All wars are religiously motivated
Side Score: 78
Side Score: 114
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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~