Religions are Falsely accused.

[Madmogwai]

He can and he did​

Have you ever read the bible?

Unfortunately yes, that’s why I am no longer Christian

 

[Polymath257]

The whole point of my post has been exactly that.
It’s the people not the Religion, and the Religions are not the true cause of conflict, it’s used as a smokescreen by shady individuals.
They use the Religion.

Hmmm....so would you say that ideas are not the cause of conflict, only the people who believe those ideas? That it is only 'shady individuals' promoting those ideas for their own ends that cause the conflicts?

That, to me, seems like ignoring the power of ideas to motivate.

Religions are easy to use because they usually have tenets that encourage violence towards those who don't believe in those religions. That is NOT an abuse of the religion, but a valid use of it. And that would be an example of religion causing conflict. No 'smoke screen required.

 

[Madmogwai]

And it still amazes me that apologists still continue to whitewash the part that religion has played in causing conflict and war throughout history

Man is responsible for everything man does, you are the apologist as you pass the blame onto books which are inanimate objects.

 

[Polymath257]

Man is responsible for everything man does, you are the apologist as you pass the blame onto books which are inanimate objects.

No, I don't push them onto books. But the ideas propounded in those books do, in fact, motivate people. And religious ideas are deeply held and so motivate them in more ways. This includes those in power. So to say that religious ideas are not the cause of some conflicts just seems to ignore what seems obvious to me.

 

[Madmogwai]

What is a religion in your mind? Does it include the people who practise the religion? Then, obviously, religious people doing violence makes it a violent religion.
If it doesn't include the people, do religions without establishing documents even exist? And when the documents depict or call for violence, isn't that a violent religion?

It does not matter what is written, the person who chooses to follow the doctrine is responsible.
If a man kills a homosexual as the Bible advises, I can assure you in a court of law the Religion will not be to blame.

 

[Madmogwai]

No, I don't push them onto books. But the ideas propounded in those books do, in fact, motivate people. And religious ideas are deeply held and so motivate them in more ways. This includes those in power. So to say that religious ideas are not the cause of some conflicts just seems to ignore what seems obvious to me.

What is obvious is that you then don’t think people are responsible for their own actions

 

[Madmogwai]

Hmmm....so would you say that ideas are not the cause of conflict, only the people who believe those ideas? That it is only 'shady individuals' promoting those ideas for their own ends that cause the conflicts?

That, to me, seems like ignoring the power of ideas to motivate.

Religions are easy to use because they usually have tenets that encourage violence towards those who don't believe in those religions. That is NOT an abuse of the religion, but a valid use of it. And that would be an example of religion causing conflict. No 'smoke screen required.

And still you unknowingly prove my point, that man is responsible

 

[Madmogwai]

While this is perhaps pointing out the obvious, I just did. The first line of your opening post reads:

"Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history."

The conflict between women's rights and the rights of the unborn is a very significant one in my country right now. So much so I'm a bit surprised you are so dismissive of it. Blood has been spilled over this issue, terrorism has been committed over this issue, lives have been ruined over this issue, and it goes without saying it is a major culture war issue.

Keep in mind that I am deeply religious and dislike how routinely "religion" is scapegoated for human conflicts. I am not someone who is overly against to the point you are trying to make. I am, however, cautious about diminishing the role of one's deeply held ways of life (aka, religion) in human behavior worldwide and throughout history.

We are completely responsible for our own behaviour

 

[Quintessence]

We are completely responsible for our own behaviour

Debatable, but let's grant this as hypothetically true.

Human behavior is impacted by a human's deeply held ways of life (aka, religion). What you say here does not absolve lifeways (whether called religion, culture, or some other word) from being a factor in their behavior.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.

Have you checked into the Reformation and Counter-Reformation? You know, when Protestantism arose and started claiming believers from Catholicism, and when Catholicism fought back. During this time, the lives lost numbered in the millions -- not just Catholics killing Protestants and vice-versa, but Protestants killing other Protestants for believing "the wrong way," and Catholics killing Catholics for the horrifying crime of seeing some sense in some parts of the Protestants' views. This went on -- with supposedly "Christian" people committing the most horrifying atrocities one can imagine on one another. And it was about one thing -- RELIGION.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.

I can't think of any examples of religious wars besides the Crusades (including the Crusades in Northern Europe and the Balkans where they committed genocide against the native people who refused to convert), the European Wars of Religion and our modern international Islamic jihadist conflict. War usually isn't about religion.

 

[Heyo]

It does not matter what is written, the person who chooses to follow the doctrine is responsible.
If a man kills a homosexual as the Bible advises, I can assure you in a court of law the Religion will not be to blame.

So, you take the radical idea that ideas (here religion) have no impact at all and thus can't be blamed?
Would you then also agree that religion has no positive effect at all? When people are charitable out of a religious conviction, religion can't be praised, only the individual?

 

[Stevicus]

If they use Religion to mask their real intentions without Religion they will use something else.
Look at Iraq, they used weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to enter.

And the fear of the power of WMDs was what made it more likely for people to go along with that - even if it was a phony pretext. If they said that Iraq was just hiding BB guns, no one would care. So, the claim of knowing "ultimate power" is enough to get many people's attention and can be used to manipulate them.

 

[Augustus]

Eliminating religion (or simply decoupling it from politics) takes away one excuse for war. That doesn't prevent wars but it makes them harder to sell.

I don’t think that is true.

You don’t remove religions from politics or people’s motivations, you replace them. Something fills the vacuum.

This doesn’t reduce any excuses for war, as the replacement value system is the functional equivalent of the religion.

French Revolutionaries wanted to violently spread their form of Enlightenment. Marxists and Nazis theirs. Many people supported the war in Iraq in the name of liberalism and human rights.

Secular and humanistic values are no less evangelical and universalist than monotheistic ones. Perhaps universalists value systems have a greater propensity to violence as they more likely feel the need to enlighten those backwards folk for their own benefit, but then again maybe ethnocentric and nationalistic values can be pretty bad too.

It is hard, maybe even impossible, to determine how many wars that will prevent, delay or reduce in scope but that is not a reason to let religion keep its influence.

It is equally hard or impossible to tell how many wars this will create, facilitate or increase in scope. Religions are one of the things we have with the ability to transcend boundaries.

Religions may be divisive but they are also unifying, perhaps the most unifying force in human history.

Religious fault lines also tend to map onto ethno/cultural/linguistic fault lines anyway, so the idea that removing them fixes these is fanciful.

If I could press a button and eliminate traditional religion from people's minds I wouldn't press it simply because these might be preventing somethings much worse from filling their place.

We are muddling by at the moment, and the replacements for religion have often been worse. Beliefs and value systems that are highly flawed can still be valuable if it is stopping something worse from taking their place.

Sometimes it's better the devil you know.

That sounds overly pessimistic, almost fatalistic - and it has all the signs of a self fulfilling prophesy.

No more than it's pessimistic to not believe Jesus will return to deliver us from evil. It's just the same salvation narrative after all

It's not pessimistic to deal with things as you think they are and look to mitigate the harms that will always exist.

It's the difference between, 'How do we live together in harmony?' and 'how do we share a world full of people we don't really like without killing each other too much?'.

One assumes the problem can be 'fixed' the other that you can only mitigate intrinsic and insoluble problems.

The answers to the 2 questions are very different. Imo aiming for the first makes violence more likely, not less.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions driven by wishing things were different than they are.

 

[Heyo]

I don’t think that is true.

You don’t remove religions from politics or people’s motivations, you replace them. Something fills the vacuum.

This doesn’t reduce any excuses for war, as the replacement value system is the functional equivalent of the religion.

French Revolutionaries wanted to violently spread their form of Enlightenment. Marxists and Nazis theirs. Many people supported the war in Iraq in the name of liberalism and human rights.

Secular and humanistic values are no less evangelical and universalist than monotheistic ones. Perhaps universalists value systems have a greater propensity to violence as they more likely feel the need to enlighten those backwards folk for their own benefit, but then again maybe ethnocentric and nationalistic values can be pretty bad too.



It is equally hard or impossible to tell how many wars this will create, facilitate or increase in scope. Religions are one of the things we have with the ability to transcend boundaries.

Religions may be divisive but they are also unifying, perhaps the most unifying force in human history.

Religious fault lines also tend to map onto ethno/cultural/linguistic fault lines anyway, so the idea that removing them fixes these is fanciful.

If I could press a button and eliminate traditional religion from people's minds I wouldn't press it simply because these might be preventing somethings much worse from filling their place.

We are muddling by at the moment, and the replacements for religion have often been worse. Beliefs and value systems that are highly flawed can still be valuable if it is stopping something worse from taking their place.

Sometimes it's better the devil you know.

I'm not a psychologist but I think you have a bad case of conservatism.

No more than it's pessimistic to not believe Jesus will return to deliver us from evil. It's just the same salvation narrative after all

Nope. Waiting for Jesus is passive and discouraging. It's what you do when you think you are helpless. Keeping this narrative out of politics (and your daily life) is encouraging. It enables you to think about what you can do to make things better and gives you the hope needed to be active. Secular humanism and (your version of) Christianity are diametrically opposites in that regard.

It's not pessimistic to deal with things as you think they are and look to mitigate the harms that will always exist.

It's the difference between, 'How do we live together in harmony?' and 'how do we share a world full of people we don't really like without killing each other too much?'.

One assumes the problem can be 'fixed' the other that you can only mitigate intrinsic and insoluble problems.

The answers to the 2 questions are very different. Imo aiming for the first makes violence more likely, not less.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions driven by wishing things were different than they are.

Eliminating religion (or simply decoupling it from politics) takes away one excuse for war. That doesn't prevent wars but it makes them harder to sell. It is hard, maybe even impossible, to determine how many wars that will prevent, delay or reduce in scope but that is not a reason to let religion keep its influence.

That was what I were saying. Unrealistic goals lead to disappointment, yes. But you don't want to have any goals out of fear of disappointment.

 

[Madmogwai]

Debatable, but let's grant this as hypothetically true.

Human behavior is impacted by a human's deeply held ways of life (aka, religion). What you say here does not absolve lifeways (whether called religion, culture, or some other word) from being a factor in their behavior.

Unfortunately it is a huge factor in their behaviour, but I still say they are at fault.
If a Prophet emerges with a new Doctrine calling for the death of all non believers immediately.
Who is to blame, each man makes the choice to follow that prophet and the Book.
You can only behave how you choose, ultimately whatever you do regardless of influences is still your choosing.

 

[Madmogwai]

Have you checked into the Reformation and Counter-Reformation? You know, when Protestantism arose and started claiming believers from Catholicism, and when Catholicism fought back. During this time, the lives lost numbered in the millions -- not just Catholics killing Protestants and vice-versa, but Protestants killing other Protestants for believing "the wrong way," and Catholics killing Catholics for the horrifying crime of seeing some sense in some parts of the Protestants' views. This went on -- with supposedly "Christian" people committing the most horrifying atrocities one can imagine on one another. And it was about one thing -- RELIGION.

Lol, and still you cannot see the obvious bigger picture.

 

[Madmogwai]

And the fear of the power of WMDs was what made it more likely for people to go along with that - even if it was a phony pretext. If they said that Iraq was just hiding BB guns, no one would care. So, the claim of knowing "ultimate power" is enough to get many people's attention and can be used to manipulate them.

No one can manipulate you, just like no one can make you angry.

 

[Madmogwai]

So, you take the radical idea that ideas (here religion) have no impact at all and thus can't be blamed?
Would you then also agree that religion has no positive effect at all? When people are charitable out of a religious conviction, religion can't be praised, only the individual?

Absolutely, if you allow outside influences to dictate your behaviour it is your choosing.

 

[Stevicus]

No one can manipulate you, just like no one can make you angry.

That's beside the point.