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.
The inquisitions, the Crusades, the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics that divided Ireland for decades, the conflict between Muslims and Jews right now in Palestine and Israel, WWII partially (the Christian tradition of hating Jews), the 100 years war, 9/11 etc etc.
Religion is also a significant motivator in other laws, as the bible advocates slavery and genocide, in fact, god sanctioned a bunch of wars in the bible, read it if you don't believe me.
WWII partially (the Christian tradition of hating Jews)
Very good point. People often omit this one. There are slews of theories as to why Hitler singled out the Jews for extermination, and I've heard some pretty weak theories put forward (i.e. he got denied from art school... really?), but people always forget or don't want to knowledge that Hitler was a Catholic, as was much of 1930-40s Germany, which means ritualistic Jew hatred (on account mainly of the crucifixion) had been taught to them by their religion for hundreds of years running. Exterminating Jews was something Hitler knew the German population could support because they had already been conditioned by their religion to hate Jews.
That, and the Jews lacked a central Jewish state with which to retaliate. If Hitler had picked on Christians he would have lost support in his own country and found Britain, America, and Italy up his ass a lot quicker. If he had chosen Muslims to exterminate he would have had the entire Middle East at war with him. Choosing Jews meant that he was discriminating against a small, minority population spread across several countries, which, if you're trying to carry out genocide, is probably a lot easier than waging war on a collection of countries.
If Hitler was a strong believing catholic why did he try to kidnap and kill the Pope. Hitler did not hate Jews because he was a Christian, he used Christianity as a tool to get the Nazi public to hate Jews by using the teachings of Martin Luther. If you so strongly believe that Christianity is anti-semite please find a passage in the Bible which implies such.
If Hitler was a strong believing catholic why did he try to kidnap and kill the Pope.
The first word on your source is "alleged." There is as much evidence to support that he tried to kidnap/kill the Pope as there is to refute it. Most of the evidence supporting it also seems to be coming from Nazis, too.
Even if we assume the unknowable and say that he did in fact try to capture/assassinate the Pope, the rational is there and doesn't conflict with Hitlers Catholisism. One source states he didn't want the Pope to end up in the hands of the allies; another claims the Pope was collaborating with Hitlers enemies, and Hitler was afraid the Pope would use his influence to turn the Catholics against the Final Solution.
Additionally, Pius XII was a Catholic, obviously, and even though he knew well what was happening to the Jews did nothing about the mass exportation of Jews from his country to Nazi death camps. Another of your sources says that the plan to capture the Pope was to ensure that he remained quiet while all of this was going on, but, as you can see, it was unnecessary; the Pope never did a damn thing about it. And now they're in the process of making him a saint for it.
"Jerusalem has responded to His call and to His grace with the same rigid blindness and stubborn ingratitude that has led it along the path of guilt to the murder of God." - Pope Pius XII, 1942
The Bible is bereft of blatant antisemitism; this is something preached in churches and evident in other religious dogma, some of which I have been privy to, personally, and thought it was pretty messed up. A lot of very intrinsic Christian ideas, like the Trinity or their stance against abortion, have no Biblical basis, but this doesn't make them any less Christian. The Bible is just a part of the Christian faith, not the whole thing. You dont need to look in the Bible to see evidence of the Christian mindset regarding Jews; just look at your history.
Even if Hitler himself was pure atheist, the Nazis were not.
Even if Hitler was a Muslim, the fact that he COULD use faith in Catholicism is proof that religion can cause war.
If those people, the Nazis, had not been religious, they could not have been convinced by Hitler or by religion to kill Jews simply because they were Jewish.
He was christian read Mein Comf (i still cant spell that). Also he said "tradition" of hating jews. It's not in the bible but the hatred is brought on by christians hating jews for killing their lord.
Exactly, no one would go to war just because of a tiff between politicians, but when they convinced them that the almighty celestial dictator of the universe wants them to, they complied.
"Good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion."
None of those wars would have got the go ahead without religion (except perhaps WWII, which was also due to an acceptance of authoritarianism brought on by nationalism).
"Exactly, no one would go to war just because of a tiff between politicians, but when they convinced them that the almighty celestial dictator of the universe wants them to, they complied."
It was not that God wanted them to go to war, but that they interpreted it as such. I wish to point out that there would have been much more wars if there were no religious people as the only reason people wouldn't kill one another is because they see murder as a sin.
"None of those wars would have got the go ahead without religion (except perhaps WWII, which was also due to an acceptance of authoritarianism brought on by nationalism)."*
Of course WWII would have happened without religion, if you study the second world war, religion isn't one of the reasons it happened. The hundred years war was a fight about control of the French throne. It is more nationalism instead of religion that causes these conflicts especially the Ireland and Israel conflicts.
It is more nationalism instead of religion that causes these conflicts especially the Ireland and Israel conflicts.
Ireland, maybe, but Israel? Why did they pick that specific chunk of land? Why not carve out a piece of Germany for the Jews? Israel is not exactly prime real estate; it's valued for it's religious significance. If all the monuments and temples and holy sites were to be demolished, Israel would just be another small strip of arid desert in a sea of arid deserts. Not exactly worth fighting for.
Historically Jews have been unable to do much more than be the subject of discrimination, exodus and mass execution. So I could see how that would put them in a position of being unable to wage a holy war for the holy land. But religions have been fighting over the holy land for hundreds and hundreds of years, not just recently.
But is how can you be so sure that religion cause war but war is formed by taking the mentality of the peron.
Because Europeans would have no other reason to go to Jerusalem if not for religion. Also the Spanish would have no reason to persecute other religions if not for their religion.
Well, religion has both a personal, spiritual dimention and a social dimention. I want to make it clear that the social dimention is the one wich has the potential to be dangerous. If someone has a world view which is considered the truth, no matter what information later is apparent, that is very dangerous, and can lead to fanaticism.
Now, if a belief system is closely tied to your social group, your main source of belongingness, and this groups turns radical, it is very conducive to war. Simply because we do just about anything to maintain our bonds with the poeple we love the most (which ironically leads to hate against the ones who do not share your beliefs).
People that we have known our whole lives, and share a history with, are very strongly tied to our own self image and feeling of identity. The sad part is though, that this then leads you to lose your own integrity, in the pursuit of maintaining the integrity of your group. You lock your mind in one belief system, that just cannot be rocked by anything. If your group or personal belief is threatened, either physically or simply denied, the flight-or-flight response which is supposed to save your life is activated. We are genetically hardwired to believe in something, a lot of science suggests. This does not mean that God exists or that there is deity in us, it's just that our urge to want to understand the world as a place with meaning and order is so incredibly strong. It's tough to admit that we know so little, and are so small in the vastness of it all.
Sacrifice is sometimes necessary in order to keep a social bond with the ones who matter to you the most. But when social bonds are so closely linked to a belief system, and that belief system can have leaders organizing the entire group to do something for the sake of "God", or any other external form of moral imperative, a lot of horrible things can happen. We lose touch with the actual world.
But that doesn't meen, that if whole world became atheists, all wars would end.
It would still be war everywhere.
There would still be small fights and disputes but wars as they are now would end. Because no one would see the point in fighting. Why fight if working together is far more beneficial to everyone? In fact, war is beneficial to no one.
If you don't trust me then trust the countries with the least religious. Look at how well it is going for them. When were they last in a war? Or rather, when did they last start a war? The only war they will ever take part of is when someone attacks them (unless they give some aid to fight some very possible threats to them as well).
How many wars are there caused by religion? Nearly all of them (if you include the fact that religion keeps people stupid then all of them). Remove religion and you remove those wars.
It would still be war everywhere.
That is so wrong. There would be wars only in very few places, if at all.
The world will always find a way to fight.
No they won't because people will be smarter and see that fighting is pointless. Religion, fundamentally, keeps people stupid and instigates war.
They would. Perhaps one small war here and another small one there and that is it, even then they wouldn't last long.
Some people enjoy looking evil or annoyinv others, and on a large scale this could cause a war.
People on average would be a lot smarter if they weren't religious. That means they would much less inclined to follow the "evil" people, because they would be far more inclined to see who they really are.
The Falklands war wasn't about religion, it was about greed.
Greed is in the same alley as is stupidity and religion.
Geoffrey Chaucer said Greed is the root of all [wars], not religion, and he was right.
I do not know who that person is and neither do I care.
Why is it like this [wars]? Did he say it like that? Greed comes from stupidity, religion is built upon greed and religion itself is also stupid and promotes stupidity by its illogical rules.
Who were they, Pkistan and Palestine (something like that)? The morons fighting over, basically, religion.
Terrorists, aren't they just that because of their religion? Oh yes they are.
Whoever that person is, or was, was wrong. People fight because of stupidity. Religion keeps people stupid by not allowing anything that contradicts it. Religion might have been built from greed but now it is simply stupidity that promotes the same. And greed is stupidity because those persons don't know better. Would I like power, money, and all that? Oh, yes I would. Would I like to keep it all to myself? If I didn't know better I would.
You quoted me again after this and replied with somrthing completrly irrelevant.
Greed is in the same alley as stupidity and religion
No it is not. Greed is a small aspect of human nature, whereas religion is not a stupid thing and only some people are stupid.
Then whilst talking about Chaucer you said I do not know who that was. I cannot belive this! He is in some ways regarded as better than Shakespeare at English.
Greed comes from stupidity
No, it comes from human nature.
Religion is built upon greed
So religion is built from human nature. Wars therefore (from your perspective) come from human nature.
People fight because of stupidity
So not because of religion? Glad we've established that.
You quoted me again after this and replied with somrthing completrly irrelevant.
Something I said, "There would still be small fights and disputes but wars as they are now would end."
Your argument was apparently irrelevant.
No it is not.
Yes it is.
Greed is a small aspect of human nature
I could as well say that sharing things is human nature, so is doing good.
"Human nature" is made up by humans. It is subjective. Some people don't like collecting things, some like sharing them, some like hoarding them, some are disinclined to give them away, some like helping others - all can be natural. Or environmental.
whereas religion is not a stupid thing and only some people are stupid.
Religion is a stupid thing. Keeping people stupid just so they could be manipulated and controlled is stupid.
Then whilst talking about Chaucer you said I do not know who that was. I cannot belive this!
That's right, I do not know who that is and neither do I care. I'm not from England, nor any English-speaking country. I wouldn't care even if I was.
He is in some ways regarded as better than Shakespeare at English.
Irrelevant to me.
No, it comes from human nature.
Human nature is subjective and made up, just as is religion. There are people from "bad" side to "good" side, all can be considered "human nature", meaning "human nature" is a pointless concept.
Wrong, stupidity. If you are smart you share things to improve everything. What is the point of hoarding something you will never use yourself nor need yourself and never allow others use? There is no point, other than being stupid.
Greed is a form of stupidity.
So religion is built from human nature. Wars therefore (from your perspective) come from human nature.
Wrong, as I have already explained.
So not because of religion? Glad we've established that.
Religion does cause wars, but religion is also a kind of stupidity. The kind that isn't natural, the kind that is taught to a person since birth (brainwashed).
Religion keeps people stupid, therefore it makes them more inclined to fighting.
Greed is in the same alley as stupidity and religon.
So you are saying that greed is stupid? I would agree with that, but I wouldn't agree that religion is stupid. Many people suffer things in life and previously I have heard countless stories of how people have had religion to fall back on and support them.
Human nature is subjective
Not all kinds of human nature are subjective, and most kinds can be used to generalise. This is one of those kinds.
Religion is a stupid thing ... keeping people stupid ... religion keeps people stupid
Religion is not stupid. If you are having a bad time people may always look to God(s) for help if they need it, and this is never a bad thing (having help). If you think that having guidance in your life is a bad thing, then you are wrong.
Brainwashed
Really? You think people are brainwashed into being religious? Many people turn from atheism to religion. Here is a quote from the link below: Yes, I was an atheist but when I was depressed and someone told me about Jesus I started to follow Him and get baptized(full immersion) and go to Church. Now my life is better and I don't think about suicide anymore.
Do you think that it was a bad thing that this person turned to religion or would you have preferred he thought of suicide?
Many people suffer things in life and previously I have heard countless stories of how people have had religion to fall back on and support them.
Bad things will happen with or without religion.
They are denying the fact that bad stuff happens and the fact is that you must adapt to whatever happened and move on. Denying is not adapting, it is ignoring and just being stupid. Hoping for some nonexistent unicorn to give help that will never arrive is ignoring reality, it is not moving on. You accept what happened, not deny it by praying and hoping for something you'll never get.
If something bad happens to me I look at what did exactly happen, I accept it, and I move on accordingly, not start praying and go downright crazy.
It's similar with good things, you don't thank god, you thank the person or people who really did something good to you.
Not all kinds of human nature are subjective, and most kinds can be used to generalise. This is one of those kinds.
No it is not. As people hoard things so do people give them away to make other's lives easier (if they have something to give) and sometimes give even then when they shouldn't. No such thing as human nature, because everything you can ascribe to humans you could call "human nature".
Religion is not stupid.
Oh yes it is if you look at the facts.
If you are having a bad time people may always look to God(s) for help if they need it, and this is never a bad thing (having help).
If you are having a bad time you don't look for help from imaginary friends, you look for help from real friends and real people that do exist.
Name one person who has gotten help from a god by "praying", with evidence. There is no evidence to anyone ever having gotten help from a god, ever! That means there is no god because god is ascribed as a "good" being, which means if asked for help you would receive it, and yet no one has. There have been plenty of people to bring back their loved ones, and none of them have been brought back. Dead is dead, no heaven, no hell. You die, it's lights out forever.
If you think that having guidance in your life is a bad thing, then you are wrong.
Guidance as in a set of rules? I have that myself, I made those rules myself, and I can change whenever I want to.
Religion has a fixed set of rules and whoever, no matter how much or what, denies and contradicts them goes to hell, according to those rules. Not to mention so much else that contradicts reality, the source itself, makes no sense, is downright illogical, irrational, stupid, idiotic, and based on delusions. How is following something like that a good thing? All it does is fuck up a person.
Really? You think people are brainwashed into being religious?
Some are, if they have a weak mind. Most are taught since birth, which is even worse. Those persons don't even have the change to develop their true self.
Many people turn from atheism to religion.
I hardly think that is true. Perhaps if the person is naturally stupid (has a weak mind), or has a mental breakdown for some reason. Smart atheists will never turn religious.
Here is a quote from the link below: Yes, I was an atheist but when I was depressed and someone told me about Jesus I started to follow Him and get baptized(full immersion) and go to Church. Now my life is better and I don't think about suicide anymore.
Quoting from a forum? Really? Forums are no source of evidence when it comes to topics like this. Unless there is strong logic behind the comment.
That comment is not smart at all, nor does it include any logic. If you read it you can actually determine that whoever wrote it has rather low intelligence (also the way it's written, the style, is quite childish).
Weak minds are easily fooled, apparently very easily.
Do you think that it was a bad thing that this person turned to religion or would you have preferred he thought of suicide?
Yes, it was a bad thing. If someone is incapable of handling life and all it can bring then that person is better off dead than promoting something that damages humanity on so many levels. Also, it's better if the genes that have an inclination toward suicide are, well, rooted out. The goal of life is survival, not killing itself.
I would go further into your debate but I don't have to. I had written a lot more about your mentioning: How exactly is denying reality not stupid?, but now I have erased it for I do not feel the need. You have said it yourself, and I thus conclude this debate.
Without religion, scientific progress could be accelerated, developing new farming techniques so all can have food, making new sources of power, such as Thorium, giving all people electricity, and more advanced robots could produce more products and do more work, making money obsolete.
And yes, conflict and fighting won't end, but there would never be a religious excuse or a motivation to fight.
Like with your sister, two politicians might yell and fight, but without religion, what motivation is there for the people to care and fight? No one wants to die to prove another man's point. Not unless they are promised something that is greater than life.
There would still be small fights and disputes but wars as they are now would end. Because no one would see the point in fighting. Why fight if working together is far more beneficial to everyone? In fact, war is beneficial to no one.
If you don't trust me then trust the countries with the least religious. Look at how well it is going for them. When were they last in a war? Or rather, when did they last start a war? The only war they will ever take part of is when someone attacks them (unless they give some aid to fight some very possible threats to them as well). --nummi298.
I cant believe you exalted your personal aetheistic beliefs over everyone elses. What gaurantee do you have that wars would end if the world omitted religion. are you forgetting that politics still exitsts
How many wars are there caused by religion? Nearly all of them (if you include the fact that religion keeps people stupid then all of them). Remove religion and you remove those wars.
A world without religion being far more peaceful is logical. The countries with less religious are far more peaceful and are doing better than other countries. That's what I based my argument on. If you expanded that trait to the whole humanity, what would the most logical conclusion be?
Human beings are human beings. We fight, if not about religion, then about something else.
Religion is the biggest problem in the world, that is why we fight. If religion wasn't the biggest problem in the world, then we would fight about what was the biggest problem.
People fight, usually we prioritize the biggest problem to fight first, when that is solved, we move to the next one.
We fight, if not about religion, then about something else.
There would still be fights, small ones, but that's it. Even currently there are small fights. I said there would be far less. Which makes a lot of sense, as one huge strife motivator and instigator, creator, would be gone. Fighting is not an addiction (although some might be addicted to it, but that is irrelevant here) that can transfer from one state to another, it is caused by controversy and disagreement, mainly.
If religion were gone then fights caused by it would also be gone. They would not be compensated by anything.
It's like saying every human has a natural inclination to fighting and will do it no matter what. Then why does it not apply to me? And so many others?
Religion is the biggest problem in the world, that is why we fight. If religion wasn't the biggest problem in the world, then we would fight about what was the biggest problem.
Currently yes, it is the biggest problem, or one of the biggest. And the problem is that it still exists.
If religion wasn't the biggest problem, then fights would not shift to some other problem. There would be no point for it, no need for it.
People fight, usually we prioritize the biggest problem to fight first, when that is solved, we move to the next one.
This goes about problem solving not about fighting... You solve one and you move on to the next.
Fighting is not necessary, not with humans, not anymore.
Fighting is not necessary, not with humans, not anymore.
It is not necessary, that's right. But we still do it.
But you know how the people in Islamic countries, they fight for freedom. To get to believe what they think is the truth, that is the biggest problem there.
In my country people are fighting to get lower taxes, because they're so ridiculously high were I live. That is the biggest problem here.
Some countries are fighting for homosexuals, to let people marry whomever they want to, no matter what gender he or she is - because somewhere THAT is the biggest problem.
People fight about things, when they win, they fight about the next problem.
This debate is about religion causing wars and all I said was there would be, if any, very few. Small fights and disputes will always be there (not talking about two persons arguing 'cause they probably will not end as long as we exist), but even they will eventually end (assuming we don't revert back to stone age and keep on going in the right direction).
If there was no religion people would be much smarter on average. That means they would be far less inclined to fighting, because they could see much better that the net result is only negative, to all sides. They would be more inclined to think before acting.
But you know how the people in Islamic countries, they fight for freedom. To get to believe what they think is the truth, that is the biggest problem there.
They fight for religion. If there was none they would not be fighting over it, there would be no point to keep on fighting.
In my country people are fighting to get lower taxes, because they're so ridiculously high were I live. That is the biggest problem here.
That's because the ones in power are far too comfortable and don't really care about people (most or a lot of them; it's similar here). And they find all kinds of stupid excuses to get more money out of people, while at the same time they waste what they already have.
Fights like this will exist as long as there is money and/or as long as it is abused. Has nothing to do with religion, although getting rid of religion would increase average intelligence and since people would be smarter it could and most probably would affect even this.
Some countries are fighting for homosexuals, to let people marry whomever they want to, no matter what gender he or she is - because somewhere THAT is the biggest problem.
Marriage is not as connected to religion as it has been before. Either way, marriage is completely pointless. It includes contracts, laws, lawyers and people like that. It's worthless. You either are together or you are not, if you need some contract or some things that show that "you are together" then you shouldn't be together in the first place. Marriage is like forcing two people to remain together, it is stupid and very outdated and old. The more humanity and our knowledge advances the less it belongs here.
Homosexuality is a deviation from normal, basically a disorder.
People fight about things, when they win, they fight about the next problem.
Fighting over problems and solving problems are very different.
If there is no reason to fight then people will not fight. Religion gives many reasons to fight. Remove it and Earth will be much more peaceful.
a world without war is a fantasy. There is never going to be a world without war because human beings fight. it's in our nature to fight for things we want.
But for things like freedom and stuff, those things you will fight fore.
It's like you're saying they aren't fighting for them presently. As you keep saying people will find other things to fight for if religion disappeared. Or you think they will concentrate their energy toward those? Why aren't they doing it now, as those are far more important than religion anyway.
If religion disappeared people would on average become smarter, they would begin thinking about things they never had before. I doubt they'd mess things up even more than they currently are.
The only ones they would be fighting against would be the ones in leading positions, there aren't many of them compared to all the people. Freedom would be fast to come if there was none or too little.
If there is no need to fight people will not fight. The less reasons to fight the less fights.
Of course it does! What do you think all the "crusades" where about? Religion like the government controls peoples thoughts and actions by its decrees. So yes, holy men have ordered their subjects to kill in the name of their "lord"
Sorry but, what a stupid question! If it weren't for the mind set of the Muslims, would there be any terror attacks. If it weren't for the stupidity of the Christians, would there have had been the bloody crusades e.t.c. Religion causes wars more than anything else. Religious people will tell you "oh but it is man kinds greed, his selfishness that causes war. Man kinds ignorance." Ignorance of what. " Accept this figment of my imagination and worship it, or i will hurt you." How nice.
Sure it does. And just as true, is the fact that government causes war. Only idiots think that we could do away with either, the rest of us are charged with improving them.
To do away with religion is to improve it, and only idiots think otherwise. <--- Just look at that well formulated opinion and all it's supporting evidence. I mean, everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, will anyone be able to refute that? Solid logic, right there.
Really, though, you've probably just charged yourself with coddling religion, thus giving it an over-inflated sense of importance and worth and letting it think it can run amok and interfere with other peoples liberties. As it's doing now.
To do away with religion is to improve it, and only idiots think otherwise. <--- Just look at that well formulated opinion and all it's supporting evidence.
I am looking to be provocative and maybe spark up a discussion. My statement might have been a bare assertion, but at least it wasn't self refuting like yours. The evidence of what words (like religion) mean is based purely on consensus. Suppose religion was defined as "our idea of what we ought to be paying attention to" and everyone was arguing that (by that definition) all these huge problems were due to religion and that religion ought to therefore be done away with. ie we ought to (as if it were possible) stop participating in such mental exercises. Could you get my point then?
you've probably just charged yourself with coddling religion, thus giving it an over-inflated sense of importance and worth and letting it think it can run amok and interfere with other peoples liberties. As it's doing now.
And you are clearly demonizing it (anthropomorphism and all) , as if religion was itself the problem and the problems with religion aren't simply in how it's practiced. It's an awful lot like saying "government is bad" as opposed to comparing and critiquing it's varying expressions. If you are opposed to certain types of religions, and you get specific, and don't get caught up in the retarded mindset of blanket stereotyping, I'd say you might be on to something. When you admit that you practice your own somewhat individualized form of religion, you do so because you've started looking at religion in a more logical and progressive manner. Then discussions can ensue about how we are similar and how we differ religiously. When atheists can concede that religion is ubiquitous they can set about improving how it's practiced as opposed to entertaining the idiotic notion that it can be done away with.
I am looking to be provocative and maybe spark up a discussion.
And I was trying to be provocative enough to get you to respond to one of my disputes. It worked!
Suppose religion was defined as "our idea of what we ought to be paying attention to" and everyone was arguing that (by that definition) all these huge problems were due to religion and that religion ought to therefore be done away with. ie we ought to (as if it were possible) stop participating in such mental exercises. Could you get my point then?
If I were to "suppose" that religion was what you defined it as I could get your point, yes. But once again you've whittled down a whole slew of aspects and concepts that are intrinsic parts of the definition of religion. Religion is not just something we out to be paying attention to, that could better be described as a "life focus" or something. I feel like any stereotyping I might do is still closer to the truth than the over-simplifications we hear from you.
And you are clearly demonizing it (anthropomorphism and all) , as if religion was itself the problem and the problems with religion aren't simply in how it's practiced.
If practicing a brutal, barbaric ideology exactly how it was intended to be practiced/has been practiced in the past has a negative impact on humanity, I would say the ideology itself is the problem, not the way it is being practiced. If you remove the things I dislike about religion from religion, you no longer have a religion.
It's an awful lot like saying "government is bad" as opposed to comparing and critiquing it's varying expressions.
I think that humanity would be seriously worse off without governments because we need government to function well. No person needs religion to function well. However, anarchism is still a perfectly valid philosophy to hold.
If you are opposed to certain types of religions, and you get specific, and don't get caught up in the retarded mindset of blanket stereotyping, I'd say you might be on to something.
I am opposed to all types of religion that have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions. Correct me if I'm wrong but any religion lacking those elements could better be described as a philosophy. Once again your habit of retarded over-simplification will hinder your understand in this regard; "systems of belief" is a definition for both "religion" and "philosophy," but it does not describe the entirety of either.
When you admit that you practice your own somewhat individualized form of religion, you do so because you've started looking at religion in a more logical and progressive manner.
Do I have systems of belief and morals and some general persuasion on the meaning of life, sure. Does this make me religious? Of course not. I am not religious because my philosophy on life, my opinions, and by beliefs do not coincide with the generally accepted (as opposed to your personal) definition of religion. They agree with parts of it, sure, and if you want to be deliberately vague and not attempt to define me properly you might even call me religious, but that would be inaccurate and incorrect.
When atheists can concede that religion is ubiquitous they can set about improving how it's practiced as opposed to entertaining the idiotic notion that it can be done away with.
I don't see that as very likely, as atheists themselves are each a living, breathing testament to the ignorance of the statement "religion is ubiquitous." And can be done away with? I doubt it. The cancer of religion is too thoroughly ingrained in our society to ever fully be cured, but if trends continue I think we'll work it down to the last few hardcore pockets of religious zealots in the world. No, I don't think we'll ever do away with religion, but it's a lovely dream.
You just want to define religion based on the people who you'd probably admit are practicing the most immature varieties of it.
I would say the ideology itself is the problem, not the way it is being practiced.
You can be opposed to a specific ideology. And you have made it very clear that you understand that to talk of religion is to talk of ideologies, yet you can't seem to make the jump to realize that condemning religion in general is as stupid as saying "I am against ideologies"
I'll try to help you see the folly in your overly dogmatic way of viewing religion if I can
I think that humanity would be seriously worse off without governments because we need government to function well.
While I would contend that having some form of government is inescapable. Government can be changed but not done away with, and it is the same with religion.
anarchism is still a perfectly valid philosophy to hold.
Anarchy does not exist as a unified philosophy. Some professed anarchists hold the delusional notion that we can operate without any form of governance at all. Others who are better informed realize that their opposition is only to certain types of government. Namely those types whose authority is not based on the consent of the governed but rather violent coercion.
I am opposed to all types of religion that have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions.
That's better. However, with a tad of humility and a pinch of lateral thinking skills, I'll bet you can discover quite a few similarities where you fancy yourself so different. Ever heard that a person's religion is just their particular brand of intolerance?
Correct me if I'm wrong but any religion lacking those elements could better be described as a philosophy.
Why better?
Once again your habit of retarded over-simplification will hinder your understand in this regard; "systems of belief" is a definition for both "religion" and "philosophy," but it does not describe the entirety of either.
I think your characterization of religion being limited only to philosophies that "have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions." is an over-simplification that doesn't describe the entirety of what religion is. My description is all encompassing and yours only refers to sects that you have a problem with. I think it's important to establish where we have commonality before we get into comparing differences. The delusion that there are religious and non-religious people is clearly the orthodox way of looking at things, but it's certainly not helpful in any way.
I am not religious because my philosophy on life, my opinions, and by beliefs do not coincide with the generally accepted (as opposed to your personal) definition of religion.
There is more than one "generally accepted" definition of religion. Of the 4 definitions given at merriam webster's I think numbers 2 and 4 reasonably describe your religiosity.
atheists themselves are each a living, breathing testament to the ignorance of the statement "religion is ubiquitous."
atheists are just another sect defined by their religious beliefs about theism
The cancer of religion is too thoroughly ingrained in our society to ever fully be cured
If only you would view religion less ignorantly :) you'd see that it's not "ingrained in" society but rather that it is "fundamental to" every society. The cancer of religion cannot be cured until you recognize the problem is within religion, not religion itself.
If you have a large enough population of a religion, there are bound to be some really close-minded people who are sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong -- some aren't even that devoted to their religion. They just want to show how right they are.
Religion cannot be the scapegoat dor every single war in history as there are always many other (never one) discerning cause that sparked off a war. But et me list a few wars that heavily involved religion: The Crusades- King Richard the Lion Heart spent more time in friggin Jerusalem than he ever did in his own country! The Spanish Inquisition, the Israelite Conquest of Canaan, The French Revolution 1789, WWII (Holocaust), Iranian revolution, the Thirty Years' War, the Algerian War of Independence and Civil War, the fighting that is occurring between Northern and Southern Ireland in the present day.
Religion throughout history may have been the cause to certain wars, but religion in-it of itself does not cause war.
It causes war as much as "fear" or "greed."
Religion is an ideology that people stick to. Ideologies are all well-and-good unless, as Liber pointed out, politicians or leaders with agendas try to use that ideology to encourage violence.
The lynching of blacks by the Democrats of the South was fear inspired by group leaders who used their "way of life" as an excuse to kill people merely for the color of their skin.
Hitler used Nationalism and fear toward the Capitalist Jews (or even the Communists, whichever, anything that could get people riled up) as the reason to invoke Fascism and tyranny over Germany.
Religion has been used for the Crusades, but even so, it was only a tool to get the land and riches that inhabited the land. People are a mindless herd who are easily provoked into being blood-thirsty.
People are a mindless herd who are easily provoked into being blood-thirsty.
Very, and I would say usually, true. But I don't think all leaders and politicians are intelligent and maniacal enough to be able to utilize others for less-obvious and more-selfish ends. I think we often overlook the "true believers" when it comes to "politicians or leaders with agendas that use ideologies to encourage violence." People like Bush, who may have genuinely wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan because he is actually deluded and brainwashed enough to think he heard the voice of god telling him to. I think both of these groups, true believers and leaders abusing religion for selfish ends, are equally dangerous.
Religion doesn't cause war, there are other elements that go into war than just religion. People do use religion to justify war but it's not the main cause.
Not the main cause, no, but it certainly helps, doesn't it?
If Jews and Muslims didn't have their religion, what would motivate the Jews and Muslims to control their holy land so strongly?
There would be nothing. Even if their skin is different, or even if they DID still want the land, there would not be enough motivation to convince them to conquer it.
Same with extremist Muslims. Even if they did want money or power, they would have no way to justify it. They would be killing, and with no god to justify it with, they would have to take the guilt that they are killing innocent people.
Almost the entire US military is Christian. Even though they aren't fighting for a Christian cause really, George Bush did refer to the war on terror as a crusade, in one of his first speeches about it.
Religion gives power to desires that would normally be irrational to justify. It gives you a reason to fight, and feel ok about dying. If you die fighting, you believe you go to a paradise. If you kill the enemy, you are only killing heathens, people who are lower than you and who mock and refuse to believe in your god.
Religion is sometimes the main cause, sometimes a justifier, sometimes it gives soldiers fearlessness in murder or in being killed, and politicians can use it to endorse their motivations, using it, mixing it in with real motivations and thus manipulating people who believe, with other things they desire, while giving them peace of mind that they're doing what god desires, rather than killing innocents.
Almost the entire US military is Christian. Even though they aren't fighting for a Christian cause really, George Bush did refer to the war on terror as a crusade, in one of his first speeches about it.
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq', and I did." - George W. Bush
And I'm terribly ashamed to say that I live in a country where admitting to voices in the head can get you reelected president, but if you don't believe in the ancient tribal god of Middle Eastern nomads you've got no hope in hell of getting elected.
Another Bush treasure: “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”
"If Jews and Muslims didn't have their religion, what would motivate the Jews and Muslims to control their holy land so strongly?"
If they are so motivated by these millenia old religions, how come it is only in the last century that they've been fighting over Isreal?
"Religion gives power to desires that would normally be irrational to justify. It gives you a reason to fight, and feel ok about dying. If you die fighting, you believe you go to a paradise. If you kill the enemy, you are only killing heathens, people who are lower than you and who mock and refuse to believe in your god."
You have such a misguided interpretation that it's scary, many christians aren't prejudiced against other religions (this may be different in backwards America), they do not see muslims as heathen in the saem way they don't see atheists as heathen. They do not fight in some desperate attempt to become a martyer for their religion, they fight because they feel the need to protect those they love.
"Religion is sometimes the main cause, sometimes a justifier, sometimes it gives soldiers fearlessness in murder or in being killed, and politicians can use it to endorse their motivations, using it, mixing it in with real motivations and thus manipulating people who believe, with other things they desire, while giving them peace of mind that they're doing what god desires, rather than killing innocents."
You're making this up as you go along, using previous assumptions to come up with a twisted interpretation to fit your crazy prejudices.
If by Christian you mean someone who half believes, but in daily life never follows rules of the Bible, except ones they agree with, then no, that's not the sort of person who would have a burning desire to fight for god.
I know not every religious person is a blood thirsty monster,
"If they are so motivated by these millenia old religions, how come it is only in the last century that they've been fighting over Isreal?" In the Torah, the Jews were forced out of Israel, the land they felt was protected by their God. They've felt that that was their land ever since. Violence now might be caused by easy transportation to such a place. 100 years ago, we did not have planes or cars or tanks or guns with the capabilities we do now. Also, 100 years ago, most people lived the same. Now, some countries have computers and cars and complex cities, which Muslims view as sinful, "promiscuous" women, and of course, now that science has come this far, they are fighting for one last chance to bring the world back to the 5th century.
"You have such a misguided interpretation that it's scary, many christians aren't prejudiced against other religions (this may be different in backwards America), they do not see muslims as heathen in the saem way they don't see atheists as heathen. They do not fight in some desperate attempt to become a martyer for their religion, they fight because they feel the need to protect those they love."
If that was true, I think the world would be a much better, and more peaceful place. As ChadOnSunday said, George Bush felt a call from God to murder people. Nearly every Christian agreed, which is why we are STILL in the Middle-East, fighting and killing.
But, I never said religion purely caused war. I said it is a justifier. Oil and control is the main cause, isn't it? I'm not sure, the government is not honest.
However, Christians and Muslims in their holy book do look down on heathens as being wrong. By definition, I am a heathen.
I do not follow Christianity, and so I would be looked down on, or Christians would attempt to convert me. Not all, but many would be shocked, offended or just want to convert me. On a debate website, this is fine, but this has happened in the real world.
In the real world, I would never debate anyone unless they were actively seeking to debate.
"You're making this up as you go along"
Can you prove that? Or does what's true offend you? I have talked to many atheists, and nearly all say something like "With only one life, I would rather live it happily and do good things for people than serve in war and kill people, or risk my only life."
If you think that risking your life like that is bravery, then that is sick. Courage is doing what's right, even though it's hard, when the wrong thing feels easy or expected of you. To end a problem with a gunshot or bombing is not courage. I would not throw my life away because I know when I'm dead, I'm dead.
If all people thought like that, would there be war? With no way to justify fighting in the name of God, with no heaven to bring you to a wonderful place of happiness after you die in glorious battle, why in the world would you fight?
Perhaps to bring down nazism, yet all people who are fighting in war today are not fighting communism or nazism, but fighting people who live in third world countries. How can you justify that without calling them religious extremists?
If a Christian military, a nation run by a Christian president is fighting against Muslims.... that sounds a lot too much like the crusades, the crusades being fought for God, and for land and materials and money for me to think that it is a purely secular war.
This war today, and many in the past have been justified with religion, with other causes as primary or secondary sources.
I am not prejudiced, I do not assume all religious people are warmongers, but the people who fight in war primarily seem to be religious judging from the number of Christians in the US military and the enemy we are currently fighting.
We only have to look at a few examples of Holy Wars to answer this question is what someone may say, however it is not the religion that causes the war. Worshipping a statue never killed anyone (as far as I know), it was the people who worshipped the statue. What could the statue have done in a war? Nothing. People, on the other hand, can cause war - we're human.
There is religious war, when religious passion are fervor are exploited politically, and used to goad and motivate a populace to be eager to kill and selfless in death. I think that's bad.
And there's religious texts and dogma which preach violence, urging the faithful to slaughter unbelievers and wage war. I think that's bad.
Yes, both of these contain the human element, but without the religious element they wouldn't be possible.
With religion. You know how witch burning was justified?
Religion.
You know how anti gay marriage is justified?
Religion.
You know how an anti science attitude can be justified?
Religion.
Guess what the BEST way to justify something is.
They might find other reasons, but I can't think of any. Even you seem to be extremely vague.
"Other reasons". As if that meant anything. Name another reason besides the ones that augment war, such as desire for power and control or money and land.
Name something that would motivate, not the KING or RULER, but the SOLDIERS to WANT to FIGHT and DIE for a cause.
If the soldiers know that there is no god or afterlife, on BOTH sides of the field, I do not think they would fight except in extreme circumstances.
There would still be violence and hate and even murder, but war?
There would still be hate in the world, yes, but we would be absent religious hatred taught to children before they can think for themselves, and absent religious motivation to maintain prejudice and hate, and absent much of the will to so nonchalantly kill yourself for your religion. Without these things, people would be able to express any hatred they feel in a less catastrophic and deadly manner, instead of having religion stoke their hatred into a homicidal zeal.
People have an inherent tendency to form groups, to divide the world between us and them. If they didn't use religion, they would find some other way of dividing people, and it would be just as effective.
I think we evolved this tendency because it aided in our survival. In a world without birth control, there will always be more people than there are resources, and you can better compete for those resources if you align yourself with a strong group. Religion, and having a shared set of rules to live by, can allow you to form larger and more stable groups, and larger groups can lead to larger conflicts, but they don't cause the conflicts.
The brainwashing hatred towards nonbelievers is not present in all groups of people, but is a key element in all of the most popular religions. Conflict is an inherit part of religion; it's taught by the holy texts and dogma to be found in those religions. Conflict is not an inherit part of all large groups of people. So while I agree we might remain just as divided in the absence of religion, there would be a decrease in violence, as it is hard to wage a "just" but pointless war without god on your side.
The brainwashing hatred towards nonbelievers is not present in all groups of people, but is a key element in all of the most popular religions.
Good argument, but let me counter with another idea. Which of the "most poplular religions" contain this "brainwashing hatred of nonbelievers"? I ask because it seems to me that it's mostly the Abrahamic religions that have this characteristic. Would it be fair to say that only the Abrahamic religions promote war? I'm not aware of any wars justified by Hinduism or Buddhism.
I was hoping that first paragraph would show up in bold, because I've seen other posts do that when citing text from a previous post, but I guess it didn't work. Can someone tell me how that is done?
Use the asterisk symbol. Two asterisks on either side of a section of text gets you bold, and one on either side gets italics. When you go to reply or post, there should be a "show help" or "hide help" option right below the "Submit, Preview, Check Spelling" buttons. Toggling this option will also show you how to get bold and italics. But I understood what you were trying to do with my quote =p
To answer your question, yes this characteristic is common in the 3 main desert dogmas of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. However, Christianity and Islam together account for some 50-60% of the world population. Abarhamic religions are the "most popular religions" in the world today. I don't know as much about Hinduism and Buddhism (not as philosophies but in regards to their past and present atrocities, if any) because Hindus and Buddhists don't try to invade my life with their beliefs, and thus don't concern me. So yes, to the best of my knowledge it's the three desert dogmas that promote war, and this is not a trait readily found in all other religions, just the most popular ones, like I said.
This. I'm sure if religion had never been invented, there would still have been war.
Yet, why would you fight if death meant death? A king could issue orders from a high tower, but the people fighting might not obey unless that king was a god. A king can't say "Fight! Fight to bring me wealth and power. I want more land and more power!"
That would not ever work, except in some extreme cases.
What if that king said "Fight! God, the god we all believe in wants you to fight! Bring glory to God! God wills it! If you fight today, you honor God and will be rewarded in life and in death with pleasures beyond anything you can conceive of in life."
And of course, he can go on and on inventing as many benefits as the king wants to convince people to fight.
Now, if those people didn't believe in god at all, it wouldn't be as effective, but when you strongly believe with all your heart, if god is important to you, then a king, a person with authority and power, or rather, The Church, back in those days would have supreme authority over what god says. They could make up anything they wanted.
People will also fight for resources. People might call this greed, but you need resource to keep your people strong, and they need to be strong to be able to fend off enemies that might try to conquer them. In the U.S., where we really have a historically large supply of resources, this may not seem obvious, but in a lot of poorer countries, I think that is a very strong motivator to fight.
The Roman Empire didn't go to war to for their gods, they conquered other nations so they could collect taxes from those nations. The Mongols didn't go to war for their religion, Genghis started to fight to regain the nation that his father lost, continued the war in to China as revenge for atrocities that the Chinese had committed against the Mongols (at least according to a PBS special that I saw), and I would imagine that they continued to take over the world because of the wealth that plunder brought, and so that Genghis's sons could have their own territorials to rule (the PBS special ended with the attacks against China, so that last part is just conjecture).
On the other hand, the Viking religion (I'm not sure what it was called) did foster a warrior mentality because it rewarded those who died bravely in battle with an afterlife in Valhalla, so even though they didn't fight for their religion, it is arguable that their religion drove them into battle.
As for Christianity, although it is certainly cited as the reason for a lot of atrocities within Christian nations in an attempt to purge themselves of other religions, these aren't really wars. The only religious wars that I can think of that Christianity has inspired are the Crusades. Even the conquest of the New World was more blatantly motivated by greed. There was a lot of trying to convert the Indians to Christianity, but Christianity, at that time, usually tried to spread through conversion, not conquest.
Certainly early Islam spread through conquest, and I think early Judaism used religion as a force to unite its people against its enemies. And then, of course, there is the modern conflict in the Middle East, which probably wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't for religion.
I was going to use this as an argument against the original proposition of this debate, but I just re-read the question. It didn't ask if religion was the only cause of war, just whether or not is caused war, and I think there are definitely cases where religion has been the cause of war, so I just switched sides concerning this debate. However, I would also maintain that there are many other causes of war, and not all of them could be considered invalid.
I swear I clicked the "switch side" link before I posted the last entry, but it's still showing my side as 'no'. My only excuse is that I'm still a noob on this site, so I'm still trying to figure out the interface. :(
The Norse religion of the Vikings today is called Asatru.
And there have always been gods of war.
However, you are right, I suppose.
Resources can fuel a war very well. I think you are right in many ways, however, in today's world, it is mainly religion that is propagating wars. There is more to the start of a war than "Attack for God", but the belief in these modern religions can certainly cause a stir.
War are caused by people who thinks that power is control over others. War has no religion, sometimes you should fight for your religion but this doesn't mean is the religion that causes war.
has no religion you said? how about Moslem war? they maintain their argument. but, sometimes religion causes war. i think im pretty right to give this article to hold mind about it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion
Religion doesn't cause war, politicians cause war. Perhaps they've different religious views, and that adds to the tensions, but I find most often members of one group - be it a religious group, or nigh anything else - will get along tolerably well with the members of another group until those darn politicians start to meddle and get everybody hatin' each other. Without politicians - without politics - there may be more outbreaks of minor violence, but nothing which would compare to the violence of international warfare.
Who is teaching people to think in terms of us vs them. It's not only politicians or only religious leaders, I can tell you that. I don't think there is any significant difference between a politician and a religious leader. I think you are deluding yourself if you think politics and religion can be considered separately. A persons religion pretty much defines what they are willing to fight for.
I don't think there is any significant difference between a politician and a religious leader.
They are, in some regards, very similar. They hold the people's confidences and wield much power over their followers. However, the type of power is very different; the religious leader's is influence: he tells his congregation that homosexuals are sinful wretches that deserve neither life nor limb, and they will often follow blindly. The politician's power, however, has evolved much from that point: he can tell his subjects, just like the religious leader, that the homosexual is a sinful wretch who deserves neither life nor limb, but he has a collectively mindless army who follows through with his orders. Whether one individual or every individual involved disagrees with their mission, they will follow through with it, assigning the blame from themselves to their leaders. So long as the politician has an army to back up his dictates, then he has not just influential power but power from threat of physical violence.
I think you are deluding yourself
Think that if you wish.
if you think politics and religion can be considered separately.
Explain yourself and, if I feel it is deserved, I shall attempt to counter you.
The politician's power, however, has evolved much from that point: he can tell his subjects, just like the religious leader, that the homosexual is a sinful wretch who deserves neither life nor limb, but he has a collectively mindless army who follows through with his orders. Whether one individual or every individual involved disagrees with their mission, they will follow through with it, assigning the blame from themselves to their leaders. So long as the politician has an army to back up his dictates, then he has not just influential power but power from threat of physical violence.
lol. Politicians are the most successful religious leaders
Think that if you wish.
I'd rather think you were well informed.
Explain yourself and, if I feel it is deserved, I shall attempt to counter you.
I'll try giving an explanation you find worthy of countering later if I suspect your response will be worth reading.
Religion doesn't cause war- people cause was. In the crusades, god never declared war on allah. The people were extremists and made a war FOR their religon. Religious wars are caused by extremists who wish to kill others for their beliefs. Gods or beliefs don't make war.
The war-like tendencies of officially atheist regimes such as North Korea, North Vietnam, Communist China, and the Soviet Union prove for a fact that religion isn't necessarily a cause of war, sometimes atheism is...
The wars fought by the forces of International Communism. My main point is that religion may cause some wars, but it does not necessarily CAUSE war every time.
I agree. I also think a lot less people would be so easily convinced to get themselves killed in a holy war if they didn't believe they would reap endless rewards in the afterlife for it.
It would be fair to say that religion caused war if war was a religion's only onjective or one of religion's objectives. Religion in itself is very ambiguous. Some wars are started over religions but in reality these religious wars are only started as a right for one to defend themselves. Although i am not saying every religious war is an act of self defense. Some are started for selfish reasons e.g. land and thats not the religion's fault ( or not always); its just the human condition to be selfish. I rather think it is unfair to pinpoint on the crusades because when the crusades are looked at one can see that it does fully line up with the doctrine of Christianity and i would only agree with someone on that arguement if christianity permitted and ENCOURAGED this act of violence. Otherwise the arguement is weak and without backbone.
War is death. No matter what you are fighting for. How can be religion causing wars? Do not hide behind old rocks, guys. Man is guilty. We all are, on a different quality level; especially when we do not understand that if throughout years populations fought for religions, those people, those religions were fake. Religion itself asks no war. Man does, in order to get what he wants to: money, slaves, women, colonies. So he uses religion to give common people stronger reasons to move their asses and march thousands miles away to fight who-knows-who, for an after-life reward. I'm feeling ashamed for all those who answered "No", justifying themselves saying that sometimes it is correct for men to fight for their religions. War has nothing to do with religion.
Religion doesn't cause war. Its the feeling of being dominated or oppressed by an alien or different group of people be it ideology(capitalists & communism), race ( Blacks,whites, native americans, east Indians),ethnicity (Hutu and Tutsi violence), religion (Muslims and christian or Muslim and Jewish violence) that causes war War is also caused as a strife for power eg,between two rich groups or between the rich and the poor(eg.Farmers and landlords) as seen in the revolutions.In every case its evident that threat from a different group/community stimulates war.eg, A person will fight for his religious, his racial, his communal, and professional cause if anyone from his group is attacked or targeted specifically because he/she belongs to that group. So its not religion that causes war, its the people's personal sentiments(race,religion, profession) which when threatened brings out a self defense or attacking mechanism which leads to war.
The history shows us that religion is not a reason of war. Because the first and second world wars weren't caused by any kind of religion. WWI was the unfortunate culmination of dangerous levels of Nationalism. In WWII Hitler used nationality and ethnicity to motivate his group to take what he wanted. He wanted what other people had and tryed to be only one king of the world. So all wars in American history from the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the World Wars didn't have any connections with religion.
War is when people fight with each other for a bit of one territory or desired resource. One country wants something which another country has.Consequently the leader of this country do anything to destroy and take another countries resources.Then he may find different counterfeit reasons like religion,nationality, ethnicity and etc.
