Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 7,651-7,700 of 12,463

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Weasel words such as "facts" are something that conspiracy theorists and deceivers use as they can then define fact to be 100% certainty and 100% certainty does not exist in science,."

This from Wiki....A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.....

You may be wrong on that one Gary.

Well what's your alternative to a common ancestor between apes and man?

I do have other 'theories' but that is an odd question for you to ask. You are saying if there are no other alternatives we must believe what we know is correct until one day it may be proved wrong. If that were the case we would all still believe the world to be flat.

.Actually that's not true, because humans in isolation also tend to develop certain moral traits....

Maybe so but that is not the case with most of us, we have had some sort of religion influencing us since man could form words.

Maybe man was capable of forming morals and his surrounding enviroment was the influence for those morals and with most of us this happened to be religion.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Oh no, I do get what you are talking about, and yes terms are important to establish so that people know you are talking about the same thing."

Those definitions are fine with me. I also tried to find this last night and couldn't. Further, I sold my textbooks back in college. :( I do remember it distinctly, especially the argument between the professors and the Mormon students. I even remember the professors telling us what year the LDS would reach "religion" status. I think it happened fairly recently. I even remember, within the last few years, driving down the road and hearing it on the radio ... that the LDS was officially a religion. You'd think, given that, that we could find information on the web. No. Again, the two points I remember were ... number of followers and the length of time people followed that particular faith. The other point, ?.

But, again, I'm okay with your definitions, especially given that we can't find information on the other. And, .... It seemed rather rude to me at the time, to label faiths "cults" based on their not fitting the criteria. The word "cult" has such incredibly negative connotations. It just didn't seem right. They, however, were insistent.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "You may be wrong on that one Gary."

It depends on how you use the word "fact". A scientist establishes a scientific "fact" as one that has withstood a greatly significant amount of testing, and indeed one that depends on certain definitions.

Pseudo-scientists and hucksters try to define fact as 100% certainty and then use any sliver of doubt to try to discredit the theory they want to attack and replace.

Having a sliver of doubt is the point of science and the reason it is not religion. Present any "scientific fact" you like and that will be true.

cHriS wrote: "I do have other 'theories' but that is an odd question for you to ask."

You mean hypotheses?

And why is it an odd question. That is exactly how science works. You observe a phenomena, find that current theories do not explain that phenomena or predict it, then you establish a hypotheses to improve, refine or rarely replace that theory. Then you test the hypotheses by seeing how you can falsify it or by testing any predictions that it makes.

That's science.

cHriS wrote: "You are saying if there are no other alternatives we must believe what we know is correct until one day it may be proved wrong. If that were the case we would all still believe the world to be flat."

No. Yet again we don't "believe" it. We also don't "prove it wrong". Proving something wrong is impossible, because you can always invent mechanisms to explain why you are still right.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/i...

Case in point (though I do have a concern that by exposing you to this link's pseudo-science that you may become a flat-earther next.

What happened in this case is people generally believed the Earth was flat, due to observation. However, some people observed features about the Earth that were not explained by the flat-earth hypothesis. They then presented a hypothesis that the Earth was a sphere, this hypothesis then made the prediction that the shadow from a distant sun at noon would therefore be at different lengths depending on how high on the sphere you lived. This test was falsifiable, but was proved correct by observation and therefore the spherical Earth theory was accepted as truth. It has been further refined since as a "spheroid" but note that it did not require people to go into space or circumnavigate the world to prove the point. Just as it is not necessary to gather the exact fossils to confirm human evolution.

cHriS wrote: "Maybe so but that is not the case with most of us, we have had some sort of religion influencing us since man could form words."

This is just an empty assumption though, not an observation and as an assumption it fails to explain the observations of humans and non-humans that the evolution hypothesis explains neatly.

cHriS wrote: "Maybe man was capable of forming morals and his surrounding enviroment was the influence for those morals and with most of us this happened to be religion. "

Which gets you into the infinite regression argument of where did that influence come from until you either accept it must be intrinsic or you show evidence of the external source of religion as received by man and explain how this appeared simultaneously to widely separated human groups, and also appears to be intrinsic in rare people brought up in enforced isolation and how similar morals could be then influenced on non-human primates without this religious mechanism.

So this hypothesis does not address any observations that the evolutionary theory has not already provided reasonable explanation for, and further you have not provided any falsifiable tests or predictions that would show the religious hypothesis to be a better explanatory tool than the current theory.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "But, again, I'm okay with your definitions, especially given that we can't find information on the other. And, .... It seemed rather rude to me at the time, to label faiths "cults" based on their not fitting the criteria. The word "cult" has such incredibly negative connotations. It just didn't seem right. They, however, were insistent. "

Aye, thank you.

This is why I asked you if they were Monotheists, as I honestly have only heard the argument before delivered by people who were going "sorry but your faith is a cult not a religion" with a definite 'sorry those are the rules' dynamic, but with an obvious agenda that they could then safely belittle the 'cult' without undermining their 'religion'.

You are right about the negative connotations, just as 'religion' has positive ones which obviously religions actively try to reinforce, along with concepts like 'faith' being a virtue unto itself.

Plus the whole gain "x" members or "y" maturity and gain all of these tax exemptions has to be attractive.

[Kaela]

How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?
How many wars have been fought over disagreement of scientists?

There's your answer.

[cHriS]

Kaela wrote: "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?
How many wars have been fought over disagreement of scientists?

There's your answer."

Not many, if any.

[Katie]

I would rather live in a world without religion because I believe you can have religion in a world with science, but you don't necessarily have science in a world with religion.

[Colleen]

Interesting thread. I don't think one can exist without the other. When I studied Anthropology, one of the first things I learned was : religion was created because man couldn't control the weather! Ridiculous? Think about it...

[Wissam]

You're kidding, right? Compare Europe of the dark ages to today's Europe and you have your answer.

[Colleen]

Wissam wrote: "You're kidding, right? Compare Europe of the dark ages to today's Europe and you have your answer."

Kidding about what part? The question was quite vague, and not one with any period of time. My answer was also vague, as was your answer to me. So, I will address any specific aspect that you wish.

[Esther]

You have to have both; like two wings on a bird; if only one wing on bird, it can't fly. Science without religion could create something dangerous Religion without science would dissolve into mere superstition.

[Hp]

Esther wrote: " Religion without science would dissolve into mere superstition."

That made me laugh :-)

May I ask for examples of how "science" has stopped religion dissolving? I thought religion depended on faith. Nothing in science solely supports religious belief.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Not many, if any."

Were you implying that religious wars don't happen?

[Gary]

Colleen wrote: "Interesting thread. I don't think one can exist without the other."

Why? How does science depend on religion? The whole point of science is to not believe but instead show due scepticism until sufficient evidence is shown. Where does belief come into that?

[Gary]

Esther wrote: "You have to have both; like two wings on a bird; if only one wing on bird, it can't fly."

To take your analogy to its logical conclusion, this would only work if religion and science where mirror images of each other. However, science is mutually supportive and all scientific research tends to converge on the truth where mathematics supports physics supports biology supports medicine etc. Meanwhile religion is divisive and different religions say different things, and big religions often schism between different interpretations.

So I am afraid that your "bird" cannot fly because one wing is an integrated, cohesive structure while the other is a pile of continually dividing and conflicting feathers.

At this time the poor birds best chance is to learn to hang glide on the one wing.

Esther wrote: "Science without religion could create something dangerous"

Something dangerous like what? Science tells us how things work and can make incredible tools for good or evil at our choice, but it does not require us to wield them. Many religions do require us to oppress, judge and even kill other people.

Science "may" create something dangerous, but then again "fire" is dangerous if used improperly. Meanwhile religion already has created something dangerous.

Esther wrote: "Religion without science would dissolve into mere superstition. "

"Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events."

What is the real defining difference between superstition and religion? Beyond popularity?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "What is the real defining difference between superstition and religion? Beyond popularity?"b

I don't know how Esther feels, but I do see a difference ... beyond popularity. How?

James is my favorite book of the Bible. I particularly feel a connection to two of the messages there. There is life and death in the tongue and faith without deeds is dead. Given this, I try very hard to be very careful about what I say and have always committed myself to charitable works.

I'll actually, when faced with a situation, think, "Remember James." Sometimes, for example, if I want to rip into someone, I'll think that. It helps curb my tongue. The emphasis on charitable works makes me think about community and my role within it. It encourages me to take an active role and realize each individual, including myself, has incredible power. The power to reach out to others, to touch their lives ... not to just pay in my taxes, which is fairly detached, in my mind. But ... to actually be part of a community in a very active way and to reach out to people personally, things which, in my mind, go a long way to building a strong community and all that means.

Regarding my Native American ancestry, I've already mentioned how knowledge of the circle of life, sacred directions and the stories within have helped me. The story of eagle and mouse. Thinking about this teaching has helped me to shift my perspective and live a better life.

Superstition? I've been known, when I spill salt, to throw some over my shoulder. Ehh.... That does nothing to help me think, to understand a situation, to get perspective, or to remind myself of the person I want to be.

That, for me, is the difference.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Not many, if any."

Were you implying that religious wars don't happen?"


The question was.... "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?.... the way the question was put and the comparison with science seemed to suggest a lot. A rhetorical question in other words.

Religion has sometimes been used as a justification for war, but very few wars are fought over religion, if any, it is territorial possession because of trade or land that is the main cause.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "The question was.... "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?.... the way the question was put and the comparison with science seemed to suggest a lot. A rhetorical question in other words."

Of course it was a rhetorical question. That was obviously the intent, which is a valid way to present a case.

cHriS wrote: "Religion has sometimes been used as a justification for war, but very few wars are fought over religion, if any, it is territorial possession because of trade or land that is the main cause."

So the Crusades were not fought over the fact that the Pope summoned fighting men to clear the infidel out of Jerusalem? Various European wars weren't fought over the fact that Protestant rulers wanted to be free of the religious jurisdiction of the Catholics? Islam didn't fight major wars of conquest and conversion reaching as far as Spain, Middle Eastern wars haven't been fought over the schism of Shi'a and Sunni like much of the sectarian violence currently splitting the desert? Oh and the wars between Arabs and Israel have nothing to do with their rivalry over religion and the fact that all three Abrahamic religions revere and covet the same holy land?

Certainly other factors do contribute to these wars, but religious difference is definitely a cause.

Unless you are claiming that it isn't and people don't really believe what they claim to believe, which then means that religion is not a cause for war but is just an excuse that people can give for war which makes religion even worse for humanity.

If religion is ever a justification for a war then that either means that religious conviction causes wars, or that all religious conviction is a lie to excuse wars that nobody, including the religious, really believes.

[Ken]

Don't forget the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "So the Crusades were not fought over the fact that the Pope summoned fighting men to clear the infidel out of Jerusalem?"

Regarding Ole Urban, .... More and more people think he called the first crusade not for the reason of clearing the infidel out of Jerusalem, though that was the battle cry. It was more about the problems they had at home. A bunch of well-armed men, vying for power, with not much to do ... leading to squabbles and threatening the stability of the power structure at the time.

Regarding war in general and whether or not all wars or most wars are caused by religion, I've engaged in this with people here before and don't need to do so now, unless it's to make a historical clarification. (Not saying that Kaela made that statement. She didn't. But, it used to be made. Over and over and over again, with little debate regarding accuracy ....)

[Gary]

Ken wrote: "Don't forget the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland."

No doubt cs will see that as a nationalistic war between those who wanted to join the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom, but you are right that many Northern Irish do not want to have to follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture.

However, it is still true that religious differences are just as much a cause as Nationalism, to pretend otherwise is to effectively call religious people in the region liars about their professed faith.

When it comes down to it religion remains the most divisive point on many of these conflicts because their can seldom be compromise. Trade and wealth can eventually be shared at less mutual cost than continued warfare, sovereignty and nationality often becomes resolved by migration or integration, however when two sides believe they both have the Lord of the Universe on their personal side, compromise can seem not only foolish, but outright blasphemy.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Regarding Ole Urban, .... More and more people think he called the first crusade not for the reason of clearing the infidel out of Jerusalem, though that was the battle cry. It was more about the problems they had at home. A bunch of well-armed men, vying for power, with not much to do ... leading to squabbles and threatening the stability of the power structure at the time."

I realise that, but in either case religion was either used as a genuine reason for war because the unholy infidel had defiled the inherited centre of Christendom, or it was used as an opportunistic excuse to direct violence at a third party. Either way that would constitute religion as a cause of that war whether the cause was through genuine piety or through cynical manipulation of the credulous.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Trade and wealth can eventually be shared at less mutual cost than continued warfare, sovereignty and nationality often becomes resolved by migration or integration"

Hey, there, Gary. You have me curious. Which wars ended in compromise via trade and wealth being eventually shared or through migration and integration? I'm a bit stumped on that one.

Unless, regarding migration and integration, you're referring to William the Bastard, before he became the Conqueror. If so, that sort of integration would make me a bit squeamish. It would put a new spin on the Left's idea of a war against women. :(

But, again, I'm not sure which wars you're citing and would be interested ....

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "I realise that, but in either case religion was either used as a genuine reason for war because the unholy infidel had defiled the inherited centre of Christendom, or it was used as an opportunistic excuse to direct violence at a third party. Either way that would constitute religion as a cause of that war whether the cause was through genuine piety or through cynical manipulation of the credulous. "

Yes, I know you knew. We've discussed this before. I felt it important to note for two reasons.

First, not everyone knows, and it is historically accurate. Might as well give all the facts. Yes?

Second, given the fact that Urban had the power and made the call, his motivations are key, in my opinion. Yes, he used religion as the call, but that wasn't his motivation. Given that, it seems obvious, to me, that he'd have found a call, any call, to get the deed done. He had to deal with his European problem. He was, in my opinion, a man without good conscience and would have found any reason to protect himself and his interests.

So, was the first crusade truly caused by religion? Only in part. And, it likely would have happened even without religion as an excuse.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Hey, there, Gary...."

The point I was making is that wars can be ended more easily when positions are open to compromise and negotiation. Religion is usually a marked exception to this.

When I referred to eventually wealth being shared I am of course referring to when the cost of warfare exceeds that of the benefits of prosecuting it which usually leads to armistice or surrender. Migration and or integration is exactly what has ended wars between nationalistic groups or sometimes ethnic groups.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying that these compromises are not often painful, and sometimes terribly unfair, the difference is that when compromise is made almost impossible by religious conviction you end up with centuries of ongoing conflict like we've seen in places like Ireland, the Middle East, India and Africa.

Yes I could list wars were they ended by some combination of settlement on resources or some form of integration or migration (forced or otherwise) but that wasn't the point of my comment, which was the only part of what I posted that you didn't acknowledge or respond to.

[Deb]

Hey Shannon - for the sake of argument I would propose that the wars between the Norwegian/Danish Vikings and the inhabitants of The British Islands were ended in compromise over land (which is not so far off trade/wealth) and the integration of the Danelaw.

And I am pretty impressed that this thread is still going 157 pages later.

As to a world without religion or science they are both modern, Western world, social paradigms and not nearly different enough from each other to be an either/or question. My two cents worth.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Yes, I know you knew. We've discussed this before. I felt it important to note for two reasons. "

Apologies that I did not realise you would address the point I was making separately. Thank you.

Shannon wrote: "First, not everyone knows, and it is historically accurate. Might as well give all the facts. Yes?"

Indeed, at least the facts as we best know them which is fair enough.

Shannon wrote: "So, was the first crusade truly caused by religion? Only in part. And, it likely would have happened even without religion as an excuse."

Even if it was only part of the reason it was still a reason. Furthermore whether or not it was part of the Pope's original motivation, it was quite definitely a major motivation of many of the participants, even if this motivation was lip service to the concept because to appear to be irreligious or even court excommunication was a major social pressure.

Would it have happened anyway? I doubt it. Exactly what would be the unifying factor to send all these troops across the known world? From your own explanation of the Pope's motivations emerges the likely scenario that those troops would have engaged in local troubles or wars (as indeed had been common since Roman times). What was needed was a unifying call, what better than religion, whether it was the devotion to ones own religion or fear of the Islamic religion surging in the east.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Even if it was only part of the reason it was still a reason ...

Would it have happened anyway? "

Oh, I agree. It was definitely still a reason ... for the people. I'd never say otherwise. I just like to point it out was the tool Pope used, and he was the driving force behind it. That's all.

You might be right regarding whether or not it would have happened? Maybe it wouldn't.

However, history has proven that men will go half a world away to fight and gain power, with or without religion as a cause. Think Genghis Khan, for example.

[[deleted user]]

Deborah wrote: "Hey Shannon - for the sake of argument I would propose that the wars between the Norwegian/Danish Vikings and the inhabitants of The British Islands were ended in compromise over land (which is not..."

Hmmm.... Hadn't thought about that, Deborah, and have to admit my knowledge of Danelaw is lacking. Will have to do research. :)

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Oh, I agree. It was definitely still a reason ... for the people. I'd never say otherwise. I just like to point it out was the tool Pope used, and he was the driving force behind it. That's all."

I can agree with that. Let's face it, it wouldn't be the first time the Catholic leadership cynically used their authority over their followers.

My point was many (certainly not all, but many) wars are fought with religion as a cause, whether that cause is genuine irreconcilable belief, or cynical manipulation of the faithful or (most commonly) a mixture of both.

In these terms it is completely fallacious to try to claim that religion is "rarely if ever" a cause of warfare. Certainly it is not the only cause, or always honest, but it is very often a cause.

Shannon wrote: "You might be right regarding whether or not it would have happened? Maybe it wouldn't."

Agreed, it's highly hypothetical but I don't think we can dismiss the power of a huge majority of the people at the time being convinced of the pope and church having genuine divine mandate.

Shannon wrote: "However, history has proven that men will go half a world away to fight and gain power, with or without religion as a cause. Think Genghis Khan, for example. "

Indeed. Saying that Genghis Khan's wars were very much like the wars of Roman conquest. Simple expansionism and control. In both cases a central power expanded out and conquered warring and divisive tribes and harnessed them to further the expansion and in unification actually reducing the likelihood of internal conflicts. The Pax Romana was an extraordinary case of this that perhaps led to the most peaceful periods in European history. Even Genghis Khan, though certainly responsible for many massacres and brutality, also brought peace to the constituent tribes of his vast empire and promoted such things as a unified alphabet, and religious tolerance.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Even Genghis Khan, though certainly responsible for many massacres and brutality, also brought peace to the constituent tribes of his vast empire and promoted such things as a unified alphabet, and religious tolerance. "

I definitely have always found certain things about Genghis Khan to be fascinating and, sometimes, commendable. Fascinating? Military genius. Commendable? At that point, in my understanding, you were who you were in that culture based on your lineage. Genghis Khan argued that you were who you were based on you, your skills and talents, and acted accordingly, bringing people into his inner circle who were not of his blood.

Just saw something else, though, that is horrifyingly disturbing. Aside from the massacres were the rapes. Of course, that's always been alluded to and has lurked about in the back of my mind. But, our History Channel has been running a program here called Mankind: The History of Us. Now, I can't remember the specific numbers, but I think they cited the fact that 60,000 women killed themselves rather than be raped by Mongol warriors. :(

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I definitely have always found certain things about Genghis Khan to be fascinating and, sometimes, commendable. Fascinating? Military genius. Commendable?"

Indeed. It's like many things though. Generally we like to pretend that in history there are the good and the bad and it is easy to distinguish one from the other. Unfortunately reality is seldom that clear cut. Revered Americans were slave owners, despots and tyrants have been overruled by their subjects on matters of conservatism, and bloody warlords sometimes bring major social reform.

People are people, some better, some worse.

Shannon wrote: "Aside from the massacres were the rapes."

I think when it comes to relative comparison of atrocities no-one is going to be a winner. Murder and rape are both horrific, and there is little more I can offer on that. It is a horrible adjunct to the horrors of war that for thousands of years the victorious soldiers took the opportunity to horribly abuse civilians.

This was though one of the major shocks when I read the bible, and one of the reasons I find the concept of calling the bible a moral guide disgusting, in particular the passage in Numbers where the revered Moses specifically orders the massacre of civilians except for the virgin females who are to be "taken for themselves".

We can only hope that one day we truly have the right to call our culture civilised.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote:Pseudo-scientists and hucksters try to define fact as 100% certainty and then use any sliver of doubt to try to discredit the theory they want to attack and replace.

Having a sliver of doubt is the point of science and the reason it is not religion. Present any "scientific fact" you like and that will be true.

cHriS wrote: "I do have other 'theories' but that is an odd question for you to ask."

You mean hypotheses?

And why is it an odd question. That is exactly how science works. You observe a phenomena, find that current theories do not explain that phenomena or predict it, then you establish a hypotheses to improve, refine or rarely replace that theory. Then you test the hypotheses by seeing how you can falsify it or by testing any predictions that it makes.

That's science.

..."

Yes that’s is all fine and I am not disputing it. But at what point does 'science' form a consensus that something is true (in other words, true to the general public who don't know their hypotheses from their theories but take what has been presented as true) on the evidence produced by science. Only to find that at a later date science finds new evidence and what was seen as true to the 'general public' is now no longer true.

Back to Lucy....am I, as part of the 'general public' not allowed to think that science may not be correct on this one; am I not allowed an opinion, or to speculate from what evidence is presented to me via books or TV. Do I have to wait until a scientist thinks another scientist is wrong and then proves it and then lets the general public know.


Which gets you into the infinite regression argument of where did that influence come from until you either accept it must be intrinsic or you show evidence of the external source of religion as received by man and explain how this appeared simultaneously to widely separated human groups, and also appears to be intrinsic in rare people brought up in enforced isolation and how similar morals could be then influenced on non-human primates without this religious mechanism.

It would be much the same as language. The ability to use speech is there as are morals. And as with language morals change over time. What we have now for the most part, are morals influenced by religion.

Morals in animals? Maybe this is just instinct on the animals part and pseudo-scientists thinking they are on to something new.

I wonder sometimes with debates like this if for example a subject like ‘morals in animals’ is more of a devils advocate subject. Had I suggested that animals do have morals you would have taken the other side and said that what little research there is, is nothing more than delusion.

It’s odd that we are arguing about evidence for Lucy and animal morals, but are both taking opposite views. I feel that there is a lack of evidence for Lucy and you think there is enough evidence for animal morals.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "The question was.... "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?.... the way the question was put and the comparison with science seemed to suggest a lot. A rhetor..."

Without breaking down each of your above examples, you will find that most of them were territorial.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Ken wrote: "Don't forget the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland."

No doubt cs will see that as a nationalistic war between those who wanted to join the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom, but you are right that many Northern Irish do not want to have to follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture.
..."

Very flimsy Gary. Saying what you think I will say; getting that bit in first and then trying to counter argue with religion. Shame on you. What that does is 'put in question' your scientific knowledge and how you may be just using it to come out on top rather than be correct.

Yes religion has sides in wars. But we are talking about the 'cause' of wars.

Once again the cause is territorial. A united Ireland. Religion is but a by product of the conflict.

Also the question was regarding 'war'. We were never at war with the IRA.

And Northern Ireland have both Catholic and Protestants who want to stay as the United Kingdom.

The Republic of Ireland could not afford to have a United Ireland.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: "cHriS wrote: "The question was.... "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?.... the way the question was put and the comparison with science seemed to suggest a ..."

But religion was still a reason for the demographic divide, and religion was certainly used as a reason.

Certainly many people involved claimed that religion was the reason why war was just, so even if every single one of the people who claimed that their religious beliefs justified a war, they certainly expected to be believed, which could only be likely if they thought it sounded reasonable.

So whether you think all believers are also liars, this still means that religion was a cause as well. You cannot simply claim that religion wasn't a cause just because there may have been other motives. In fact several of these territorial differences were based on the concept that one side or the other had a "divine right" to a certain set of land.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Very flimsy Gary. Saying what you think I will say; getting that bit in first and then trying to counter argue with religion. Shame on you. What that does is 'put in question' your scientific knowledge and how you may be just using it to come out on top rather than be correct."

Insults, belittling and scorn are the first place people flee when they do not have a valid argument.

cHriS wrote: "Yes religion has sides in wars. But we are talking about the 'cause' of wars."

So if a religion is on one "side" it still isn't a cause? Yet if a territorial claim is on one "side" it is a cause?

All you are doing is trying to exempt religion from responsibility for the actions of the religious, which either means you don't believe that religious people believe what they claim, or that people do not act on the beliefs they hold and cherish.

Either case seems somewhat "flimsy" to use your words.

cHriS wrote: "Once again the cause is territorial. A united Ireland. Religion is but a by product of the conflict."

Religion is a by product? Are you saying people started believing in the different faiths because they were fighting?

Certainly political differences between England and Ireland caused much of the conflict, yet still both sides cite religious differences as the reasons the conflicts have continued. Certainly in this case it may not be the main cause, but it is still a cause and to deny that is again to call the faithful on both sides liars.

cHriS wrote: "Also the question was regarding 'war'. We were never at war with the IRA."

Like the US was never officially at war with Vietnam. That's just quibbling over points and is another "flimsy" attempt at debate. Whether Religious War, or Religious conflict, in both people die because of what other people believe.

cHriS wrote: "And Northern Ireland have both Catholic and Protestants who want to stay as the United Kingdom. "

Which was why I specifically said the argument in that case wasn't as clear-cut though there was definitely an element. Which was exactly why I qualified the point.

cHriS wrote: "The Republic of Ireland could not afford to have a United Ireland. "

Again arguing superfluous details to the matter under discussion.

Like it or not, religious differences is a known factor in a lot (but not all) wars. To try to claim otherwise without significant evidence is just wishful thinking.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Insults, belittling and scorn are the first place people flee when they do not have a valid argument.

"
Oh but I do have a valid argument and on Ireland I know you are wrong, and I also know that you will fight tooth and nail to come out on top rather than concede anything. I also notice and I hope others do how, what you say in one post differs a little in another, in other words you are not consistent.

Quote gary:So if a religion is on one "side" it still isn't a cause? Yet if a territorial claim is on one "side" it is a cause?

No; religion is, in almost all cases, NOT the cause. Each side may have separate religions but if one country marches into another to take territory, it is that action that would be the cause.

We were NEVER at war with Ireland or the IRA, although some MP’s wanted a war declared, this did not happen, we were not fighting Ireland we were fighting terrorists.

Quote gary;both sides cite religious differences as the reasons the conflicts have continued. Certainly in this case it may not be the main cause

So are you now agreeing with me that religion was not the main cause or is this you being not consistent? Since you previously said….

Quote gary;No doubt cs will see that as a nationalistic war between those who wanted to join the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom, but you are right that many Northern Irish do not want to have to follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture.

Quote gary; Like it or not, religious differences is a known factor in a lot (but not all) wars. To try to claim otherwise without significant evidence is just wishful thinking.

Known factor, but NOT the cause. Again you seem to be repeating what I have said. .

We know that you condemn all things religious or stuff that has a religious overtone, but when you misplace the subject matter in favour of having a poke at religion, your argument looses it‘s creditability.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Insults, belittling and scorn are the first place people flee when they do not have a valid argument."

Not that I really want to open this can of worms, but ....

Does the above mean every time non-believers used insults, belittling and scorn they did not have a valid argument?

Non-believers have used those things a good bit here. So, .... Would that be why?

A difficult argument, given that.

[Travis]

Well, kind of knew the 'who started the wars' argument would go this way, but I must say, I'm impressed that nobody took the easy way out and leapt right for World War 2.

At least we are getting a nice mix of history.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "Oh but I do have a valid argument and on Ireland I know you are wrong"

And of course your opinion should be accepted as gospel truth. (Which of course I actually do since I do not accept the gospel as truth.)

cHriS wrote: "and I also know that you will fight tooth and nail to come out on top rather than concede anything."

While you are known for your reasonable open-mindedness yes?

cHriS wrote: "I also notice and I hope others do how, what you say in one post differs a little in another, in other words you are not consistent."

While your lack of consistency and evasion of points has been commented on repeatedly.

cHriS wrote: "No; religion is, in almost all cases, NOT the cause. Each side may have separate religions but if one country marches into another to take territory, it is that action that would be the cause."

And what caused the decision to invade? Do armies march spontaneously and randomly now? If an army suddenly invades a country do we then attribute the invasion to "spontaneous invasion syndrome"?

First you claim that wars are caused by territorial claims, now you're claiming wars are caused by invasions. Certainly if a country didn't resist an invasion then that would no longer be a cause of war would it? Perhaps the cause of war is defending oneself from invasion?

There are indeed many causes to war. One cause is religion. You can deny it all you like but people who have launched wars because of the infidel claiming holy lands are proof you are wrong.

cHriS wrote: "We were NEVER at war with Ireland"

As America never declared war on Vietnam but were involved in a "police action" however what is admitted as a war and what constitutes a war is not necessarily the same thing. If you want to split hairs between "armed conflict between two sides", and "declared wars by nations" then many other historically recognised wars would not count, including many civil wars. Your argument is irrelevant to the point that religion remains one possible cause of violence between people.

cHriS wrote: "we were not fighting Ireland we were fighting terrorists."

While many terrorists believe they are freedom fighters fighting a war against oppression. Just because a government refuses to recognise it as a war doesn't mean suddenly it is something different. Many people have died in violent conflicts that one side refused to acknowledge as a war.

cHriS wrote: "So are you now agreeing with me that religion was not the main cause or is this you being not consistent? Since you previously said…."

You said nothing about main causes. You tried to say that religion was "rarely if ever" a cause of war. I have repeatedly said that it is "one cause of war" not that it was the main cause of war in all instances. Now you are admitting that it is indeed a cause of war then you are recanting your previous statement.

cHriS wrote: "Known factor, but NOT the cause. Again you seem to be repeating what I have said."

Known factor i.e. a known causative factor. If a thing is a factor in a war then it is a cause of the war, that is not a particular clever attempt at word play.

cHriS wrote: "We know that you condemn all things religious or stuff that has a religious overtone, but when you misplace the subject matter in favour of having a poke at religion, your argument looses it‘s creditability. "

Misplace the subject matter.

War.

Religious difference being a factor in the cause of wars.

That's what you have denied, trying to make out that I am having a poke at religion for causing wars, when in fact it's just some sort of cute quirk that religion has?

Just like I am unfair at having a "poke at religion" when religious people spout hatred and bigotry against women, gay people etc? I am having a "poke at religion" when I find the religious support of suicide bombing, murder of blasphemers etc.

No. You denied that religion was "rarely if ever" a cause of war. I have said that is wrong and there is a lot of wars with a religious cause as part of, or an excuse for (which makes it still part of) the reasons for war.

Yes there are other reasons as well, that I never denied.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Does the above mean every time non-believers used insults, belittling and scorn they did not have a valid argument?"

Unless it wasn't the first place they went?

Perhaps they didn't have an argument. Sometimes non-believers don't either, but if you want to make this into another "ah ha, you're as bad as us" argument feel free.

My point was made because cs jumped straight to belittling without actually addressing any of the points I raised and in fact actively ignoring several points - yet again. He did not present any reasoning why despite prolific evidence religion was not either a reason or excuse for war (thereby a cause) and simply tried to say there were other factors which I had neither denied and in fact acknowledged.

In the end I may resort to scorn, but that's usually after being ignored, misrepresented or attacked in kind.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "Well, kind of knew the 'who started the wars' argument would go this way, but I must say, I'm impressed that nobody took the easy way out and leapt right for World War 2."

Godwin's :-D

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: And of course your opinion should be accepted as gospel truth. (Which of course I actually do since I do not a..."

I see what you did there, gosple truth...ha ha.

It started something like this........

Kaela wrote: "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?
How many wars have been fought over disagreement of scientists?

There's your answer."

My reply was: Not many, if any.

Gary wrote: Were you implying that religious wars don't happen?

My reply was: The question was.... "How many wars have been fought over disagreement of religions?.... the way the question was put and the comparison with science seemed to suggest a lot. A rhetorical question in other words.

Religion has sometimes been used as a justification for war, but very few wars are fought over religion, if any, it is territorial possession because of trade or land that is the main cause.

Gary wrote: No doubt cs will see that as a nationalistic war between those who wanted to join the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom, but you are right that many Northern Irish do not want to have to follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture.
-----------------------------

You wanted to pre-empt my reply…. So that you could add ‘follow laws of a Catholic dominated culture etc. A poke at religion, rather than acknowledge why the Irish troubles started.

My mother is an Irish Catholic from Eire, she moved to Northern Ireland, where she lived for many years before moving to England. Her friends were both Catholic and non-Catholic, at no time did they refer to the troubles as ‘war’. And most Catholics did not support the IRA. And most non-Catholics were not concerned about living in a Catholic country, it was just that they wanted to be part of the UK.

Yes one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, but most Irish just wanted peace. Religion played a big part in northern Ireland because Catholics at one time were treated as second class citizens. Just as not all Muslims are bombers, nor were all Catholics.

Just as China wanted Hong Kong back, Argentina wants the Falkland Islands, the Ira were fighting for an Island of Ireland, but it was not Eire wanting it.

Land was the cause not religion.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Sometimes non-believers don't either, but if you want to make this into another "ah ha, you're as bad as us" argument feel free."

Remember, ... I said I didn't really want to open that can of worms. So, the above isn't really necessary, is it? Just saying, the argument is problematic.

But, you've added to it ... to go there first.

Now that we have that clarification ....

Perhaps the non-believers who go there don't have an argument and perhaps they have an "excuse".

[[deleted user]]

For clarification ....

I put "excuse" in quotes not as a shot but due to my feelings on the subject. My feeling ... even if driven by someone who is being ridiculous or mean-spirited or ... I should still have control of myself and, if I don't, I'm responsible. I'm definitely not perfect and don't always have control of myself. It's just a thing with me. I should be and hold myself responsible regardless.

I know not everyone agrees with this. Several people in my family don't. That's for sure. I've heard a lot of excuses in my life. It's turned me off to them.

I'm also aware that some consider excuses to be reasons and see a big difference. I never really have ... when it comes to responsibility.

Wanted to clarify as I was afraid the above quotes might be seen as mean-spirited or something. Really not.

[Shane]

These are not opposites. It is a foolish question.

[Colleen]

Actually, I started this discussion. Interesting to see how it evolved. I have to say though Travis, a little food for thought:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
~Albert Einstein

[Travis]

Colleen wrote: "Actually, I started this discussion. Interesting to see how it evolved. I have to say though Travis, a little food for thought:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind...."

Can we stop posting that quote every ten pages like it's a deal closer or that we've never heard it before?

How about:

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence'.

-Christopher Hitchens

[Hazel]

If we're going to have Einstein quotes, lets go for this one:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"