Just had a strange thought. I've always been of the opinion that religion is the cause of, or is blamed for, many (most?) wars in the history of the world and current conflicts. I've also thought that over time the strength and popularity of people's religious beliefs decreases. So...at some point in the future will the majority of the world's population stop being religious and if so will the world become a better place?
This appears to be flamebait, but it is something I feel strongly about and I assure you I'm not doing it to provoke a flamewar.
I can't say I am the worlds most religous person, and I just believe what it is I want to believe, which does seem to change over time but that happens. About the majority of the world ending beliefs in religion I doubt that will happen just due to the many different beliefs people already have and what a lot of those people will do/sacrifice for their beliefs. I don't know if most wars have been due to religion but there have definitely been some that started due to different sides of people having different beliefs... Good luck on not starting a flame war, and I think that it might be possible to spark a civilized conversation... (The probability is a different story though ;D)
The main reason I think it's possible is that people's religious beliefs have been subject to massive change throughout history. Many people in the world today are prepared to die for their religious beliefs but those beliefs are probably only a couple of thousand years old at most. Before there was Christianity, for example, people believed in Sun Gods and others that have long since been forgotten/deprecated. New influences can change people's beliefs on a global basis. I'm not saying it would be a quick change, it could be in the hundreds/thousands of years.
Still doesn't change the fact that human's are fatally attracted to being religous, and religous fervour is what causes the problems not religion per say.
Look at sport (soccer springs to mind) or even this forum it's the ones that have religous fervour that cause things to esculate beyond reason
And just because an indervidual or group of individuals might not have a religion doesn't necessarily mean they are not religious
I think a vast majority of people will always be religious, it's easier than the alternative...
It has often been alleged, that religion is the principal cause of most wars; but I very much doubt it.
Instead, it seems likely to me that the majority of wars (like conflicts among humans, generally) are caused by competition for resources - such as land (and water), minerals, trade routes, slaves to provide labor, access to sexual partners, etc. People often wage wars, also, for (political) power - which is simply another aspect of a competition for resources: in this case, not direct competition over control of the resource, but indirect competition, by way of determining who shall later decide the control of the resource.
Religions are often the guiding social structures of populations, and it may therefore be supposed that the religious disagreements are, themselves, the cause of the conflict, but one could as well suppose that wars are fought because of disagreements about whose political system should be regarded as superior, or whose geographical home-location should be regarded as superior, or whose skin color, language or musical-style preferences should be regarded as superior. Peoples (of different religions) fight with one another, because they are different peoples - who are in competition with one another over something; the religion may be an identifier, but it is not necessarily a cause.
Make a list of all the wars that you can think of, and see how many of them can really be attributed specifically to disagreements about religious (or other) ideology, and how many would be, instead, more reasonably attributed to disagreements about control, over natural resources or the populations that control them.
This is not to say that differences of religious beliefs cannot be a cause of war; but ultimately, the fight is not about what will be believed, but what will be done, and who will decide that, and for what purpose, and for whose benefit in contrast to whose loss.
Religions are to blame for many massacres throughout the history, but wars were (and still are) started for other reasons... But religion is a good way of getting people on your side and recruiting them for the war... This in my opinion is really the guilt of religions: they turned a blind eye or even collaborated with the world's most gruesome warseekers, giving them the means to unleash their destructive power on others...
Religion is an excuse for war and a very good recruitment and brainwashing tool, no doubt it only came into place and stayed in place due to those in power realising its controlling effects. Sure some may truly believe but the majority, especially today don't seem to but still just go along with it.
I don't think religion is necessarily the cause for many of the past wars, but it's definitely a tool (mis)used by zealots/extremists/powerhungry leaders to control the masses. So in that sense, religion has made and still does make many wars possible, though I somehow doubt that there would be no wars if we had no religion. I think if that were the case, other methods of control would be found (the media are already used for that today), and wars would still happen, maybe with a bit more trouble to justify them but I'm sure mankind would find reasons good enough to work for the warmongers.
I think the main problem is actually the, let's call them uneducated or naive people who let themselves and their opinion be completely controlled by such means, up to the point where they blow themselves to smithereens in the name of a god.
Now, while I'd personally have no problems if religions were to vanish, they're at least somewhat predictable, whereas when you look for example at the internet, opinions and trends can come out of nowhere.
Most wars and deaths have been because of two opposing sides worshipping different religions without realising that in most cases it's the same God(s). Then, to make the victorious religion more appealing they tweak the religion a bit to take in certain aspects of the losing religion. Thus they all lose their point.
Probably 90% of Christian Holy Days are bastardisations of Pagan events.
I'd reckon about 5 - 10% of wars have been about resources. But I have no basis for any of the numbers other than my own feeling.
One group of people thinks they are the only people who can possibly be right and everyone else is wrong. And then they try to make the rest of the people believe the same thing. But because every one of these groups thinks like this, fighting breaks out.
Whatever happened to "live and let live"? I don't know. I don't try and force my views on other people.
But still, if it wasn't religion they'd find something else to fight about. Hair colour or postcode or some bullshit. People are idiots.
Ok talking about changing of beliefs thats totally possible - but don't think that sun gods and others have been forgotten about, after all you knew / remembered about them. It could also be due to science which can be against beliefs at times because it can be used to prove things (for better or for worse). I don't quite know how you got to your second post from your first post or mine, but I am going to read some of the other responses now...
This is exactly the proposition that I have argued against.
Well, instead try to be reasonable about it. What facts support your hypothesis? If your hypothesis is (and it is) that "most wars and deaths have been because of two opposing sides worshipping different religions," then this appears to be an objective assertion that can be tested, and evaluated as being objectively true or false:
"Most wars"? Which ones? Factually, which wars have been "because of two opposing sides worshipping different religions," and which wars have not been because of that? How many of each? What is the factual truth?
Your "own feelings" pertain to whether you are in pain, or whether you are comfortable; whether you are happy, or whether you are sad; whether you are angry, or whether you are calm...
Your BELIEF about the cause of this or that war, or about how many wars for this cause and how many wars for that cause, may be a result of prejudice and your emotions pertaining to your evaluation of whether that prejudice is secure or threatened, but otherwise is not a matter of subjective "feeling," but of objective fact, and to what extent, and for what reasons, one can be confident that this IS objective fact.
If you would be credible in your discussion of objective considerations, it is worthwhile to reason accurately, since your assertions pertaining to such considerations, are significant to your fellows, based upon whether you speak/write truth or falsehood. Claiming that you speak only of what you feel, is fine if the subject of discussion is your emotional state, and not the reality of our common world, in which the difference between truth and falsehood, matters as a basis for making consequential decisions. You can talk about your feelings, if we are talking about you; but we are not. We are talking about war and the causes of war, and the meaning and effect of religions. What is the truth about THAT subject?
Blimey. You got out your Big Words Dictionary there, didn't you!
I have no idea exactly what facts support my opinion. Maybe it can be tested, maybe it can't. There have been several million wars since man kind got out of the trees (or, suddenly appeared, along with fossil evidence put there to throw us off the scent, depending on your point of view).
Examples: Ireland. All conflicts between the Middle East and 'The West', both World Wars (although the actual wars developed into something else, but I believe both were started by religion motivated attacks), most conflicts within the Middle East, the crusades...
Whether or not you agree with the fact they were about religion or not is up to the individual.
My own feelings are more than simplistic pleasure/pain or happy/sad things. We have evolved (or suddenly appeared) to have feelings/thoughts/emotions about a lot of things. My feelings are, basically, the coldest, nastiest and war mongering humans have all been religious. Make of that what you will.
But you made your last sentence so over the top that I can't be bothered to sit down and work out what you meant. Sorry about that.
May I assume you are closed minded about the topic (i.e. you have strong religious beliefs that you won't be swayed from no matter what)?
Religion is an effective way to create social cohesion. But it's not the only way: nationality, ethnicity (Hutu vs. Tutsi), political views (Nazism vs. Marxism) are also very good at creating cohesion.* Social cohesion can be beneficial. But when it goes awry you get groupthink, and that's when people become willing to go to war ("right or wrong -- my country"). They are prepared to slaughter other humans just because they belong to the other group.
The more absolute the claims that define the group, the higher the risk of derailment. And that puts many religions with their myths of salvation/damnation, their commandments etc., at a high risk of causing war.
The Western countries have seen a gradual decrease in membership of organised religions. But that's no use if people switch to other ways of defining themselves (e.g. nationality), with equal fanaticism.
*: Less effective, but still working: grippers vs. drifters, LFS vs. rFactor.
No, but if there is a word that I have used, that you don't understand (and have no dictionary of your own), then I am willing to try to define it for you.
Then what is your purpose in expressing an opinion on the subject, if you have nothing whatsoever to base it on? Shall we all flip a coin, and decide whether religion is the principal cause of warfare, based upon how many heads, and tails, we get? You HAVE made an assertion. And now, you seem to say not only that you have no way of knowing if your assertion is true, but that furthermore, it doesn't even matter whether or not it is true. Why, then, did you present it? What was your purpose in making the statement, if it has no basis in truth, and no value?
Well, good. Now you're on track, at least. However, these are just some examples (and debatable ones, at that - especially the World Wars, to my mind, although I am no expert on history) of wars based upon religions. Thus, you have a reason for supposing that religion has been, at least somehow, a cause for SOME wars - which is a VERY different proposition than that MOST wars have been because of religion, which is what you asserted (presumably, as a statement of what is significantly true about religion, and about war).
Anyway...
How about the Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Mongol, Macedonian, Roman, Viking, British, French, Spanish, and other, wars for empire? How about the war between King John and the feudal lords that resulted in Magna Carta? How about the French Revolution, the American Revolution and Civil War, and every other American war? How about British, French, Spanish and Portuguese wars of colonization? How about the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian and Cuban Civil Wars? How about other civil wars, and a great many inter-tribal wars on all continents (except Antarctica, I suppose)? There have been MANY wars with no apparent religious basis that was primary or explicit. And yet, you have asserted that religion is the cause of MOST wars (again, presumably for the purpose of making some meaningful statement about religion, that significantly distinguishes it from general, biological competition between human populations).
Agreement may be up to the individual, but truth is not. And there may be enormously different consequences resulting from an agreement with truth, contrasted to an agreement with falsehood - which is why truth is valued, falsehood is abhorred, and people care very much about discerning the difference between them, and about the qualities of arguments that are used to assist in discerning the difference. Humans have, perhaps uniquely, language (and abstract, logical reasoning) - and a use for it that is much greater (including, more beneficial and more powerfully dangerous) than communicating their transient emotional state. Also, there is a significant distinction between a vague, intuitional "feeling" about what is true, and a truth that is actually, reliably that.
I have made of it that you have described your belief - which is distinct from a thought, and both are distinct from an emotion (most commonly, also called a "feeling," although admittedly, it is not uncommon to use, sometimes confusingly, the word "feel" as a synonym for "believe"). More significantly - and with polite apology - I have reason for regarding your belief as not representing a reliable truth.
Not a problem, actually, since it was expected, and intended, to provoke thought (and perhaps a more objectively useful argument from you, eventually).
You would be foolish to assume that I have immutable religious beliefs. You would be correct to assume that I have thought carefully about the topic, and have expressed my best, reasoned understanding at this moment, pertaining to it. If I were afraid that you might change my mind, I would not have given you the opportunity to try. But I can assure you that ad hominem argumentation will be as useless for that purpose as it has always been known to be, as a logical fallacy because of being irrelevant (unless, of course, you're just trying to hurt my feelings).
David.. definitively, anyone who has lived and observed is likely to have formed an opinion. This is a discussion forum and not intended to be a dictionary of definitions or an encyclopaedia of "facts". If Tristan has an opinion, well-formed or not, he is entitled to hold it and, on this forum - assuming it doesn't breach our codes of conduct - express it. While it seems clear that you wish (with some passion, in fact) to express YOUR opinion, I think it only fair to afford Tristan the right to do so. You can challenge Tristan's opinions with contrary information, but I cannot emphasise strongly enough how silly you sound when you attack him for holding opinions at all. Doubly so, in point of fact, when you do so with (as Tristan identified) a deluge of multi-syllabic convolution. Whether speaking from a position of authority or speaking in an authoritative fashion, you won't move anyone in a debate if you leave people thinking "geez, what a tosser". For the record, if you do that, you haven't won the debate.
Why don't you write normally, rather than using pointlessly pompous words? I understand every single one, but it doesn't make for easy reading or understanding. KISS - Keep it simple, stupid.
You can flip a coin if you like. I've based my opinion on what I've read over the years. I didn't just make it up. It's an opinion I've had for years, and until someone can prove it incorrect then I'm sticking with it
Just because you can name a couple of dozen wars that YOU think weren't started due to differences in religion is by no means most either. As I said, there must have been several million 'wars' over the years, and countless deaths, and I firmly believe/feel/think (whatever you want to use - they all mean the same thing) the majority have been over religion.
If you don't agree then that's fine. But you won't change my opinion on the subject by writing in long prose to try and look educated, or even using basic latin. Just as you won't make me believe that a bearded deity suddenly decided to make a world with people on, then let them **** it up for their own amusement... It's all illogical.
You didn't answer my question. Are you a closed-minded religious weirdo, or are you an non-believer?
Hurt your feelings? No - my posts attack the post, not the postee (most of the time). If you are going to resort to the 'are you trying to make me cry' thing after just one reply then I have a feeling this 'discussion' is going to go downhill.
Oh, and truth is most definitely and without doubt (in my opinion) entirely subjective. It's a Hurrah word, nothing more. I believe the last person to get the masses moving on the expression of so-called "universal truths" was Marx, and I think we've satisfied ourselves - with the exception of the American right-wing Judaeo-Christians, of course, that's a given - that universal truths are works of pure fiction. A bit like most biblical teachings, in fact.
it's the ones that have religous fervour that cause things to esculate beyond reason 
