Are all Wars Caused by Religion?

Originally posted by Heronumber0

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't think religion is the cause of most conflicts but is certainly a recurrent factor of war. While most wars are fought for economic reasons religion is a good tool to give a simple ideal for the people to fight for (example : the crusades).

But Darkside, apart from the Crusades, which were religiously divided, I cannot think of a war caused by religion in the last, oh... say...400 years

Not wars but certainly lots of violence, murders, executions, torture, suffering, and last but not least : international terrorism.

But Darkside, apart from the Crusades, which were religiously divided, I cannot think of a war caused by religion in the last, oh... say...400 years

Not wars but certainly lots of violence, murders, executions, torture, suffering, and last but not least : international terrorism.

I certainly agree with you there. But that is manipulation of religion for egocentric ends. True religious people can actually live with each other and atheists in a contented fashion.

However, this brings out another point. Do you think that atheism or shamanism would have led to fewer conflicts and wars. Because I don't think so.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
But that is manipulation of religion for egocentric ends.

Is that always the case though? Doesn't the suicidal terrorist blow himself up because he is profoundly convinced that he'll go to heaven for doing so?

However, this brings out another point. Do you think that atheism or shamanism would have led to fewer conflicts and wars. Because I don't think so.

I couldn't tell if there would be more or less conflicts than abrahamic religions,
but I do believe wars will always happen no matter the beliefs for the simple reason that multiple civilisations with different interests exist. The only period of humanity that knew no wars was when we were only nomadic hunter-gatherers, before agriculture and writing.

Concerning shamanism, I believe the world would be a lot more peaceful, because if you study the shamanic tribes that still exist today, most have peaceful relations with the neighbouring tribes, except for "endemic warfare"

Endemic warfare is the state of continual, low-threshold warfare in a tribal warrior society. Endemic warfare is often highly ritualized to minimise fatalities, and plays an important function in assisting the formation of a social structure among the tribes' males by "proving themselves in battle". Typical activities associated with endemic warfare are cattle raids and abduction of women.

Which is in a way similar to how some species of ants behave when they meet another nest of the same species.


[edit on 9-6-2007 by DarkSide]

War is also a construct of our primate ancestors.

We are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other species on the planet, and chimpanzees have wars over territory, just as we do. Chimpanzee males will patrol the edges of their territory and look for victims from other troupes to kidnap, beating them badly or outright killing them.

As abhorrent as war is to me, it is a natural phenomenon that we should be able to learn to overcome with our advanced brains in the same way we've got some of our other baser urges under control (more or less).

Religion, however, belongs only to man and becomes a wholly human excuse for an otherwise biologically-driven activity. Religion is the excuse for why we don't overcome evolutionary biology.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
War is also a construct of our primate ancestors.

We are more closely related to chimpanzees than any other species on the planet, and chimpanzees have wars over territory, just as we do. Chimpanzee males will patrol the edges of their territory and look for victims from other troupes to kidnap, beating them badly or outright killing them.

Have to disagree here. I knew I'd read something in the journals about this: "The vigorous debate on how different chimpanzees are from humans is fuelled by new data in this week's Nature, as the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts (Nature 2004, 429:382-338)." Link here

Religion, however, belongs only to man and becomes a wholly human excuse for an otherwise biologically-driven activity. Religion is the excuse for why we don't overcome evolutionary biology.

How would you suggest that we overcome evolutionary biology? Because if you are suggesting making chimaeras by making human transgenic embryos, I guarantee that 99% of atheist scientists would reject the idea as immoral and unethical.

Concerning shamanism, I believe the world would be a lot more peaceful, because if you study the shamanic tribes that still exist today, most have peaceful relations with the neighbouring tribes, except for "endemic warfare"

Which is in a way similar to how some species of ants behave when they meet another nest of the same species.
[edit on 9-6-2007 by DarkSide]

I have to consider this from a slightly different point of view. Endemic warfare on islands may be different in different biomes. For example in the times of Tacitus (I think second century C.E.) I remember reading about the warlike and aggressive nature of tribes that Tacitus saw on his journey in the Pyrenees. If we consider the three waves of Celtic invasion of Britain over the course of hundreds of years, I think they cetainly did not have bead-making on their minds when they invaded.

It is true that war is a totally natural occurance in Nature, there are particular species of ants that are continually warring with other species, over resources, territory and food.

I doubt whether there would have been any more or less wars due to atheism, shamanism or theism. It is in our nature to attack those that we see as different to ourselves, those we deem as having more than ourselves and those that we believe threaten our way of life through their different beliefs.
But we have evolved sufficiently that we can change this part of our nature. Maybe?


:bash:

Originally posted by mojo4sale
It is true that war is a totally natural occurance in Nature, there are particular species of ants that are continually warring with other species, over resources, territory and food.

I doubt whether there would have been any more or less wars due to atheism, shamanism or theism. It is in our nature to attack those that we see as different to ourselves, those we deem as having more than ourselves and those that we believe threaten our way of life through their different beliefs.
But we have evolved sufficiently that we can change this part of our nature. Maybe?

:bash:

I think that this is an incredibly important point which seems to be a truism to me. Do the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Rwanda, Congo suggest that evolution has succeeded? I don't know.

For example in the times of Tacitus (I think second century C.E.) I remember reading about the warlike and aggressive nature of tribes that Tacitus saw on his journey in the Pyrenees. If we consider the three waves of Celtic invasion of Britain over the course of hundreds of years, I think they cetainly did not have bead-making on their minds when they invaded.

I don't think there were any tribes in Europe at that period. Especially not tribes with animistic beliefs. Most people at the time were more and likely polytheistic. Also the Celts were a civilisation and were not tribal.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by DarkSide]

I don't think there were any tribes in Europe at that period. Especially not tribes with animistic beliefs. Most people at the time were more and likely polytheistic. Also the Celts were a civilisation and were not tribal.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by DarkSide]

Darkside, thank you for your comments. I lost the d___n copy of the 'Agricola and Germania' by Tacitus so I had to google this point:

"The Roman historian Tacitus produced in the first century A.D. a description of ancient Germanic tribes entitled De origine et situ Germanorum (often cited in the abbreviated form Germania) in which he also named a certain tribe which he referred to as Gotones."
Here

I was sure that the Celts invaded Britain in three waves of tribal invasion as evidenced by this: "For a start, the concept of a "Celtic" people is a modern and somewhat romantic reinterpretation of history. The “Celts” were warring tribes who certainly wouldn’t have seen themselves as one people at the time.

Where did they come from? What we do know is that the people we call Celts gradually infiltrated Britain over the course of the centuries between about 500 and 100 B.C. There was probably never an organized Celtic invasion; for one thing the Celts were so fragmented and given to fighting among themselves that the idea of a concerted invasion would have been ludicrous. "

Celts

The Druids seem to be pretty animistic to me, believing in spirits from trees and the Earth, but I may be wrong on this. I think human evolution has failed and we will just find better ways to destroy each other in more 'civilised' ways. In many ways, the Cel;ts and the Gotones were more civilised than people in our century.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
The Druids seem to be pretty animistic to me, believing in spirits from trees and the Earth, but I may be wrong on this.

They were animistic in the fact that the ancient belief in spirits remained but they were mainly polytheistic.They may have believed in forest spirits but it's to the god of nature that they'd worship and do sacrifices to (god of nature is a generic term, it could have been the god of the forest or something).

I think human evolution has failed and we will just find better ways to destroy each other in more 'civilised' ways.

What evolution?

In many ways, the Cel;ts and the Gotones were more civilised than people in our century.

They weren't. We are the same human beings since 50 000 years, only our technology has progressed.

They were animistic in the fact that the ancient belief in spirits remained but they were mainly polytheistic.They may have believed in forest spirits but it's to the god of nature that they'd worship and do sacrifices to (god of nature is a generic term, it could have been the god of the forest or something).

OK. I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this point.

What evolution?

Moral evolution. We are now getting into definitions of civilisation. I was just hoping that humans would be able to learn from past collective experiece and correct themselves but we never will.

They weren't. We are the same human beings since 50 000 years, only our technology has progressed.

They, at least, despatched their enemies summarily without the protracted torture that our technology seems to exert on people. In my book that is more civilised than having a Death Row.

Darkside, my main point was that atheists cannot associate religion with war as one excuse for them abandoning hope in religion as a source of hope. Possibly the main difference between atheists and believers is that we have hope for the future whereas everything that you have become will die with you and only be carried into posterity if you achieve great works.

However my faith asks me to love you and I do. I don't want to convert you, but just to understand your 'take' on the world. Peace out.

Originally posted by DarkSide
They weren't. We are the same human beings since 50 000 years, only our technology has progressed.

We still physically evolved in that time frame. People are generally taller now than we were 50000 years ago, facial features have also changed and due to the close proximity that we live in today intermingling of ethnic groups continues to change our physical make up. Evolution didnt just stop 50000 years ago.

Evolution is still going strong. Icelanders are approximately 1000 years old as a culture and already have distinct genetic markers of their own.

You can't see evolution happen because it's on a different timescale than we live on.

Originally posted by Heronumber0

Darkside, my main point was that atheists cannot associate religion with war as one excuse for them abandoning hope in religion as a source of hope.

Please dont take this the wrong way but that is such an arrogant statement. Many renowned theists will accept the fact that wars have and probably will continue to be the cause/justification for war as long as humans across the globe continue to have different belief systems. Atheists arent looking for excuses to not believe in God, thats an oxymoron.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Possibly the main difference between atheists and believers is that we have hope for the future whereas everything that you have become will die with you and only be carried into posterity if you achieve great works.

Atheists have not abandoned hope at all. I'm an extremely optimistic person and have great hope for the human race, i just dont believe that God has anything to do with it. You seem to be under the impression that unless you believe in God or "achieve great works" then we have wasted our lives. What a crock. My children are my hope for the future, i'm sure other atheists will have different views, thats the exciting thing about being an atheist. We all have different views yet when was the last time atheists went to war over their differing idealogies.

Please dont take this the wrong way but that is such an arrogant statement. Many renowned theists will accept the fact that wars have and probably will continue to be the cause/justification for war as long as humans across the globe continue to have different belief systems. Atheists arent looking for excuses to not believe in God, thats an oxymoron.

No offence taken. I really should think before I post, but the printed word is so compelling...I think previous posts have aptly pointed out the multitude of reasons for war, with religion as another purposeful excuse.

People who are not atheists but on their way, in discussions with me have often commented that what has put them off religion is the number of wars and conflicts caused by religion. This was the reason for my OP. I do not agree with that assertion.

Atheists have not abandoned hope at all. I'm an extremely optimistic person and have great hope for the human race, i just dont believe that God has anything to do with it. You seem to be under the impression that unless you believe in God or "achieve great works" then we have wasted our lives. What a crock. My children are my hope for the future, i'm sure other atheists will have different views, thats the exciting thing about being an atheist. We all have different views yet when was the last time atheists went to war over their differing idealogies.

No offence taken and I hope that your children will be intelligent, moral and high achievers. However, I meant hope for the hereafter, which, for believers is an eternity. This is not an optimistic emotion or state of mind, but a hope for fulfilment of the soul's journey after death as a transcendant entity. I hope that I have clarified my hastily constructed post for you.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
However, I meant hope for the hereafter, which, for believers is an eternity. This is not an optimistic emotion or state of mind, but a hope for fulfilment of the soul's journey after death as a transcendant entity. I hope that I have clarified my hastily constructed post for you.

Well if i'm right, it's not going to matter.
If i'm wrong depending on which theist you talk to, i'll either be tortured for eternity in a lake of fire or i'll be forgiven.
Is there an in between?
Maybe atheists will be offered jobs in Purgatory filling out paperwork in triplicate for eternity, i think i'd rather burn.

Do you really want to 'exist' in whatever state for eternity? I cant imagine a worse existance, ohh the never ending boredom of it all!!

Moral evolution. We are now getting into definitions of civilisation. I was just hoping that humans would be able to learn from past collective experiece and correct themselves but we never will.

Humans have amazing intelligence but they're very bad at foreseeing events. Also after time they also forget the past

They, at least, despatched their enemies summarily without the protracted torture that our technology seems to exert on people. In my book that is more civilised than having a Death Row.

I don't see how killing someone with an axe is more civilised then shooting him with a gun, but whatever. In poverty or hard times morals break down anyways...

Darkside, my main point was that atheists cannot associate religion with war as one excuse for them abandoning hope in religion as a source of hope. Possibly the main difference between atheists and believers is that we have hope for the future whereas everything that you have become will die with you and only be carried into posterity if you achieve great works.

The universe is hostile, always was, and always will be. As long as life exists there will be wars, famine, epidemics, etc. You can believe a divinity will save you, but that won't change the fact that these things will still happen. Countless people have believed that in the past and yet...

We still physically evolved in that time frame. People are generally taller now than we were 50000 years ago, facial features have also changed and due to the close proximity that we live in today intermingling of ethnic groups continues to change our physical make up. Evolution didnt just stop 50000 years ago.

I know we evolved physically but they were still the same species. What I mean is that we're still as violent as the Egyptians or Greeks were because we're simply the same people.

Well if i'm right, it's not going to matter.
If i'm wrong depending on which theist you talk to, i'll either be tortured for eternity in a lake of fire or i'll be forgiven.

Or you'll be sent to Hades, or the spirit world, or Vallhala, you know there's other religions out there :p

Originally posted by DarkSide
you know there's other religions out there :p

Sure, but i'm discussing this with a Christian so why bother discussing other invisible deity's, there all one and the same anyway.

I'm sorry but if you think about it carefully, atheists have created a whole Hell-full of deaths on the Earth, stemming from existential philosophies. Hegel Hegel created the notion of a dialectical process through which an Absolute expressed itself so that all events that came to pass were manifestations of the ego through a process of thesis-antithesis and synthesis. Marx used Hegel to underpin his socio-economic vision of a collective identity in a Socialist (then Communist) state. To the Bolsheviks, even mere humanity had to be suppressed and Stalin killed approximately 19 million people. Chairman Mao then added to that with 10 million from his collectivisation process.

Nietzsche Nietzsche created an existentialist philosophy where man would replace the power that he gave to a God and would internalise the same power to create an atheist superman. Hitler obviously loved this thought and made an Aryan super-race which was able to propagate a war simultaneously with the Allied country whilst eliminating 'undesirables' to the tune of 6 million as well as the costs on all sides of the Second World War.

My OP was to indicate that religions are not a source of disorder and commotion around the world but that human nature has this aggressiveness to 'others' built into them. Perhaps true religion is a source of peace to the individual and should lead to man living in peace with all others and the environment to please God, not other humans. I think the comments indicate that I was right.