Crusades against religion

[Ophiolite]

What about the many wars that have religion as a major part of the underlying cause?

That old chestnut. Many of those wars in which religion was the declared cause were ultimately issues of politics and economics, with religion providing the rationale, not the motive.

[MigL]

Totally agree, Ophiolite.

If someone wants to wage war there are a multitude of stupid reasons to do so.

[Ten oz]

Are there explains of this crusade ?

[imatfaal]

That old chestnut. Many of those wars in which religion was the declared cause were ultimately issues of politics and economics, with religion providing the rationale, not the motive.

 

Totally agree, Ophiolite.

If someone wants to wage war there are a multitude of stupid reasons to do so.

 

I agree with both the above - to a limited extent. If we are to concede that religious differences are merely a useful distraction, an excuse, a public justification, for many of the wars that are initiated by a deeper politico-economic motivation then this raises two problems.

 

Firstly; many of the combatants, the grunts on the ground, believe(d) the fiction and lose(lost) their lives for it (citation needed) - thus religion is transformed from a proximal reason to fight a war into an ideology used by the members of government to enable a war to be fought for other reasons. Is this a change that reflects on religion in a good light?

 

Secondly; if we are to believe that religion is merely a useful cover-all explanation for the evils of war then why can the converse not apply. I would claim that "the vital role that religion played for millenia [sic] in helping foster unity within societies" is also a co-incidental rationalisation. The feeling of shared humanity will tend to bring communities together and create societal benefits through joint enterprise; like in the war example, Religion is merely co-incidental.

 

Wars happened and those wars are blamed upon religion - good things happened and those good things are credited to religion. I question the discourse which holds that Religion causes a majority of wars as much as I question that which holds that Religion forms the basis of our society and morality.

[Ten oz]

Religion informs a persons thinking. It effects the way its members process information. Religion is not any more a scapegoat for ongoing chauvinism in Islamic countries than science is merely an excuse for the existence of smartphones. What humans believe matters. I can not agree with the notion that religion has been blamed for wars that were actually cause by other factors like economics. No thought exists on an island. Manifest destiny may have been economic but it was thought up upon a foundation of religious thinking.

[MigL]

Religion is simply like any other man initiated endeavor, imatfaal.

 

It may have been initiated with good intentions, but soon enough, unscrupulous people start using it to take advantage of others.

See atomic energy, the internet, communism, etc.

 

 

Edit:

Sorry spelled your name wrong.

Edited December 15, 2014 by MigL

[imatfaal]

Religion is simply like any other man initiated endeavor, imatfaal.

 

It may have been initiated with good intentions, but soon enough, unscrupulous people start using it to take advantage of others.

See atomic energy, the internet, communism, etc.

 

 

Edit:

Sorry spelled your name wrong.

 

I would have to agree with the above. I wanted to make the point - which cuts both ways - that if you take credit for the good you have to take it for the bad. Anti-religionists will point to wars and be rebuked because there are socio-political reasons for war that have nothing to do with religion; Religionists will point to community building and goodworks and be similarly countered.

 

BTW is "Anti-religionist" a word? I have used it cos so many people jump down one's throat if one uses Atheist; and, to those who say the definition is simple, please let's not start that argument again - I understand what the use of the privative alpha and -theist imports, but I also know what those who coined the term meant by it.

[iNow]

^ Anti-theist is more common in this context.

[daBee]

I was convinced after about 1 year of watching Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens and reading their literature complemented by my own thoughts. All of this occurred in the confines of my own mind, an important aspect when emancipation from religion. Confinement prevents the ego from inhibiting rationality.

 

I never imagined there even existed people who did not believe in God until I saw these guys. So, I thank them.

 

You know, it's interesting that you posted this. I have the same experience. I often wondered why someone would take the position on the soap-box like Dawkins would. But I listened to Dawkins and Hitchens when asked why they do this. And they had some valid answers.

 

Someone has to remind the world their head is up their ass. Otherwise we won't change, not to mention give control over to these delusional people. The reason they hate Atheists the most is because Atheists have the strongest message that has the most solid backing.

 

Because of that, I now have a stronger voice and call people out on their religion a lot more often. Not the best results, but some people need a wake-up call.

 

Cheers