Wherein once again Kurciff is shown to be a liar.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...r?page=0,2

Quote:Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

(08-13-2012 08:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Wherein once again Kurciff is shown to be a liar.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...r?page=0,2

Quote:Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.

I agree - Religion doesn't cause war. In fact, I kind of see religions role in war like this:

Insert King, despot, power seeker, etc. that says bascially - "I want more wealth and power" - I think I want next door neighbor's stuff.

Well, if I go tell my subjects, "Hey, lets go take the neighbor's stuff by force so I'm more rich and powerful, oh, and by the way, you may get killed in the process." Said subjects might to quite have the fervor necessary to put their life on the line.

However, if I can convince the subjects that the neighbor has blasphemed our religion and is threatening our way of life and our chances of afterlife, maybe they'll buy that......... and that is exactly how countless wars throughout history have been waged.

Religion is one of the few things important enough to humans to get them to risk theirs lives for. Family is another, but unless their is a direct threat, it's hard to get the average Joe to buy in.

Generally, religion isn't the instigator, it's a tool used by those wanting to take someone elses stuff.

Only governments want war.

I've never understood that argument either. If someone kills someone else in the name of Obama is Obama responsible for that death? I don't think so. The radical left wing thinks so.

(08-13-2012 09:56 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I've never understood that argument either. If someone kills someone else in the name of Obama is Obama responsible for that death? I don't think so. The radical left wing thinks so.

It has nothing to do with Logic..

True classical Atheist don't care passionately about Religion one way or the other. I have had engaging, interesting discussions with the on the matter. Typically we agree on one thing...

People by nature are selfish SOB's...

Today's modern Atheist is better called a secularist. They view the progression of a society without religious belief as a noble cause and a way to end the worlds problems, or at the very least lessen them.

You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent.

How odd that WW2 was not Religious, nor WW1, nor the American Civil War...

Quote:So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role.

Because it was convenient. If not religioun then something else would have played that role "Freedom" or "Democracy" or "Communism"...

Quote:Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

One does not need to be religious to be a zealot.

I disagree. The German army in WWI wore an inscription on their belts that said "GOD IS WITH US", and in WWII Hitler pandered to Christianity. Japan worshipped their Emperor. America obviously is a Christian nation, or was in 1860, and the Confederacy justified slaveholding using Bible passages. Freedom, democracy or communism won't get that atheist out of the foxhole unless, like I said, you're surrounding the encampment with brigades whose sole purpose is to keep the front line in line.

Again, I don't think religion is even the primary cause most of the time. But in most wars it has certainly been one cause among many.

(08-13-2012 11:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I disagree. The German army in WWI wore an inscription on their belts that said "GOD IS WITH US", and in WWII Hitler pandered to Christianity. Japan worshipped their Emperor. America obviously is a Christian nation, or was in 1860, and the Confederacy justified slaveholding using Bible passages. Freedom, democracy or communism won't get that atheist out of the foxhole unless, like I said, you're surrounding the encampment with brigades whose sole purpose is to keep the front line in line.

Again, I don't think religion is even the primary cause most of the time. But in most wars it has certainly been one cause among many.

The cause of the vast majority of wars are this:

We want you women, we want your land, we want your food, we want your money, we want you to be like us..

I never said in WW2 they did not use the trappings of religion to motivate folks I just said were it not for those trappings they would have used something else.

Look at the rights we have surrendered since 911 in the name of 'freedom' and 'security'...

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

(08-13-2012 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I disagree. The German army in WWI wore an inscription on their belts that said "GOD IS WITH US", and in WWII Hitler pandered to Christianity. Japan worshipped their Emperor. America obviously is a Christian nation, or was in 1860, and the Confederacy justified slaveholding using Bible passages. Freedom, democracy or communism won't get that atheist out of the foxhole unless, like I said, you're surrounding the encampment with brigades whose sole purpose is to keep the front line in line.

Again, I don't think religion is even the primary cause most of the time. But in most wars it has certainly been one cause among many.

The cause of the vast majority of wars are this:

We want you women, we want your land, we want your food, we want your money, we want you to be like us..

I never said in WW2 they did not use the trappings of religion to motivate folks I just said were it not for those trappings they would have used something else.

Look at the rights we have surrendered since 911 in the name of 'freedom' and 'security'...

And the way to justify that to the common people is what?

Would the crusades have been successful if the pope had said "we want your lands and your water and your gold" instead of "God has given this land to us"?

There is no doubt in my mind that what could be deemed religious wars is no more than one person in charge dropping the "God card" to make it easier to justify.

This article disproves nothing, and is really rather late to the punch. It's been what... a week or more since my last seriously religious thread? And you (Torch) believe to have disproven one point out of a dozen on why religion is bad for humanity?

Kudos.

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

(08-13-2012 11:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:09 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I disagree. The German army in WWI wore an inscription on their belts that said "GOD IS WITH US", and in WWII Hitler pandered to Christianity. Japan worshipped their Emperor. America obviously is a Christian nation, or was in 1860, and the Confederacy justified slaveholding using Bible passages. Freedom, democracy or communism won't get that atheist out of the foxhole unless, like I said, you're surrounding the encampment with brigades whose sole purpose is to keep the front line in line.

Again, I don't think religion is even the primary cause most of the time. But in most wars it has certainly been one cause among many.

The cause of the vast majority of wars are this:

We want you women, we want your land, we want your food, we want your money, we want you to be like us..

I never said in WW2 they did not use the trappings of religion to motivate folks I just said were it not for those trappings they would have used something else.

Look at the rights we have surrendered since 911 in the name of 'freedom' and 'security'...

And the way to justify that to the common people is what?

Would the crusades have been successful if the pope had said "we want your lands and your water and your gold" instead of "God has given this land to us"?

LOL you're wondering how you justify a glut of women, land, money, and influence to "the common people"

Would the crusades have happened? yes.. Give Catholic Spain and France managed to mix it up multiple times throughout history I think we can see that there is indeed something "bigger" than god being used..

God gave us the moon...

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

After reading through this article, this is more about how religion provides an "opiate to the masses" in order to foster government strength. It's purpose is to investigate the role of cultural strength and longevity in order to overpower it's competitors. For example:

Quote:Religion molds a nation in which it thrives, sometimes producing solidarity and sacred causes so powerful that citizens are willing to kill or die for a common good (as when Judea's Jews around the time of Christ persisted in rebellion unto political annihilation in the face of the Roman Empire's overwhelmingly military might). But religion can also hinder a society's ability to work out differences with others, especially if those others don't understand what religion is all about. That's the mess we find ourselves in today, not only among different groups of Americans in the so-called culture wars, but between secular and Judeo-Christian America and many Muslim countries.

Quote:Insurgents, revolutionaries, and terrorists all make use of this[the aforementioned] logic, generating outsized commitment that allows them to resist and often prevail against materially stronger foes. Consider the American revolutionaries who defied the greatest empire of their age by pledging "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" for the cause of "liberty or death." Surely they were aware of how unlikely they were to succeed, given the vast disparities in material resources, manpower, and training. As Osama Hamdan, the ranking Hamas politburo member for external affairs, put it to me in Damascus, Syria, "George Washington was fighting the strongest military in the world, beyond all reason. That's what we're doing. Exactly."

The author warns of this very important argument though

Quote:But the same logic that makes religious and sacred beliefs more likely to endure can make them impervious to compromise. Based on interviews, experiments, and surveys with Palestinians, Israelis, Indonesians, Indians, Afghans, and Iranians, my research with psychologists Jeremy Ginges, Douglas Medin, and others demonstrates that offering people material incentives (large amounts of money, guarantees for a life free of political violence) to compromise sacred values can backfire, increasing stated willingness to use violence. Such backfire effects occur both for convictions with clear religious investment (Jerusalem, sharia law) and for those that are at least initially nonreligious (Iran's right to a nuclear capability, Palestinian refugees' right of return).

Sound familiar? *cough cough you damn liberals/conservatives/republicans/democrats and your dastardly tyrannical ways*

In fact, upon finishing the article, the statistic isn't even the main point, and is relegated to only 2 paragraphs out of dozens. It's used as a mitigating factor in why scientists are largely non-religious (90+%, according to the article). I wouldn't call it cherry-picking on Torches part, but it is very misleading of him.

Interesting point.

Quote:...studies suggest that seemingly contrary evidence rarely undermines religious belief, especially among groups welded by ritualized sacrifice in the face of outside threats.

Oh and this tidbit was conveniently left out

Quote:Although surprisingly few wars are started by religions, once they start, religion -- and the values it imposes -- can play a critical role. When competing interests are framed in terms of religious and sacred values, conflict may persist for decades, even centuries. Disputes over otherwise mundane phenomena then become existential struggles, as when land becomes "Holy Land." Secular issues become sacralized and nonnegotiable, regardless of material rewards or punishments

This article is explaining the need to understand religions and their effect on it's populace, but does not imply supporting those religions. A wholly secular piece if you ask me.

Nice try though.

(08-13-2012 11:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

And science has also been (mis)used in that it gave us everything from the viruses on your computer to the nuclear bomb.

(08-13-2012 12:57 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

And science has also been (mis)used in that it gave us everything from the viruses on your computer to the nuclear bomb.

On the same coin, it gave us the computer and Nuclear Energy.

But hey, if you are content catching your food with sharpened stones and eating it raw, be my guest.

(08-13-2012 01:24 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 12:57 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:44 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 11:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-13-2012 10:48 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You know what they say about atheists and foxholes. Without history's religions convincing soldiers they will be rewarded in the next life for their sacrifice, and that the almighty(s) are on their side, armies would be a lot smaller and wars a lot less frequent. So religion may not frequently be a primary motivating factor but it almost always plays a supporting role. Yes there was the Red Army, but in such instances with the absence of religion you need to expend considerable resources and devote entire brigades just to keeping the soldiers in line and from deserting.

You know what they say about the proof is in the pudding.

You're a liar max, history proves that.

I'll give you another figure of speech:

Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

And science has also been (mis)used in that it gave us everything from the viruses on your computer to the nuclear bomb.

On the same coin, it gave us the computer and Nuclear Energy.

But hey, if you are content catching your food with sharpened stones and eating it raw, be my guest.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Maybe you should question the greatest scientific mind who ever lived....

I suggest everyone read...War is a racket...by Smedley Butler (most decorated Marine in history) He explained the dynamics and politics of war pretty damn well after WWI.

I don't really understand why this Kruciff guy thinks science and religion are mutually exclusive. They're not.