The Myth of Religious Wars

[Sean]

Anyway, I don't believe I need to watch a video to expose the bullshit that you write. You contradict yourself with almost every sentence...

[Scooter]

She's a parody of herself. It's hysterical, she claims that Dawkins says that "science explains everything", and yet his debate opponent in the video quotes Dawkins as saying that science does not provide a basis for ethics. It's laughable watching her tripping over herself trying to shove words into his mouth against all evidence.

[Gob]

Scooter, I opened the video at the start of this thread and it's still playing in the background; not finished.

I don't know how it's possible you've finished it, as it's hours long, and I'm still listening to it. Even YouTube has no 'fast forward'

And the video she linked to isn't on youtube....

[Scooter]

That explains why she appears to be making shit up about what was said. She isn't watching the same video.

[thestoat]

Even YouTube has no 'fast forward'

Not correct - just click forward in the timeline. However, if is the closes you have got to accurate in this thread so we can leave it there.

Now - a little recap here

A couple of things arising from that post...

"Religion causes wars"
"Religion causes all wars"

Can you spot the difference?

Lo - you say you see a difference but STILL don't admit you were wrong suggesting Dawkins said religions cause ALL wars. If there is a difference - and you have ADMITTED there is a difference - then why not come clean and admit you were wrong or lied. It really doesn't hurt - and might even do some good.

As Dr. Lennox, his debate opponent, says in the video [later] "Science can not answer the elementary questions, 'Who am I?" and 'Where am I going?'"

I have to point out something blindingly obvious here, because as you bring this point up it seems to have escaped your attention. Science doesn't have an answer to those questions (yet - maybe it will, maybe they are unanswerable) - and thus says "I don't know". Religion also doesn't have an answer, but simply makes one up instead. I know which source I'd rather listen do.

[loCAtek]

Of course, Dawkins doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you claim he has said. He NEVER said that his study of religion was confined to the time he was a member of the Anglican Church. He NEVER claims that he has no knowledge of Eastern philosophies/religions.
.

I know little about Buddhism...

Richard Dawkins

In the rest of the interview, he describes his religious interest where he specifies he stopped at age 16.

[loCAtek]

Meanwhile back on topic;

Real quickly here, I'm off to work...

Dawkins claims that religion causes violence, conflict and war. I had to wonder, was Dawkins not a biologist? He didn't have to be a behaviorist to know that Man's ancestors and closest cousins the apes, also have war. It's well documented
http://news.discovery.com/animals/chimp ... avior.html

What there is not documentation for is ape's having any religion.

Obviously, violence and war have biological roots, not religious ones.

Very well, don't believe me, but google this-

'Religion causes wars by generating certainty.'

-Richard Dawkins.

So, we have Prof Dawkins stating an atheist belief that religion causes war.

The closest support of that assertion is that it is a sociocultural dissimilarity. However, my question previously hasn't been answered;

If atheism is targeting religion as a source of conflict; why aren't they targeting all the other sources of war? Not going to the root of sociocultural dissimilarities, is treating the symptom, not the disease.

The root cause of sociocultural dissimilarities is demonstrated in the behavior of apes: the aggression is a biological factor, not a religious one. If you believe in evolution, that's a logical theory.

[thestoat]

Let's be clear here then, lo. Are you suggesting Religion has NEVER - EVER - caused more than 1 war? Really? If you believe that religion has never caused more than 1 war then you'd be correct in disagreeing with Dawkin's statement. However - if Religion has caused more than 1 war - EVER - then Dawkins is correct and you are, once again, wrong. Which is it?

[loCAtek]

The correct answer is: I disagree with the assertion that religion causes so many more wars, than the other sociocultural dissimilarities. Obviously. to dispute that we need only the statics that factually demonstrate that religion is the major cause.

[The Hen]

Yes, religion causes wars. Yes, Richard Dawkins said that.

Does it cause ALL wars? No. Richeard Dawkins hasn't said that.

What is so difficult for you to accept?

He was NOT stating an absolute. You trying to make out he did is laughable.

You have your very own MOTU* hung around your neck.


* Myths Of The Universe.

[The Hen]

Obviously. to dispute that we need only the statics that factually demonstrate that religion is the major cause.

"So many more wars"? You are shifting from ALL to "so many more" now?

No-one is disputing that Religion causes wars. We are trying to get you to prove your initial claim that someone (unknown) said it causes ALL wars.



Edited to add:

However to provide you with something else to ignore, this is a site that I have seen made mention of a couple of time. It seems well researched, though he has concentrated on the 20th Century..

That certainly seems like a significant amount of religious conflict.

[thestoat]

Lo - focus on what Hen is saying. It will help you to understand.

[loCAtek]

I understand it's a diversion to focus on my grammar, when I used an absolute[not even in this thread BTW], while ignoring when you and Scooter do it.
Not saying your use of absolutes bothers me, go right ahead Perhaps we should discuss my absolute where I made it?

Meanwhile back to the topic up for debate in this thread:

From the OP, It is a myth that Religious wars outdo Secular ones. They are just a sociocultural dissimilarity, an 'excuse' as CP put it, while the root cause of war is behavioral aggression found in our biology.

If that's not being contested, shall we say it's

[The Hen]

Shall we now move on to busting the myth that Lo is a reasonable human being?




Hint to Lo, it is not a grammar diversion to point out that you argument is:
* full of holes;
* incorrect; and
* shifting.

[thestoat]

I understand it's a diversion to focus on my grammar

No lo, your grammar is not in question.

I could say "penguins are red and green". That is a grammatically correct statement. It is just wrong (and daft). Your statements are just wrong (and usually daft too).

"Religion causes wars"
"Religion causes all wars"

Both statements are grammatically correct. The second does NOT logically follow on from the first. Don't post shit and then pretend people are arguing against your grammar.

[Scooter]

She sets up her own straw men, knocks them down, and pretends she has achieved something other than adding to the pile of empty bottles in her recycling bin.

But thanks, loca, for providing that quote of Dawkins saying he knew "little" about Buddhism. Because you showed yourself to be lying when you alleged that he had said that he had "no" knowledge of Eastern philosophies. Bravo.

And you can continue to lie about what he said in the video all you want. He said he abadoned religious belief at 16, not that he hadn't undertaken any study of religion since then. You watched it drunk, I watched it sober, I know what it says, you were too hopelessly shitfaced to remember.

[Crackpot]

Hen

from your link

Calling Nothern Ireland 1974-1998 a "primarily religious conflict" is suspect. Even the split was primarily split down religiously sectatian lines the conflit wasn't over religion or fought using religious doctrine as justification.

Similary calling the Crusades a Religious conflicts(s) is problematic since it they were largly fought for internal political and external expansionist reasons using religion as a cover.

Futhermore calling the "Spanish inqisition" and "witchhunts" conflicts is problematic since it implys opposing forces and not a one-sided slaughter.

I don't know enough about many of the rest to give proper critique (where warranted) but listings like "Iran, Islamic Republc 1979-" really gives me pause about the lists veracity as a whole.

[Crackpot]

Sorry, I Just noticed "Jonestown" on the list and have lost all faith in it's veracity.

[thestoat]

Similary calling the Crusades a Religious conflicts(s) is problematic since it they were largly fought for internal political and external expansionist reasons using religion as a cover.

Not really, CP. The very first sentence in the Wiki article on them states:

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the pope and waged by kings and nobles who volunteered to take up the cross with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Now I do remember from my history lessons that they were sanctioned by the pope - that alone makes them religious imo.

[Scooter]

Calling Nothern Ireland 1974-1998 a "primarily religious conflict" is suspect.

Sure. Let's just forget that it was Catholic vs. Protestant, that it stemmed from a 400 year history of religious discrimination, that what was at stake was whether or not Northern Ireland would be detached from an overwhelmingly Protestant nation and join and overwhelmingly Catholic one. Nah, none of that is relevant.

Similary calling the Crusades a Religious conflicts(s) is problematic

Please. They were "holy wars", sanctioned by the Pope, for the purpose of recovering lands which held religious significance.

Futhermore calling the "Spanish inqisition" and "witchhunts" conflicts is problematic since it implys opposing forces and not a one-sided slaughter.

Fine, let's change the heading to "Religious Conflicts and Religiously-Motivated One-Sided Slaughters. Happy now?

listings like "Iran, Islamic Republc 1979-" really gives me pause about the lists veracity as a whole.

How? An "Islamic revolution" is not religiously motivated? The fact that Iran became a theocracy as a result doesn't qualify it?

I Just noticed "Jonestown" on the list and have lost all faith in it's veracity.

I'll agree with you on that one. Even Jones did not claim that the massacre had religious significance, he called it "revolutionary suicide".