CreateDebate


Debate Info

78
114
true false
Debate Score:192
Arguments:172
Total Votes:214
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 true (67)
 
 false (89)

Debate Creator

atypican(4873) pic



All wars are religiously motivated

Religions are groups of people united by shared sacred values. Sacred values are those values that are deemed by the adherants of a specific religion to be of the utmost importance. No one could amass an army of people willing to risk their lives in the interest of values they don't hold at the deepest level.

true

Side Score: 78
VS.

false

Side Score: 114
1 point

Muslims have amassed an army of people willing to risk their lives in the interest of values that they hold at the deepest level.You got blinders on.

Side: true
HannahLlama(85) Disputed
1 point

Muslims are 1 religion. We are talking about ALL wars being caused by some sort of religion.

Side: false

Nope, there are more types of wars that aren't based on being divinely righteous.

For example, when Napoleon captured Spain, it wasn't religiously inspired in any way.

More recent examples might be Bangladesh War and the Cold War.

Many are just vaguely inspired by religion, like the WWII.

Some just have further religious consequences without being based on it, like the Mongol conquests.

The others, like colonisation wars and crusades, are what fit your criteria.

Side: false
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

You dont accept the premise I put forward concerning the nature of religion being "what people hold as sacred". Instead you think religion in strictly theistic terms. Now we could debate that elsewhere, but what you are doing here is denying the first principles, and as the Latin proverb goes..."There is no arguing with one who denies first principles"

Side: true
1 point

I agreed to that premise, as was evident by the first statement there.

Latin proverb? Well, it was mentioned first by Aristotle, and the Roman empire wasn't too friendly for the older Greek things. Especially after Christianity was established.

Side: false
1 point

You are quite right. Your thought is very deep and attentive. (No one has clicked 'Support' up to now and I by the way want to see what colour the word is... as I found that 'Dispute' and 'Clarify' are in different colours)

Side: false

It used to be in some colour as the 'Favour' button... but that's now removed. It was redundant, anyway.

Side: false

False. Stalin and Mao were Atheists who liked to kill people by the millions with no need for cause. Unless of course, you are admitting that Atheism is a dogma.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/world/major-soviet-paper-says-20-million-died- as-victims-of-stalin.html

Side: false
Dermot(4008) Disputed
5 points

Stalin or Mao never claimed they were going to war in the name of atheism or claimed they were killing people because of atheism .

Side: true
1 point

So, what, are you claimg the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom were done in the "name of Christianity"? Get out of here with that junk.

Side: false
atypican(4873) Disputed
-2 points
3 points

Someone simply claiming to be atheist doesnt really tell you anything about what their most deeply held values are thougb, or does it?

Last I checked all Atheists claim a lack of belief in God. Most of them also divide into either Liberal or Conservative as well. Looks like we have a box to put them in just like everyone else.

Side: false
2 points

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of Christian denominations. I guess we can't guess their most deeply held values... It's a daisy how that bronto magic works isn't it? Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lack of belief that God doesn't exist...

Side: false
Amarel(2549) Clarified
1 point

It seems you may be conflating religion with ideology. They aren't really the same .

Side: true

So what God was behind the Mongols and Chinese going at it...

Side: false
2 points

Others in this side have already given examples which disprove your claim. What I'll add that's different is the majority of modern countries have a blend of religious believers and non believers living in them and when those countries go to war it's essentially one blend clashing with another blend. It's completely inaccurate to say the whole thing came down to a clash of religious ideologies when so many variances are involved.

Side: false
2 points

You forget, the War of the Roses ;)

Side: false
2 points

"The history of human warfare shows that less than 7% of all wars have religious causes." Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod. It documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. Out of that 7%, 3% is of non-Islamic religion while 4% of the 7 are Islamic wars.

Side: false
1 point

War is not the work of religion. It is the work of pride, arrogance and hate.

Side: false
1 point

This argument basically boils down to the following statements:

1. People will only fight in wars if said wars are supported by their fundamental beliefs,

2. Religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs,

3. Therefore, all wars are supported by religious beliefs.

For the sake of brevity, I'll skip the formal logic (the problem here is pretty obvious to those familiar with it) and cut straight to the point: this argument falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization. In short, this argument assumes that because religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs, they must account for all actions supported by fundamental beliefs. This disregards the fact that other fundamental beliefs than religion exists; ideology and nationalism come to mind regarding the basis for historical wars.

Side: false
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

. In short, this argument assumes that because religious beliefs are fundamental beliefs, they must account for all actions supported by fundamental beliefs.

This is the position I am arguing. Thank you for taking the time to understand it. I still dont see a fault in my reasoning. Thank you in advance if you can help me find one.

This disregards the fact that other fundamental beliefs than religion exists; ideology and nationalism come to mind regarding the basis for historical wars

Rather is asserts that the most fundamental beliefs/values ARE by virtue of their status in a personal system of priorities, by nature religious

People will not fight for any cause (nationalistic or otherwise) that is not seen as serving these more important underlying values.

Side: true
LichPotato(362) Disputed
1 point

"Rather is asserts that the most fundamental beliefs/values ARE by virtue of their status in a personal system of priorities, by nature religious"

So, because, in your opinion (you've yet to provide any substantiation), religious beliefs are the most fundamental ones, no others can be used to support a war?

Even if this were universally true (which is absurd; think of the ancient Romans, for example, who were bound more by politics than their religious beliefs), who's to say that other beliefs are not strong enough to allow someone to engage in a war? Ever heard of World War II? You know, the one where Hitler united Germany under the banner of National Socialism (as it was called before the term "Nazi" was coined), a purely secular doctrine?

Going back to the example of ancient Romans, if their wars were motivated solely by religion, then why would they allow their conquered nations to continue practicing their own religions as they saw fit? Not to mention the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, both of which were purely ideologically motivated, along with countless other conflicts all over the world that were based in economic and/or territorial gain, nationalism, retaliation, independence, proactivity, or any other number of reasons. Why you're focusing on religion and disregarding any other cause is beyond me.

Side: false

Errr. I think the answer of alofRI is the best so far. Very neutral and true. So i need not write another version of the same bible.

Side: false
1 point

How can you say that? war is absolutely normal, necessary and inevitable. Wars are caused by the conflicts in the development of things. Everything is developing continuously, and conflict is absolutely inevitable. Conflict exists in even lifeless things. Where there is no conflict, there is no world.

Side: false
atypican(4873) Disputed
0 points

That's another argument...but I ask you..Is it possible that we could conduct our wars in a manner that doesn't involve mass violence and bloodshed?

Welcome to CreateDebate by the way

Side: true
-2 points
atypican(4873) Disputed
1 point

All wars are the result of greed, self-interest or hatred.

ie the result of valuing too highly (holding as sacred) things which perhaps ought not be held sacred.

And I can name several wars that were the result of atheism.

People fight for whats perceived to be of value, not to force others to share their doubts

Atheism has killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century.

Atheism moreso than greed self-interest or hatred?

Sorry, but you are an idiot. Sucks to be you.

~runs off crying~

Side: true
2 points

So which modern war is it that you are claiming was "done in the name of religion"?

Side: false
1 point

I guess you think you're clever, or even funny. Hate to burst your bubble but it just ain't so.

Side: false
Impirum(77) Clarified
1 point

Sorry, but I have sent my words to a wrong person. Please forgive me.

Side: true
Impirum(77) Clarified
1 point

What a mental retardation... Not knowing 'Survival of the fittest'? Please go to die if you think the world deserves to be without struggles!!!!

Side: true