
[quopt]As a side note: It takes a romanticized view to see peasants in the army, as it was a route to riches and advancement, something most peasants weren't allowed by virtue of their class.[/quote]
No, with out peasants there would not be an army, there would not be enough people to make an army.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Army's where not aristocrats only, aristocrats where few. |
Not disagreeing by any means on this count. Just trying to point that the true peasants weren't used in wars. In fact, Japan had very strict rules about peasants and weapons; any weapon caught with a weapon was killed on the spot. And you have entire armies of peasants with weapons? |
With out peasants there would not be an army, there would not be enough people to make an army.
Peasants far outnumbered any other class (except sometimes slaves). No nation had enough upper class people to make an army and city states had far too few.
And the class system of Japan only formed after the unifacation of Japan, before that any one could be a samuri and a peasant was just as likelt to become powerfull leader as a nobleman
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The peasants where the back bone, there were far more peasants than any other classes (except sometimes slaves) |
Again, non-ish. Just debating how many peasants were in the actual armies. I'm not saying that peasants weren't in armies; just that they didn't make up as much of the army as you think they did... |
They made up the bulk of the army. With out them there could be no army.
You looking at a romanticised idea of the middle ages but what your forgetting is the middleages where not the romanticised idle and was only a small part of history. Large ancient empires would have hundreds of thousands to millions of solders. City states like any others city has only a few thousand to tens of thousands of people and many people had no real class system, nomadic peoples had no real class systems and village based based systems (like that of Gaul (France) ancient Britten, the Viking's) also has no real class system.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The question was "How does religion start the war in the first place, rather than keep it its soldiers going?". |
The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going... |
I did, the idea that God is on your side, the fighting cause you thinks God wonts it, for God, to convert people. These start wars.
| Quote: |
| Retiel war not combat. Its usely religus baced. The aztecs fought rituel warfair (flower war) |
Point made. Did anyone else?[/quote]
Yes but its a rarity. | The Conspirator wrote: |
No, with out peasants there would not be an army, there would not be enough people to make an army. |
It's a yes/no sitch. As per Tex Arcana's post, peasants weren't part of the standing army, but could be sent to war. I'm just trying to make the point that peasants weren't receiving the proper training that an actual soldier did, nor did they receive the same equipment a normal soldier did.
| Quote: |
Peasants far outnumbered any other class (except sometimes slaves). No nation had enough upper class people to make an army and city states had far too few.
And the class system of Japan only formed after the unifacation of Japan, before that any one could be a samuri and a peasant was just as likelt to become powerfull leader as a nobleman |
Actually, the ability to become samurai remained even after the unification, it was just harder. However, there is still a big difference between a trained warrior with the proper equipment and weapons, and a peasant with a piece of metal...
| Quote: |
| You looking at a romanticised idea of the middle ages but what your forgetting is the middleages where not the romanticised idle and was only a small part of history. Large ancient empires would have hundreds of thousands to millions of solders. City states like any others city has only a few thousand to tens of thousands of people and many people had no real class system, nomadic peoples had no real class systems and village based based systems (like that of Gaul (France) ancient Britten, the Viking's) also has no real class system. |
Actually, wrong across the board. Even the Vikings had a noble>freeman>thrall>slave system. With villages, replace thrall with serf, and with city states add in the middle class (smiths and merchants). The caste system may not have been as formalized as in Hinduism, but it did exist nonetheless.
And, um, keep in mind that I'm looking at more than just the Middle Ages, where an equivalent to upper class (nobles/leaders) > middle class (merchants/smiths) > lower class (farmers/servants) > slaves (when around) has pretty much always applied.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going... |
I did, the idea that God is on your side, the fighting cause you thinks God wonts it, for God, to convert people. These start wars. |
Being more specific then: Why is it that, when there are usually other reasons, religion gets the blame for starting the war? I mean, few wars have been started strictly because of the difference in religion; they're usually fought for resources, territory, and sometimes even just to get rid of extra population...
HMO, you men of the Earth! Hark! For war is but the game of kings.
When was the opinion of the fool in the fields considered.
When did men of high esteem fight for faith and
when did kings worry about the love of the queens?
-------
Forget the Holocaust. Can u count the number of people killed after the Holocaust because of the political decisions that were taken in the name of the religion and in the name of the Holocaust? Most of the time, the guys who died had nothing to do with the Holocaust and nothing to do with the political decisions that were taken.
god has his own ways of controlling the population, I believe. 'Faith is the dust that satan cast to blind the eyes of men'. (Modified Pearl S Buck)
| Quote: |
[quote="HereticMonkey"] | The Conspirator wrote: |
No, with out peasants there would not be an army, there would not be enough people to make an army. |
It's a yes/no sitch. As per Tex Arcana's post, peasants weren't part of the standing army, but could be sent to war. I'm just trying to make the point that peasants weren't receiving the proper training that an actual soldier did, nor did they receive the same equipment a normal soldier did. |
You are completely (with a few exceptions (Sparta, Rome) there except for large empires. Large empires has to have a large standing army and the only way to get such a large standing army was to get the peasants in it. But for the most part they were recruited during or shortly before the war started.
[quote] | Quote: |
Peasants far outnumbered any other class (except sometimes slaves). No nation had enough upper class people to make an army and city states had far too few.
And the class system of Japan only formed after the unifacation of Japan, before that any one could be a samuri and a peasant was just as likelt to become powerfull leader as a nobleman |
Actually, the ability to become samurai remained even after the unification, it was just harder. However, there is still a big difference between a trained warrior with the proper equipment and weapons, and a peasant with a piece of metal...
| Quote: |
| And, um, keep in mind that I'm looking at more than just the Middle Ages, where an equivalent to upper class (nobles/leaders) > middle class (merchants/smiths) > lower class (farmers/servants) > slaves (when around) has pretty much always applied. |
Peasant class consists of or merchants/smiths, farmers and servants (in exception to like a nobleman serving a higher nobleman).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going... |
I did, the idea that God is on your side, the fighting cause you thinks God wonts it, for God, to convert people. These start wars. |
Being more specific then: Why is it that, when there are usually other reasons, religion gets the blame for starting the war? I mean, few wars have been started strictly because of the difference in religion; they're usually fought for resources, territory, and sometimes even just to get rid of extra population... |
Cause religion has so much to do with some wars. | The Conspirator wrote: |
You are completely (with a few exceptions (Sparta, Rome) there except for large empires. Large empires has to have a large standing army and the only way to get such a large standing army was to get the peasants in it. But for the most part they were recruited during or shortly before the war started. |
a) Which wouldn't make it a standing army, now would it? As in: Doesn't a standing army need to exist during peace as well?
b) Large empires usually fielded standing armies, as they were trained and ready to go, and were usually involved in a war on some level (either attacking or defending).
| Quote: |
| Peasant class consists of or merchants/smiths, farmers and servants (in exception to like a nobleman serving a higher nobleman). |
Nope. Merchants and smiths were part of the middle class; they either had skills that required training (smiths) or money (merchants), and thus weren't usually part of the harvest. Farmers and servants were usually of the lower class, and were thus what most people think of when they think "peasant". At any rate, the smiths and merchants weren't usually conscripted, as either their skills or money exempted them from battle (they were still used for military purposes, just not fighting).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going... |
Cause religion has so much to do with some wars. |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird...
HM | Quote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: |
You are completely (with a few exceptions (Sparta, Rome) there except for large empires. Large empires has to have a large standing army and the only way to get such a large standing army was to get the peasants in it. But for the most part they were recruited during or shortly before the war started. |
a) Which wouldn't make it a standing army, now would it? As in: Doesn't a standing army need to exist during peace as well?
b) Large empires usually fielded standing armies, as they were trained and ready to go, and were usually involved in a war on some level (either attacking or defending). |
In exception some ancient Greece city states, Rome and a few others army's where basically "are you loyal, strong and can fight" Your in", the type of training you see in modern millinery's and Rome (even in large empires) was rair.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Peasant class consists of or merchants/smiths, farmers and servants (in exception to like a nobleman serving a higher nobleman). |
Nope. Merchants and smiths were part of the middle class; they either had skills that required training (smiths) or money (merchants), and thus weren't usually part of the harvest. Farmers and servants were usually of the lower class, and were thus what most people think of when they think "peasant". At any rate, the smiths and merchants weren't usually conscripted, as either their skills or money exempted them from battle (they were still used for military purposes, just not fighting). |
Your confusing class distinctions, through most of history there was 3 sometimes 4 classes, aristocrats or noblemen, peasants, slaves and sometimes you would have a citizen class. A peasant could be lower or middle class, sometimes upper class (but they would end up aristocrats or noblemen) and aristocrat could be upper or lower class
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The problem is that you haven't shown how religion starts war, only how it keeps it going... |
Cause religion has so much to do with some wars. |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird... |
No one said that! Don't put words in people mouths. | The Conspirator wrote: |
In exception some ancient Greece city states, Rome and a few others army's where basically "are you loyal, strong and can fight" Your in", the type of training you see in modern millinery's and Rome (even in large empires) was rair. |
E
Bear in mind: You're trying to show that anyone could be part of the army (so that religion can be seen as a major motivator). I'm trying to acknowledge that, while at the same time pointing out that there is a big difference between the conscripts and the actual standing army (which eliminates religion as a motivator).
The difference between the two is that my model is the more historically accurate. That is, most countries throughout history have had a standing army composed of trained soldiers, and the peasantry was usually left alone unless there was a great need (note that I'm not saying that they weren't conscripted nor that peasants didn't become soldiers, just that it was something that was debated due to the ramifications).
| Quote: |
Your confusing class distinctions, through most of history there was 3 sometimes 4 classes, aristocrats or noblemen, peasants, slaves and sometimes you would have a citizen class. A peasant could be lower or middle class, sometimes upper class (but they would end up aristocrats or noblemen) and aristocrat could be upper or lower class |
Dude: A peasant not in the lower class? What exactly is your definition of "peasant"? I'm using this definition for peasant; what definition are you using?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird... |
No one said that! Don't put words in people mouths. |
Here's the problem in a nutshell: I keep hearing from various anti-Christian posters that religion is responsible for EVERY war (or at least the majority). Thus this thread.
As in: I acknowledge that some wars did have a religious base, and that religion can be used to motivate troops (even though I sincerely doubt that the soldiers didn't have a clue about the fight, and that other motivations definitely were in play). Yet, I have a major problem seeing religion as the major motivator for war itself.
Does that make why I "misinterpreted" your statement a bit clearer?
HM | Quote: |
[quote="HereticMonkey"] | The Conspirator wrote: |
In exception some ancient Greece city states, Rome and a few others army's where basically "are you loyal, strong and can fight" Your in", the type of training you see in modern millinery's and Rome (even in large empires) was rair. |
E
Bear in mind: You're trying to show that anyone could be part of the army (so that religion can be seen as a major motivator). I'm trying to acknowledge that, while at the same time pointing out that there is a big difference between the conscripts and the actual standing army (which eliminates religion as a motivator).
The difference between the two is that my model is the more historically accurate. That is, most countries throughout history have had a standing army composed of trained soldiers, and the peasantry was usually left alone unless there was a great need (note that I'm not saying that they weren't conscripted nor that peasants didn't become soldiers, just that it was something that was debated due to the ramifications). |
1. Go back and read the posts, this conversation is.
2. Peasants vastly out numbered any other people, in a time of war, they where needed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Your confusing class distinctions, through most of history there was 3 sometimes 4 classes, aristocrats or noblemen, peasants, slaves and sometimes you would have a citizen class. A peasant could be lower or middle class, sometimes upper class (but they would end up aristocrats or noblemen) and aristocrat could be upper or lower class |
Dude: A peasant not in the lower class? What exactly is your definition of "peasant"? I'm using this definition for peasant; what definition are you using? |
| Wikipedea wrote: |
| A peasant, derived from 15th century French païsant meaning one from the pays, the countryside or region, which itself derives from the Latin pagus, country district, is an agricultural worker with roots in the countryside in which he or she dwells, either working for others or, more specifically, owning or renting and working by his or her own labour a small plot of ground. They are also referred to in England as a "cottager". The term peasant today is a pejorative term for impoverished farmers. |
In other words, country people, towns people, village people, usually they worked for a lord who owned the land. Essentially a working class.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird... |
No one said that! Don't put words in people mouths. |
Here's the problem in a nutshell: I keep hearing from various anti-Christian posters that religion is responsible for EVERY war (or at least the majority). Thus this thread. |
No one, even and anti Christan bigot would not say that. | The Conspirator wrote: |
In other words, country people, towns people, village people, usually they worked for a lord who owned the land. Essentially a working class. |
a) More accurately, farmers and unskilled laborers. Few people in the medieval era would consider a blacksmith or scribe peasants (outside of insults).
b) How did you get these people in the higher castes?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird... |
No one said that! Don't put words in people mouths. |
Here's the problem in a nutshell: I keep hearing from various anti-Christian posters that religion is responsible for EVERY war (or at least the majority). Thus this thread. |
No one, even and anti Christan bigot would not say that. |
Except that a lot of anti-Christian bigots ARE saying it...
HM | Quote: |
| a) More accurately, farmers and unskilled laborers. Few people in the medieval era would consider a blacksmith or scribe peasants (outside of insults). |
1. Unskilled laborers in the past died or learned a skill.
2. Where do you think the peasants got there metal tools from? Some guy from a city goes 50 miles to a village of 50 people to sell metal farming tools? No, there where smiths in the villages, markets in the villages. People back then did make allot of things them selves but there where always things that requires certain skill and time and there where many people who had those specific skills and there job was using those skills. This applied to villages towns and city.
| Quote: |
| b) How did you get these people in the higher castes? |
Within classes there are always more classes, a person may be a peasant but some peasants had higher status than others and some aristocrats had lower status than others. Given the right circumstances and if he's smart enough a high rinking peasant could become a low ranking aristocrat. Your thinking of peasant the terms of medieval Europe with a strict cast system, it wasn't always like that, it wasn't mostly like that.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: |
So because it has to do with "some" wars, it's responsible for ALL wars? Weird... |
No one said that! Don't put words in people mouths. |
Here's the problem in a nutshell: I keep hearing from various anti-Christian posters that religion is responsible for EVERY war (or at least the majority). Thus this thread. |
No one, even and anti Christan bigot would not say that. |
Except that a lot of anti-Christian bigots ARE saying it...
HM |
No, no one thinks world war 1 was caused by Christianity, no one thinks the civil war was caused by Christianity, no one things Vietnam war was caused by Christianity. And there all the wars that happened before Christianity and in places where there was no Christens or very few.There are a lot of valid points in this thread. But lets not for get one very important one...Religion is a man-made thing. Faith, or one's personal belief in a higher power, is a personal thing. Religion was invented by those in power as a method of controlling the masses and getting rich.
By luring the weak-minded individual into a weekly ritual of self-abasement, and paying a tithe to the church, the rulers can mold the masses into what they want them to become...drones, and get rich in the process.
When one country/state/region wants to expand their wealth (resources, land, etc.) then religion makes a convenient scapegoat, as pointed out previously. It is easier to say, "Those heathens must be taught proper religion and faith" than to say, "Hey, we're good christians/muslims/buddhists, lets go kill the neighbours and steal their land and resources".
Religions don't start wars, greed starts wars. It just turns out that most, if not all, religions are run by greedy power mongers.
Cheers.
Remember kids: Bigotry is fine as long as the target is a big group...
tileguy: How would you feel if someone pointed out that your belief system is composed of nothing but weak-minded sheep? After all, there isn't one statement in your post that isn't a cliche; interestingly, it even says in The Bible all religions are man-made! Dude: You've said nothing that religious leaders haven't been saying for millennia (including that anyone who doesn't question things or speak up deserve what they get!). People get too focused on the miracles, and forget that there are other things going on in The Bible...Has anyone actually read Proverbs, for example?
On the other hand, pointing out that charity=evil is an interesting new take. Goshdarnit, the handicapped, diseased and orphaned obviously deserve what happened to them, and they're all rich anyway, so keep your money to yourself! Let's ignore that almost all that tithing money (once administrative costs are paid) goes to a myriad of programs that help the poor. Catholic churches are sought out by homeless because they usually have some sort of feeding program. But the church is only EVIL![/rant]
Sorry...Where were we? Oh yeah...See that's what I'm saying: Wars are fought for other reasons, and because religion shows up in the inspiration speech, so religion gets the blame. It's also why nationalism is a problem, even when it's inside of a country or even a civil war...
HM
In reality, religion doesn't really start wars. Wars are for greedy pursuits - land, money, power, etc. Religion is just used as "justification" for the war, and many people incorrectly assume that religion is the cause
| Soulfire wrote: |
| In reality, religion doesn't really start wars. Wars are for greedy pursuits - land, money, power, etc. Religion is just used as "justification" for the war, and many people incorrectly assume that religion is the cause |
I vote for soulfire. They need an excuse for a war. Religion sometimes becomes one. Supremacy and ego are the core reasons for a war. Every time a war is raged an excuse is invented. Like our WMD in Iraq or the drugs in Columbia or whatever reasons one might need. Sometimes religion! not necessarily always. | rshanthakumar wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | | In reality, religion doesn't really start wars. Wars are for greedy pursuits - land, money, power, etc. Religion is just used as "justification" for the war, and many people incorrectly assume that religion is the cause |
I vote for soulfire. They need an excuse for a war. Religion sometimes becomes one. Supremacy and ego are the core reasons for a war. Every time a war is raged an excuse is invented. Like our WMD in Iraq or the drugs in Columbia or whatever reasons one might need. Sometimes religion! not necessarily always. |
i think you're both right, but the idea needs fine tuning.
Religon can be the cause of wars. But all throughout history it has only happened a very minute number of times, and it's growing increasingly rare. While religion has certainly inspired more than it's fair share of violence throughout the ages, organized warfare is not common - pogroms and various other atrocities against religious minorities is the trend, not outright warfare between two reasonably large bodies.
However, once war has been instigated by non-religious means - greed, power, the usual suspects - religion does become a strong rallying factor for the common soldiers to use.
Or to put it another way, the various crusades were mostly motivated by non-religious reasons... but the average soldier doing the fighting was certainly fighting for religion. The various god-emperors and god-kings throughout history may not have been fighting out of any inherent religious belief, but their followers definitely were. In fact, throughout history, the vast majority of soldiers were motivated, not by the political agendas that those in power were motivated by in starting the war, but by the religious ferver roused in them by those in power in order to encourage them to fight.
So while it's true that religion does not usually cause wars, it is also true that were there no religion, there would have been a lot fewer wars.
(Incidently, the trend continues today. Although most modern leaders do not explicitly use a literal religion to motivate their soldier, they do create pseudo-religious fervour by stimulating the same types of ideas. Most people don't fight for gods anymore, but they do fight for ideas that have been "deified"; ideas that have been elevated to the point of being like gods, in that they represent pure ideals that cannot be questioned... and anyone who does not subscribe to those ideals is "evil". Things like "the state", "capitalism", "communism", "freedom", "racial purity"... all of these have been used as makeshift gods in the 20th century to achieve the same effects as the old gods did on soldiers for thousands and thousands of years.)Given that nationalism or belief in any group has been used as a rallying call, I'd seriously debate that. if there was no religion, there would be fewer wars.
The jerk in me would point out that war serves a vital purpose to a species that has no real hunter and thus acts as a population limit; in that regard, war would happen any time that the population needed seriously culling.
So, again; I'm just not seeing religion being important...even as a rallying cause.
HM
The way I see it is that at the heart of any organised religion is the core believe that true believers are superior to anyone who believes anything else. Hence the 'im going to heaven youre going to hell' type of mindset. Im sure many religious people would argue otherwise but im sure if they really analysed their believes they would find this is the case. Whats the point of believing in something so dedicatedly if youre not going to have some sort of ego boost.
And once one has a true belief that they are superior then they will treat others as lesser beings, which manifests itself in many ways, from merely thinking it to themselves to actually oppressing non-believers. This then can evolve to the point where people feel they are 'better' believers if they are converting non-believers (eg johovas witness). And of course an extension of this is killing non-believers if they wont believe your ideals (current muslim extremism), hence religion based wars.
As a side point, this is also an extension of the rather absurd religious attitude that the world was created to be consumed and we shouldnt worry about the environment as we will move onto a better place when we die.
http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTradio_58_060207.mp3
This has an interesting interview with Hector Avalos, he wrote a book (Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence) about the origins of religions violence.
Theists, pleas listen to the interview before commenting. trousersalive:
1) Most religions teach respect of Nature, not to consume it. You'll find that the attitude of "use things up NOW!" is in the minority rather than the majority.
2) The "superior attitude" issue applies to any group, regardless of religious affiliation (note the PC crowd currently). And, yes, it does lead to violence. But only rarely has it led to killing (especially when it's considered in light of history).
Conspirator: Er...no. Just...no.
HM
And just to clarify why: So, even though there is no factual evidence that religion has much to do with war, one person's statement of opinion is supposed to change that?
HM
1. There is plenty of evidence that religion starts wars, not many, not most but yes it dose (see crusades).
2. I said it was interesting.
3. Listen too it before you comment it has some good points.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
trousersalive:
1) Most religions teach respect of Nature, not to consume it. You'll find that the attitude of "use things up NOW!" is in the minority rather than the majority.
|
While respect for nature is becoming more common amongst religious moderates it does not exist amongst the extremist factions such as american evangelicals that take the word of bible literally where god planned all of creation explicitly for mans benefit and rule. And in fact the 19th/early 20th century western attitude of consume everything was very much based very much in Judeo-christian tradition.
2) The "superior attitude" issue applies to any group, regardless of religious affiliation (note the PC crowd currently). And, yes, it does lead to violence. But only rarely has it led to killing (especially when it's considered in light of history).
[/quote]
When it does lead to killing it is generally pretty extreme. ie Spanish inquisition/Israel Palestine/Hindu vs Muslim during seperation.
And i havnt seen to many buddhists out there oppressing people for not agreeing with them. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| 1. There is plenty of evidence that religion starts wars, not many, not most but yes it dose (see crusades). |
All I've seen is the unsupported statement that religion starts war; would you mind showing some actual facts...
(Oh, and I have more interesting things than to listen to someone for an hour hoping that he says something interesting...)
Buddhists and Oppression: Interesting issue, there: The general rule seems to be that you're Buddhist as long as you don't do anything wrong. The second you start doing bad things, you're no longer a Buddhist. Only if you're a European doing bad things does your religion seem to count...
Christians/Supporting Nature: Too many Christians take the "man having dominion over nature" to imply that you need to steward the land, not waste it. American Evangelists are of this opinion especially, as most of them came from farms where you needed to be self-sustaining or perish (in other words, you lived with nature, and usually didn't destroy it).
Also, the 19th and 20th century logic were two different animals. In the 19th there was a lack of conservation because it was believed that there was no limit to what Nature would provide (the number of rushes and "surprise mineral finds" supported that belief). In the first half of the 20th, it wasn't an issue because of the World Wars. Conservation didn't really become important until it was realized that territory was no longer an acceptable reason to go to war, and that you would need to deal with the territory you had.
Know your history, know your people...
Again, yes; there are some extreme groups that believe that the Earth should be used up. But, they're the minority, and usually seen as idiots. If nothing else, leaving something for the generations to follow is important...
HMReligion was and continues to be something like an identifier. You are my man and the rest are not. (Pagan, hee!). If you are my man you join me in my fight and let us get rich quicker. Most of the Kings and rulers in the early days were mostly exalted robbers and looters. If you are my man, then you take the protection from me and also join me in my looting.
Violence was the way of life for many who did not have land to till and laziness eating up their will. When they had the need for food or money, go rob the guys who have it. Come back and enjoy. Religion was badly needed for these people to get streamlined and live a reasonable life. In the clans of Arabia and west asia, this was pretty rampant. And that was the reason why most of the religions took their birth there; to put the erring people in the right path.
Instead of picking up the common thread in their teachings, they themselves have become the rallying point for more massacres and killings. The need for land by a group of people has lead to the creation of a country that meant large violence and an escalated one at that endangering the very existence of the species.
Religion is only for peace. All religions teach in one way or the other the peaceful coexistence of people. They might say the non believers will go to hell. But they certainly do not say, you go now and put them in hell!
Mohammed and Jesus are not common men. Their words are not to be taken directly. There is more to every word that is uttered. It requires extreme application of ones mind to get the right meaning that was implied by them, though they lived thousands of years hence.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | 1. There is plenty of evidence that religion starts wars, not many, not most but yes it dose (see crusades). |
All I've seen is the unsupported statement that religion starts war; would you mind showing some actual facts...
(Oh, and I have more interesting things than to listen to someone for an hour hoping that he says something interesting...) |
First, my statements are substantiated, go to the first page and read what I said.
Second, your going to criticise it with out listening to it? (How Christan) don't comment unless you have listened to it, if you don't listen to it, simply don't reply.Conspirator:
1) All of your "facts" were disproven merely by looking at the causes of those wars and determining that either a) there were other factors involved, or b) you could eliminate religion totally from the situation and the war would have been fought.
In a way, that makes The Crusades a bad example. You had too many young lords that wanted to fight, and peasants that were ready to revolt; something needed to be done in order to deal with all of that testosterone, but you couldn't send them against other countries in Europe because of various treaties, and it would have been a random element. When someone sent his armies off to Jerusalem, a lot of other rulers thought it was a great idea, and they managed to get sponsorship by the Pope.
2) I'm not listening because I just don't have the patience to listen to Imagine, hoping that there is someone going to talk on the other side. How atheist of you to send me to a site that plays Beatles' songs...
rshanthakumar:
I don't subscribe to the theory that being in charge makes you a dishonest man. A lot of rulers were more likely to hereditary than having taken their position. You're also applying modern thought to ancient happenings; at the time, manufactured goods were rare and hard to come by, stealing them wasn't just easier, it was sometimes the only way. In some cases, you needed to get more resources while at the same time doing something about the population.
As groups got bigger, they needed some way to moderate the situation, and religion worked. You had too many people that wanted to live peaceful lives, and religion provided a foundation that made it happen, as well as providing a neutral party for when disputes got too big too handle. Suffice to say, that religion sometimes got used as part of the rallying cry (it's interesting how so many speeches without religion in them don't come up in atheist-based searches, but "God and Country" does...doesn't anyone read Pericles anymore?).
It's ultimately like pointing out that the American Civil War was caused by slavery. It's easy to say, and you don't think too hard about it, but you can take slavery out of the equation, and the Civil War would still have been inevitable...
HM
HereticMonkey: all my points remain valid, nothing anyone has said lessened them and the crusades are a very good example, why would some one leave there home where they have enemy, enemy's they know and can predict to go on a dangerous journey through foreign lands to some far away place to fight an enemy they know nothing about?
How do you not understand the concept that if you haven't listened to it, don't comment on it let alone criticize it. You have no idea what he says yet you comment on it? Its simple, if you did not listen too it, do not reply! I understand that you beliefs are based on this irrational and illogical idea of faith and if your afraid that if you do listen to it or anything critical of religion it will make you question your faith but that doesn't mean to judge it before you listen too it or comment or criticise it.
If you reply and have not listened too it, I will show you how easy it is not to reply by not replying.
As opposed to your irrational and illogical atheism?
You have given no proof besides your own comments; you can't lessen non-existent proof. Do you have an outside source to actually back your claim up, or is it merely that someone fighting has to be religious in order for the war to be considered religious? If so, then your point is invalid from the beginning.
Also, the person's recording requires working speakers in order to listen to; I was able to listen to part of it before my speakers were pulled out (damn cats!) and haven't gotten them working since. Is there a transcript somewhere?
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| As opposed to your irrational and illogical atheism? |
| me in another topic wrote: |
There is no evidence for the existence of god(s). But hypothetically if a god(s) exist, based on currently available evidence such a god(s) would not be any god in any modern religion, it would be a deistic god(s) that make the universe in such a way that every thing happens naturally or hide its existence by planting evidence that every thing happens naturally. Such a god(s) can not be proven or disproven scientifically but logic still apples. Logically, if a creature with the power to create and possibly even shape a universe create a universe but not interfere in it? And why would it create the universe? It could be a scientists, perhaps it created our universe to better understand the formation of its universe. But would that be a god? No, it would have the technology and the right laws of physics to create our universe. Perhaps where and accident and it doesn't care about us. But that doesn't mean its a god, it just mean it has the ability (weather that be technological or some something related to the physics of its universe. Then theres the idea that god isn't even sentient but thats not a god ether.
Any way you think about it, deism doesn't work. In most the god isn't even a god as god is defined (in exception to defining a god as a creator of the universe).
Empirically, the only possible god(s) is a deistic one and logically, deism dose not work. Thus (in my opinion) there is no god or gods. |
| Quote: |
| You have given no proof besides your own comments; you can't lessen non-existent proof. Do you have an outside source to actually back your claim up, or is it merely that someone fighting has to be religious in order for the war to be considered religious? If so, then your point is invalid from the beginning. |
What I have given is the proof.
[/quote]Also, the person's recording requires working speakers in order to listen to; I was able to listen to part of it before my speakers were pulled out (damn cats!) and haven't gotten them working since. Is there a transcript somewhere?
HM[/quote]
There isn't a transcript that I could find.
The basics of it is war comes out of need (such as land or water or so on) (which I disagree with, there are many examples of wars that don't have a real reason (land water and so on), for instance few empires have spread cause of as need) religion add more needs for instance a holy land, there only so much of it thus wars are fought over it, you believe only people in your religion will survive death thus you have to go out and save souls. Basically it add more needs.
Of course this will apply to more than religion, for instance political ideology ("capitalism (of communism or fascism of what ever) is the best way and must be spread across the world.1) The argument against theism is rather weak. It appears to be based on the idea that God would create something and then limit His interference, either partially or totally, and that that's illogical. Unfortunately, given the number of times even mortal scientists do so, I don't see an issue in that regard...
2) Wars are based off politics (usually) and the need to do something with the surplus population. Occasionally, limited resources enter into it (WWII was more about Germany and Japan (especially Japan) needing resources (Japan needed America's metal)), but most wars are basically of the need of one nation to deal with another nation's threat, treaties coming into effect (as per WWI), or just finding a way for its leaders and young men to gain glory. Rarely does religion really enter the picture, and when it does there are practical reasons for it.
It keeps coming down to one question: If I can eliminate religion as a reason or instigator to the war in question, is religion the cause for that war? There are just too few examples of religion causing war....
HM
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| me in another topic wrote: |
There is no evidence for the existence of god(s). But hypothetically if a god(s) exist, based on currently available evidence such a god(s) would not be any god in any modern religion, it would be a deistic god(s) that make the universe in such a way that every thing happens naturally or hide its existence by planting evidence that every thing happens naturally. Such a god(s) can not be proven or disproven scientifically but logic still apples. Logically, if a creature with the power to create and possibly even shape a universe create a universe but not interfere in it? And why would it create the universe? It could be a scientists, perhaps it created our universe to better understand the formation of its universe. But would that be a god? No, it would have the technology and the right laws of physics to create our universe. Perhaps where and accident and it doesn't care about us. But that doesn't mean its a god, it just mean it has the ability (weather that be technological or some something related to the physics of its universe. Then theres the idea that god isn't even sentient but thats not a god ether.
Any way you think about it, deism doesn't work. In most the god isn't even a god as god is defined (in exception to defining a god as a creator of the universe).
Empirically, the only possible god(s) is a deistic one and logically, deism dose not work. Thus (in my opinion) there is no god or gods. |
|
Interesting argument, are you prepared to defend it? | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| 1) The argument against theism is rather weak. It appears to be based on the idea that God would create something and then limit His interference, either partially or totally, and that that's illogical. Unfortunately, given the number of times even mortal scientists do so, I don't see an issue in that regard... |
You missed the point.
First. If you make statement that "god dose this" or "God is this way" you making a testable prediction on what god dose. For instance if you say "God answers prayers" that is testable.
Assuming if a god exists and created the universe, what dose the universe tell us about God. All we know tell us that all things happen my nature processes with out the help of any intelligence. This tell us that God would ether create the universe and then did nothing (deism) or created the universe in such a way that everything looks like it happened naturally. Nether of those works with any idea religion or idea of god or gods to date (except deism).
But deism doesn't work ether. If there is a creator, there are many plausible reason for the creation, the vast majority of which the creator is not a god.War actually comes from greed. People want power, money, or influence. They just use religion as a means to justify their war, which isn't the case. That's not to say that religion isn't responsible for any wars, but far less than one would think. Wars over territory far outnumber wars over religion.
And because they use religion to try and justify their wars, it gives religion an undeserving bad name.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
You missed the point. |
Have you noticed that you tend to answer a lot of posts either by saying that the person missed the point, ignoring their statements, or basically quoting yourself? Just Just an observation...
| Quote: |
| First. If you make statement that "god dose this" or "God is this way" you making a testable prediction on what god dose. For instance if you say "God answers prayers" that is testable. |
Yes, and the testing has done rather well. A lot of people hold store in prayer, implying that it works. It may not work all the time, or for everyone, but it has been shown to have a decent success rate.
| Quote: |
| Assuming if a god exists and created the universe, what dose the universe tell us about God. All we know tell us that all things happen my nature processes with out the help of any intelligence. |
Correction: All you know. A lot of people would disagree with you. I am willing to concede that most processes happen without any direction, but I'm not conceding that ALL processes happen without intelligence.
| Quote: |
| This tell us that God would ether create the universe and then did nothing (deism) or created the universe in such a way that everything looks like it happened naturally. |
Consider the concept of a watchmaker for a moment: The watchmaker creates the watch, winds it up, and lets it go. Everyone so often he tinkers with the watch or just repairs it. If he's really good, then he can do so without someone watching the watch noticing it. If the watchmaker is really smart, then he would set up bells and whistles to notify him that something is wrong so that he can fix the watch.
In short, the Universe looks like it works naturally. God may tinker with it occasionally, but He usually does it in such a way that it looks like an anomaly or part of a natural process. He even has a few notifying alarms set up, in the form of prayer.
| Quote: |
| Nether of those works with any idea religion or idea of god or gods to date (except deism). |
Your opinion, not mine. Note that you haven't presented any logic for it; you're just asserting a claim. A lot of people would disagree with you when it comes to whether or not it works...
| Quote: |
| But deism doesn't work ether. If there is a creator, there are many plausible reason for the creation, the vast majority of which the creator is not a god. |
But that doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist; just because a theory may not work in your opinion doesn't mean that the theory doesn't work. You need to support your logic...
HM | Soulfire wrote: |
War actually comes from greed. People want power, money, or influence. They just use religion as a means to justify their war, which isn't the case. That's not to say that religion isn't responsible for any wars, but far less than one would think. Wars over territory far outnumber wars over religion.
And because they use religion to try and justify their wars, it gives religion an undeserving bad name. |
Wars have many causes, that is just one. Political ideology, religions ideology, greed (as you said), resources, fear, territory, insanity (an insane leader plus loyalty). War have many cause and often multiple causes, often multiple causes (political ideology plus territory, religions ideology plus greed, in insane leader plus a need for resources).
HereticMonkey: Prays in mulipu studied have been shown to do nothing.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=2002
http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/prayer.html
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/reality-check.html
http://skepdic.com/prayer.html
All that we know about the universe tels us that everything happens by natural proses with out help. How dose it tell us this? Everything we figure out, every mystery we unravel has natural cause with out the help of any intelligence. If you keep digging and digging and keep coming up whit the same thing, logic dictates you will keep finding it the more you dig. That leaves the only plausible type of god is none of the god people believe in (in exception to deism), the Christan God Muslim God, Hindu God don't work given modern available information. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. If you are a god and you create a universe and you won't people in that universe to believe in you you don't fill it with evidence that all things happen by natural processes. Its simple logic.
I can not disprove the existence of a god(s) but particular gods can be disproven leaving only deism, which doesn't logically work. | The Conspirator wrote: |
Wars have many causes, that is just one. |
So is it many,or just one?
| Quote: |
| HereticMonkey: Prays in mulipu studied have been shown to do nothing. |
Duh. Now, do you have any evidence from a scientific study? I have no idea who this "mulipu" organization is, but I do know that prayer has been shown to have some definite effects, including those akin to meditation. And, I sort of doubt that praying for scientific investigation would have had any effect, anyway; a common complaint against the studies is that prayer requires absolute will (ie, you need to do it for wanting something specific, and doing it for a scientific study wouldn't be doing for something specific, now would they?).
Not everything can be proven (or even disproven) through scientific study...
| Quote: |
| All that we know about the universe tels us that everything happens by natural proses with out help. How dose it tell us this? Everything we figure out, every mystery we unravel has natural cause with out the help of any intelligence. |
And here you go quoting yourself. Even the spelling errors are the same...
| Quote: |
| If you keep digging and digging and keep coming up whit the same thing, logic dictates you will keep finding it the more you dig. |
Obviously you haven't done any reading on quantum physics, which sort of goes against this logic. After all, at the quantum level, the physics that we are used to stop working and are replaced by a whole other set. Conversely, the physics that cosmologists work with require a lot of physics that we don't need to deal with at our level. Sort of blows away the idea that digging deeper keeps the same physics, doesn't it?
[/quote]That leaves the only plausible type of god is none of the god people believe in (in exception to deism), the Christan God Muslim God, Hindu God don't work given modern available information. [/quote]
I don't know. After all, I still see proof of miracles, and saints continue to be created even from modern people. So what is "modern available information"?
| Quote: |
| This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. If you are a god and you create a universe and you won't people in that universe to believe in you you don't fill it with evidence that all things happen by natural processes. Its simple logic. |
Dude: Grammar and spelling...
Or you could fill it with contrary evidence in order to see which way they'll decide. After all, free will is a curious concept...
| Quote: |
| I can not disprove the existence of a god(s) but particular gods can be disproven leaving only deism, which doesn't logically work. |
Disproving Jehovah is a bit more difficult than disproving Thor...However, I'm still grasping if there is any actual logic at work here, or just the matter of personal opinion...
HM[quote="HereticMonkey" | Quote: |
| HereticMonkey: Prays in mulipu studied have been shown to do nothing. |
Duh. Now, do you have any evidence from a scientific study? I have no idea who this "mulipu" organization is, but I do know that prayer has been shown to have some definite effects, including those akin to meditation. And, I sort of doubt that praying for scientific investigation would have had any effect, anyway; a common complaint against the studies is that prayer requires absolute will (ie, you need to do it for wanting something specific, and doing it for a scientific study wouldn't be doing for something specific, now would they?).[/quote]
Read the links I posted. Prayer has been shown to be useless.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | All that we know about the universe tels us that everything happens by natural proses with out help. How dose it tell us this? Everything we figure out, every mystery we unravel has natural cause with out the help of any intelligence. |
And here you go quoting yourself. Even the spelling errors are the same... |
Yes, quote one part of a paragraph to try and beat it. That doesn't work.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If you keep digging and digging and keep coming up whit the same thing, logic dictates you will keep finding it the more you dig. |
Obviously you haven't done any reading on quantum physics, which sort of goes against this logic. After all, at the quantum level, the physics that we are used to stop working and are replaced by a whole other set. Conversely, the physics that cosmologists work with require a lot of physics that we don't need to deal with at our level. Sort of blows away the idea that digging deeper keeps the same physics, doesn't it? |
Nothing in quantum physics happens by some supernatural intelligence, its all natural processes.
That leaves the only plausible type of god is none of the god people believe in (in exception to deism), the Christan God Muslim God, Hindu God don't work given modern available information. [/quote]
I don't know. After all, I still see proof of miracles, and saints continue to be created even from modern people. So what is "modern available information"?[/quote]
What miracles? Story's of miracles? Story's of strange things have been around since before civilisation and will be around till the end of humanity. And of those very, very, very few involve your god.