CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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"
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.
Reading your first post, it seemed to me that you thought that in order for motivation for war to be rightly classified as "religious" it must be based on a sense of "divine righteousness". So your category of what you classify as "religious" is narrower than the one I put forth in the debate description. Under your understanding of religion, not all wars are fought for religious reasons. I get that. But...If you viewed religion as I do ala: Group unity according to shared sacred values. Sacred meaning "considered of extreme importance") Donf you think " All wars are religiously motivated" makes sense according to this broader view of religion?
Tbe source of the quote/proverb isnt as important as whether it conveys a truth.
If you truly accept the premise and can show a fault in the logic that would be neat
Obviously, you can't convince millions of people to be prepared to die without invoking important things. There's nothing insightful about it... Soldiers aren't empty and arbitrary loyalists... Nothing another bit of stretching can't handle.
Understand why a values based view on the nature of religioin is superior to thinking of religion as "That which concerns the divine" and youll have your insight
I see the question more as an attempt to controversy. If you had rather worded it in terms with mutually more agreed meaning without using "religion", there wouldn't be anything worth much consideration.
The basic controversial belief of mine is that those who dont think of themselves as religious, are mistaken. What we have are variant expressions of religion, not religious vs nonreligious groups. You have to be not very thoughtful at all, or have a special set of blinders on not to realize that what religion (a universal human phenomenon) is isn't summed up well in the first definition of your favorite dictionary.
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)
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.
Your claim: "Stalin and Mao never committed war in the name of Atheism". Okay. Simple logic: name us a modern war that was declared in the name of a religion. I'll wait.
Oh dear 🙀 what about George fucking Bush ........ fucking ouch 👌😊
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America.
Oh poor thing. You just plastered yourself by circling back against your own logic. Being an atheists doesn't mean you did it in the name of atheism. Uh huh. Being Christian doesn't mean you did it in the name of Christianity. I know Dermot. It's like magic how logic works...
Not nice being caught is it 🙀 Here is what you said .......
Your claim: "Stalin and Mao never committed war in the name of Atheism". Okay. Simple logic: name us a modern war that was declared in the name of a religion. I'll wait.
But George Bush did indeed do it in the name of religion and he stated so 🙀 Stalin or Mao never claimed to be doing it in the name of atheism ......
Your logical skills are not very magical are they ...... OUCH owned again 🙀
You argued against my claim that "not all wars are religiously motivated" on this side. So... go ahead. The crowd is getting antsy waiting on you to provide your burden of proof.
You lost the debate by being ignorant enough to try and argue for the unarguable. Anything else? Would you like an "I got schooled by a real debater" trophy? Guess not. Here, have a can of spam.
Yes I admit I defeated you ... again . I know Mc Donald's is classed as fine dining amongst trailer trash like you we don't really use that tripe here 😱 How's the 34 houses 😂😂😂
No. It's where you actually work and will continue to work until you die of typical atheist depression in your late 30's because you have the comprehension skills of a dead squid.
Yes , for trailer trash like you , so your job in Macs ain't going too well 🙀 and you're depressed and over thirty .... plus your incredibly stupid and living in a trailer park ... I feel for you 😿
Not surprisingly you are familiar with the alleged comprehension skills of a dead squid ..... that's an awful way to talk about your poor Mammy 😳
So Cartman's dupe account, in 20 posts couldn't meet the burden of proof for the argument he took on. Now there's a surprise. The childlike intelligence is cute... to someone somewhere. Maybe we can find an old man who you'll enjoy, who will keep you in a dungeon with plenty of lotion.
Still sore ? In fairness you're getting kicked all over the site and if you enjoy getting butt fucked by old men well go for it ..... your 34 houses have their uses after all ..... Bronto = 🐔💋.
You still haven't proven that "all wars are religiously motivated", and proving that wars started by Atheists were religiously motivated will be an even greater chore, an impossible chore. You're a bad debater. You did not meet your burden of proof. You did not win. You did not come close to winning. Point of fact? You got your little ass kicked.
Maybe that's why I'm on the false side and maybe that's why I never stated all wars were religiously motivated , if I'm incorrect please point out where I said otherwise ?
Let's see what you said .............
Oh poor thing. You just plastered yourself by circling back against your own logic. Being an atheists doesn't mean you did it in the name of atheism. Uh huh. Being Christian doesn't mean you did it in the name of Christianity. I know Dermot. It's like magic how logic works...........
I proved my point as in I'm asking you to prove where Mao or Stalin claimed they were going to war in the name of Atheism bet you can't ?
I mentioned only one war where George Bush did indeed claim he was on a mission from God are you denying this .
You tell everyone they're a bad debater actually looking at debates yesterday you've told 5 people the same thing and you always do when the debate goes against you .
So tell me where I said all wars were religiously motivated ?
Why do you have to lie and claim I said things I did not say ?
That logic keeps getting you and your failure to read what people say instead of what you claim they say shows how poor you are at debating , debating is not for you buddy you're just not good at it are you ?
So in 2,000 posts you never had the nut sack to create hardly a thread? Bwahahahaha! Cartmanomics at work. Hide hide hide hide, and only create a few debates that are "safe". You're a freightened little clown.....
You gave the same answer copy and pasted for 20 posts.
Looked like Stain got schooled again. He had no rebuttal again. And besides, no one sides with Stain, so I'm assuming that you are Stain. More of that deductive reasoning that you can't wrap your mind around. And? You got schooled on the how can you know how many rapes were not reported if they weren't reported point. You're making it easy for me to clean house with arguments that are that bad...
Ahhh , you don't like people copy and pasting 😿 and I'm glad I have you counting my posts , after 20 comes 21 if you're wondering ( I know you're American)
So you think I'm Stain now 🤔 good that means I beat you ..... again , and deductive reasoning is not your strong point is it ?
Oh dear ,you don't like being a member of a country with highest rape stats 😢 You should sue those nasty people who make up stuff about the good old US 😢 regards cleaning house well again you did claim incorrectly Sweden had the highest rates until you were corrected ..... again .......
How's your research coming on all the wars you guys won ?
I do like people copying and pasting. If you are so good at it, then why can't you provide us any links to the statistics you are claiming? Because you have the brains of a headless lizard.
good that means I beat you
Not actually.
1)You couldn't provide any sources for you claims, which is an automatic loss.
2)You can't see the logic that you can't claim something wasn't reported if.... it wasn't reported. Guessing is a horrible debate style. You lost twice.
Oh dear ,you don't like being a member of a country with highest rape stats 😢 You should sue those nasty people who make up stuff about the good old US
Still no citations or links. Whew, you're taking it hard in this debate. Why don't you just grab your ankles now and get ready for me to come in...
Sweden had the highest rates until you were corrected ..... again
1)You haven't provided any stats on Sweden.
2)You've provided no links on stats on Sweden.
3)The shallow end of the pool for the rookies is over there. Maybe you should try it before you drown and make a fool of yourself. Oops... too late. Oh well, I tried.
Oh yeah like you're citations and links 🙀 Read it again and weep asshole
US
The super power of the world is at the first position in the race of rapes. Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
So you openly admit that the U.S. is "the superpower of the world". Well that killed your other arguments. Hell, I don't even need to make rebuttals. Ican just let you dismatle your own claims.
Males are majorly the rapist holding a proportion of 99%. Out of all the victims, 91% are females while 9% are males. The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics states that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, and nearly 99% of rapists are male. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women and 1 in 33 U.S. men has experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. More than a quarter of college-age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14. Out of all, only 16% of the total cases are reported. Outdoor rape is not common in USA rather most of the rape cases takes place inside homes.
In a debate, if you can't provide the link to your source, it's meaningless white noise. I can blindly say 99% of Scottish men want to rape little boys. The end.
How's your research coming on all the wars you guys won ?
1)Well, if we hadn't won at least one, you'd be wearing swastikas right now. You're welcome.
2)I'm pretty sure we beat Great Britain to gain our independence. Maybe the history books made it up.
3)Pretty sure we didn't lose in Iraq... either time. One time we fought the Iraqis out of Kuwait and bombed Iraq into oblivion. The other time we took over Iraq and left once we had instilled a new government. Am I debating a child?
They didn't win it single handedly, but your part of the world was getting destroyed mercilessly. Even Japan admitted that getting the U.S. involved turned the tide of the war. They even referred to us as the "sleeping giant". So now scurry off, google it, and crawl back into your nasty little hole of defeat.
You drink your own pee. So I have reduced you to pee drinking admittance in this debate. Is there actually anything left of dermot to destroy? Hmmm... nope. You're done.
Once again proving your reading and comprehension ability is beyond atrocious ...... I'm not from Scotland you half - wit ...... you really are done and dusted ...... checkmate again
Oh dear , this seems to be your modus operandi with anyone who disagrees with you on C D , you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of a myriad of imagined faults as you attempt to ram your points home , when that fails its back to insults .....
I will do as I do with Jeffery , from within and Stain and in future I will just blank you , bye bye
Not really. I ask you for citations. You either don't comprehend what one is or don't understand how to cite. Maybe you don't know what copy and paste is. Who knows? Nevertheless, if you can't do the basics of debate, you probably aren't skilled at it. In this case? You aren't very skilled at it.
Oh dear , this seems to be your modus operandi with anyone who disagrees with you on C D , you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of a myriad of imagined faults as you attempt to ram your points home , when that fails its back to insults .....
I will do as I do with Jeffery , from within and Stain and in future I will just blank you , bye bye
Oh dear , this seems to be your modus operandi with anyone who disagrees with you on C D , you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of a myriad of imagined faults as you attempt to ram your points home , when that fails its back to insults .....
I will do as I do with Jeffery , from within and Stain and in future I will just blank you , bye bye
So you and Cartman entered the debate forum at approximately the same time... Are you in the same class? Bwahahahhahahahahhahahaha! You're a little clown.
Seeing this is a debate forum, and you are incapable of debate, nor do you understand debate or simple ideas, I'll just do to you as I do your other profile. Time to pull the pest control out.
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month
Cool. So show us video of him saying it. And if you can find it, now prove all other wars in modern history were done in the name of God, religion, etc. Otherwise you are dereated in this debate. "All wars are religiously motivated".
Aaaaah. Brilliant. A giant mass of "quotes" that you cannot provide a link for. You got it from somewhere, so go ahead. Share said link with us. That's an admittance of defeat. That didn't take long.
Now your burden of proof went up. Now show that all modern wars were done in the name of God/religion. That's your burden of proof in this debate. I'll wait.
As predicted you've never heard of the BBC or the guardian why not get the link from the Washington post it's online 🙀Or maybe it's all a big conspiracy 🙀
I'm still on the false side you dim witted creature
No. I took on a debate I knew you couldn't win. Proving all wars ever were religiously motivated would take many lifetimes to prove. And you are a clown for recklessly taking on such a debate in the first place.
You still haven't met your burden of proof. In debate that constitutes a defeat. If you don't understand how a debate works maybe you can google it. Anything else? Yes. You got baited into a debate that can't be won, and I enjoyed watching you play the fool. Bronto strikes the heart once again...
Everyone is on the false side you idiotic creature , there are two columns one marked true one marked false ..... wait ... is your minder there I can explain to him so he can assist you........
I actually didn't but you are that special type of American so I make allowances , yes wipe would be withe idiots like you as in I've just wiped the floor with you 👋
If you didn't oppose my side, you couldn't have "wiped the floor with me". Deductive reasoning is your friend. Well... maybe it's just my friend. Maybe you oppose it.
Sniff sniff. Yep. We have another one ready for the Special Olympics. What event will you be participating in? Definately not spelling or English I presume. Perhaps they have an event for stupid emoticon talent.
No. He is saying that the war s weren't fought in the name of atheism, they were fought to gain POWER and territory, not for the spread of Atheism ... there is nothing to spread! "Bad Hombres" come in all packages, religious and non-religious. We don't blame the religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever, it's the bad hombres and their interpretation, along with their lust for power, that cause the problems. There are bad Christians, bad Muslims, bad Atheists, bad Jews. Dubya told his mother that God told him to run for President. If you can say that Atheism is to blame for some wars, how can you say that Dubya didn't feel he was acting as "God" wanted him to?? He also stated that he prayed for Gods guidance BEFORE he released the "shock and awe"! Atheists don't start wars "in the name of god", they start wars to gain power! Christians and Muslims, etc., do the same. They just "cover their asses" with their religion. Most religious don't want war, most Atheists don't want war! It's those that want POWER, or a few NUTS that believe they are "doing gods will". The "bad hombres"! Atheists don't have a corner on THAT market!
Everybody can be classified religiously according to what values they hold most deeply stubbornly, even dogmatically if you will. Someone simply claiming to be atheist doesnt really tell you anything about what their most deeply held values are thougb, or does it?
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.
Some atheists dont accept the whole "lack of belief" rationale. Me for instance. I believe that gods exist as psycho social phenomena. I say "if god is love I am not atheist." I see theists as people who worship some being they think of as perfect. I dont do that, so I consider myself atheist
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...
I'm a Christian and a poor example of one, thus I continue to rail on and troll those who easily trigger. I base my rebuttals on intellectual appeals rather than emotional tirades.
The word "Christian" was used as an insult word to those who followed Christ. He himself never used the word. Religion and titles can't save you in His teaching. Only grace through faith. Faith isn't a "moral high ground". It's love for God and His love for you despite your filth because you simply ask for the soap that only He can provide.
So (in your view) in order to rightly consider oneself Christian, one must believe that no one other than Jesus can do as good of a job helping people to be convinced of their great need for personal improvement.?
He didn't teach "self improvement". He taught faith in God and a relationship with God that was secured and understood by his death on the cross. It was God reaching to man and man reaching to God. Self improvement doesn't move someone towards God. It is self focused.
Ok so (according to you) in order to really be a Christian you must believe that the ONLY way to get out of the pit we've dug for ourselves (througb our unrighteous acts) is with the help of Jesus?
So basically you didn't understand his point just just decided to repeat something else you have said a million times before they you think holds some wit? Pathetic.
I know where you're going with this. When I say yes, you're going to point out some kind of unchristian behavior on my part. Being a Christian does not make one perfect. I sometimes say things I shouldn't. Who doesn't? I tell the truth as I see it. And I can be pretty abrasive when I say it. Now, what's your point? And the answer is yes. I'm a Christian.
Actually I wanted to ask about what kind of things you talk about in your personal relationship with God. Are they things you would be ashamed to tell me? if not I would be interested to hear...for example what was the last thing you learned from God that really impacted your outlook on life?
The last thing I learned is that I'm probably a lukewarm Christian. God wants to be first in our lives, in everything we do. Anything that takes time away from our relationship with God is a sin. For instance, I'd prefer to play computer games than read my Bible, or pray. It was a hard lesson to learn, and I'm working on it. My sinful nature is always rebelling. Some people believe that being a Christian is an emotional crutch or something that insulates us from reality and gives us a sense of comfort. The opposite is true. Being a Christian is hard work, that requires constant vigilance, and I've been slacking.
In my view religious ideology is distinguished from general ideology in that religious ideology must concern "the sacred" ie matters deemed to be of the utmost importance
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.
"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.
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.
. 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.
"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.
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?
Its not that peripheral beliefs cant play a role, but any justification must be seen as tied to and serving these core values.
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?
To many, membership in a powerful group is a sacred value
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?
I dont assert that other reasons dont factor in, I am saying without a clear appeal to what a population holds sacred, no effective support for war can be drummed up. As far as conquering states allowing religions to persist so long as they agree to be subordinate, I dont find tbat surprising at all
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.
When you talk of whats worth fighting for you talk of what you hold sacred, when you talk of what groups hold sacred you are talkimg about religion. If this way of looking at it is absurd. I don't see how.
"To many, membership in a powerful group is a sacred value"
A trait it shares with religious beliefs, which means said religious beliefs are not necessary for effectively engaging in a war, therefore causing your argument to fall apart.
"As far as conquering states allowing religions to persist so long as they agree to be subordinate, I dont find tbat surprising at all"
My point was that, if war has only ever been started for religious reasons, and one of the goals of any religion is to spread, then wouldn't the nation(s) engaging in the war necessarily stamp out all opposing belief? How does the existence of historical acceptance of religious belief in spite of conquering fail to contradict your central argument?
"When you talk of whats worth fighting for you talk of what you hold sacred, when you talk of what groups hold sacred you are talkimg about religion."
But religion isn't the only belief that's "held sacred", as you acknowledged in your previous statement.
Heres the thing..to me religions are alliances of people based on what they hold sacred.So it is what you hold sacred that constitutes your religious beliefs.
I think my view on the nature of religion is more carefully thougbt out than the overly simplistic one that allows people to think of themselves as not religious. This is why when I ask "anti-religion" folks to describe what religion is they cant. They can only cite the dictionary definition because they cant look at the broader phenomenon for what it is.
If you would (as I would) agree to have your view on the nature of religion scrutinized via socratic questioning I believe I could reveal an underlying logical contradiction. If you could explicitly show me where my logic contradicts itself (using socratic questining) I will paypal you $10
Alas it seems all we are doing here is talking past each other
, if war has only ever been started for religious reasons, and one of the goals of any religion is to spread, then wouldn't the nation(s) engaging in the war necessarily stamp out all opposing belief?
Only those that are seen as a serious threat need to be stamped out
How does the existence of historical acceptance of religious belief in spite of conquering fail to contradict your central argument? If the group accepts being politically neutered, and refrains from challenging the authority imposed on them they are allowed to live, its that simple
Muslims are not politically neutered they are religiously driven. Talking in circles is all your doing just to try and justify your opinion of a faith you will never understand.
"Heres the thing..to me religions are alliances of people based on what they hold sacred.So it is what you hold sacred that constitutes your religious beliefs."
Perhaps including your unique definition (which has absolutely no relevance to the actual definition of the term, which loosely refers to the belief in a supernatural power) in your original post would have been helpful.
"If you would (as I would) agree to have your view on the nature of religion scrutinized via socratic questioning I believe I could reveal an underlying logical contradiction."
By "Socratic questioning" are you referring to Socrates' unique style of argumentation via asking questions which lead his opponent to agree with him, or some other, more esoteric function?
"If you could explicitly show me where my logic contradicts itself (using socratic questining) I will paypal you $10"
Your logic (excepting a particular statement) does not, in this context, contradict itself, it just falls apart; your original argument (using the common usage of the term "religion", which I think is fair) falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization as previously clarified, and altering the term "religion" to something it has never meant and using it as a qualifier to make your argument sound falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is fallaciously misdefining a term and then abusing said term to apply it to (or, more commonly, exclude it from) another term to validate a false claim.
"Only those that are seen as a serious threat need to be stamped out"
Who's to say that all other religions aren't a "serious threat"? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
"If the group accepts being politically neutered, and refrains from challenging the authority imposed on them they are allowed to live, its that simple"
That's not a religious basis, that's a dictatorial one.
Perhaps including your unique definition (which has absolutely no relevance to the actual definition of the term, which loosely refers to the belief in a supernatural power) in your original post would have been helpful
The "actual" definition of religion is IMO misleading in that it is not broad enough to be inclusive of all the various faiths, in particular non-theistic faith groups. Frankly this "actual" definition seems more appropriate for theism than for religion. As to the charge that I wasnt forthright with my (supposedly wildly unorthodox view) if you look more carefully you will see that my later explanation was but a rephrasing of my first. Interesting to note that you considered the first explanation reasonable. Also interesting to note is that people who are admittedly religious don't take issue with this view of religion, only those who can't see that rather than not being religious, they are differently religious. This isnt me just playing with words. I think refusal to admit this simple point is a barrier to what could be fruitful comparative dialogs.
By "Socratic questioning" are you referring to Socrates' unique style of argumentation via asking questions which lead his opponent to agree with him, or some other, more esoteric function?
Yes except I am too familiar with how stubbornly people will hold illogical positions to have much hope reaching agreement. What I hope for is that someone will be willing (as I am) to answer questions directly and candidly concerning positions they hold. In my experience it doesn't take very long to expose underlying contradictions so long as questions are answered without obvious attempts to obfuscate. Its very likely that once exposed the person being interviewed will refuse to acknowledge the revealed logical contradiction, but I am ok with that. I actually want to find out about any logical contradictions underlying positions I hold, and am soliciting your help. I hope that anyone who agrees to allow me to scrutinize their position(s) would do so with the same hope.
Your logic (excepting a particular statement) does not, in this context, contradict itself, it just falls apart; your original argument (using the common usage of the term "religion", which I think is fair) falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization as previously clarified, and altering the term "religion" to something it has never meant and using it as a qualifier to make your argument sound falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is fallaciously misdefining a term and then abusing said term to apply it to (or, more commonly, exclude it from) another term to validate a false claim.
You see my view of religion as too broad or inclusive..and I see your view as too narrow or exclusive. Possible fallacies aside, would you agree that this sums up our disagreement fairly?
Who's to say that all other religions aren't a "serious threat"? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
Each group sets its own standards for what will be tolerated.
That's not a religious basis, that's a dictatorial one
People's choice of whether or not to submit to an authority (dictatorial or otherwise) is based on what they hold sacred. I remember once reading religion described as being one's "particular brand of intolerance". Surely you must admit we all have religion of one sort or another on THAT view..:)
"The "actual" definition of religion is IMO misleading in that it is not broad enough to be inclusive of all the various faiths, in particular non-theistic faith groups."
Faith and religion are two separate concepts: the latter implies the former, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Faith can be directed at any concept, be it physical or otherwise, while religion is specifically faith in a "higher power".
"As to the charge that I wasnt forthright with my (supposedly wildly unorthodox view) if you look more carefully you will see that my later explanation was but a rephrasing of my first. "
Your original definitions of "religion" and "sacred values" were circular (the former being expressed in terms of the latter, and vice versa), and therefore ambiguous in the extreme. Further, until recently, you had in no way defined the term "religion" to include non-supernatural concepts.
"Interesting to note that you considered the first explanation reasonable."
I never once claimed your reasoning to be sound. In every post I've made in this debate, whether explicitly or otherwise, I've condemned your claim as fundamentally flawed.
"Also interesting to note is that people who are admittedly religious don't take issue with this view of religion,"
Based on what study, carried out by whom and with what sample size? I consider myself a religious person, and I take issue with your "unique" definition of the term, so what do you base this claim on?
"I think refusal to admit this simple point is a barrier to what could be fruitful comparative dialogs."
I've thus far failed to "admit" to your claim due to the fact that your definition of the term "religion" encompasses concepts wholly irrelevant to those expressed by the term's objectively recognized meanings.
"In my experience it doesn't take very long to expose underlying contradictions so long as questions are answered without obvious attempts to obfuscate. Its very likely that once exposed the person being interviewed will refuse to acknowledge the revealed logical contradiction, but I am ok with that. I actually want to find out about any logical contradictions underlying positions I hold, and am soliciting your help. I hope that anyone who agrees to allow me to scrutinize their position(s) would do so with the same hope."
Having read through Plato's "Gorgias", I wholeheartedly agree. Why you appear to feel it necessary to bring up this point, however, when you have yet to make any such accusation is a matter of great mystery to me.
"You see my view of religion as too broad or inclusive..and I see your view as too narrow or exclusive. Possible fallacies aside, would you agree that this sums up our disagreement fairly?"
That's a fair assessment.
"I remember once reading religion described as being one's "particular brand of intolerance". Surely you must admit we all have religion of one sort or another on THAT view..:)"
Assuming your use of the term "religion" to subscribe to meanings universally agreed upon, I'd have to disagree; given the doctrine of Universalism's (a wishful attempt to meld all facets of theism, and therefore inherently all-inclusive) existence.
Faith and religion are two separate concepts: the latter implies the former, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Faith can be directed at any concept, be it physical or otherwise,
I am aware of different usage definitions of faith. To avoid this sidetrack perhaps I could have typed sects.
while religion is specifically faith in a "higher power".
In your conceptualization of religion, do you really think " higher power" is specific enough?
Your original definitions of "religion" and "sacred values" were circular (the former being expressed in terms of the latter, and vice versa), and therefore ambiguous in the extreme. Further, until recently, you had in no way defined the term "religion" to include non-supernatural concepts.
If my defining religion as "Group classification according to shared sacred values" and further that sacred means " of the highest value" is circular, as far as I can tell, it is only in the sense that all definitions are circular.
I never once claimed your reasoning to be sound. In every post I've made in this debate, whether explicitly or otherwise, I've condemned your claim as fundamentally flawed.
I misread a portion of your response containing the phrase "which I think is fair". I thought it referred to my opening post. I now see that you thought it was fair of YOU to abandon my proposed reasoning and revert to using the term in an orthodox (but IMO deeply flawed) manner. I am wanting to challenge this common view with a less common view that I think is superior. I think if you were being fair, you would say..."If that is what religion is taken to mean then yes all wars are religiously motivated"
Based on what study, carried out by whom and with what sample size? I consider myself a religious person, and I take issue with your "unique" definition of the term, so what do you base this claim on?
Of all those I have argued with who admit their own religiosity, you would be the first that doesn't recognize religion as a human universal. Conversely, I have never met an atheist (thougb I am such an atheist) who agrees. Since you consider yourself religious I am very surprised you hold that some people are not religious.
I've thus far failed to "admit" to your claim due to the fact that your definition of the term "religion" encompasses concepts wholly irrelevant to those expressed by the term's objectively recognized meanings
The most popular interpretations are not always the most optimal. I think if you take me up on my challenge to seperate socratic interviews you will at least see the untenability of your view, even if I can't convince you of the superiority of mine.
Having read through Plato's "Gorgias", I wholeheartedly agree. Why you appear to feel it necessary to bring up this point, however, when you have yet to make any such accusation is a matter of great mystery to me
I am challenging you to a special kind of engagement. I was clarifying my expectations.
"In your conceptualization of religion, do you really think " higher power" is specific enough?"
Given the broadness of the term, I believe it's appropriate.
"If my defining religion as "Group classification according to shared sacred values" and further that sacred means " of the highest value" is circular, as far as I can tell, it is only in the sense that all definitions are circular."
Defining religion as "a group of people who share 'sacred values'", then defining "sacred values" (in part) as "the views religions hold" is circular, as the concept of "religion" can only, with those definitions, be expressed in terms of itself.
"I am wanting to challenge this common view with a less common view that I think is superior."
Yet you have done nothing whatsoever to substantiate your conclusion, other than point out that you hold that opinion.
"I think if you were being fair, you would say..."If that is what religion is taken to mean then yes all wars are religiously motivated""
I've done so, though perhaps not terribly clearly, when I pointed out that, using your terminology, your argument falls solely under (the inverse of) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is an issue with the soundness of a premise, not the structure of the argument.
"Since you consider yourself religious I am very surprised you hold that some people are not religious."
While I would argue that not all people are religious (as evidenced by anti-theists, who subscribe to the inverse of religion), it would seem, in my experience, that everyone holds faith in something or another (an example being anti-theists, who hold faith in God's nonexistence [which, being belief without basis, is by definition faith]).
"The most popular interpretations are not always the most optimal. I think if you take me up on my challenge to seperate socratic interviews you will at least see the untenability of your view, even if I can't convince you of the superiority of mine."
Challenge accepted.
"Why you won't say something like..."according to that unorthodox definition..sure" I only have my strong suspicion."
As previously pointed out, I believe I already did.
"You really don't think that group has its own "brand of intolerance"?"
An all-inclusive group, by definition, is incapable of intolerance.
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.
All wars are the result of greed, self-interest or hatred. And I can name several wars that were the result of atheism. Atheism has killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century. Sorry, but you are an idiot. Sucks to be you.
