Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every time I critique the evils and violence of Islam in a specifically Islam section and topic, Muslims and their apologists will make an attempt to deflect away by referring and accusing secular wars are worse.
Examples:
Question: Does the rate of violence among Muslims actually differ from the rate for other groups?
Here's a wonderful list of wars in the name of "spreading freedom & democracy!!!!"...also known as spreading imperialism through outright invasion & takeover and/or attempting to force the hand of certain countries to put Governments/dictators in place that are friendly to "modern societies" imperialist interests.
Such deflections reflect a logical fallacy and represent bad critical thinking on their part.
To avoid the above, herewith is an OP dedicated to comparing the evils and casualties of wars arising from secular and religious elements.
To be more refine in our critical thinking we should make the following comparisons;
1. Number of casualties of purely secular wars and those have significance relation with religion [e.g. the crusades, Muslims imperialism, etc.
To be much more refine in our critical thinking we should also analyze;
1. whether the said wars are related to direct elements from the religious texts. For example wars started by Buddhist are related to religion but they are not motivated and inspired by religious texts and the religions per se.
Questions:
1. Wars -Which is Worse, Secular or Religious?
2. Do you agree some wars that are linked to religions are not actually inspired by the religion itself but rather by the evil nature of the believers as human beings?
3. Do you agree, a religion is responsible for wars if it has specific verses that directly and indirectly condone and promote wars on non-believers or amongst its own sects?
3. Religion is so pervasive that it is generally guilty of fanning the flames of war, even when the war is not overtly religiously motivated or inspired. One might call it "structural religiosity". That is much more devious and much more deniable. A good example was the Iraq war. The notion that non-Christian "evildoers" would of course be concealing insidious "weapons of mass destruction" became an article of faith that was impervious to actual (lack of) evidence. People wanted to hear certain things and others were only too willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.
The very existence of such uncritical and sloppy thinking and recklessness would be much more difficult without the entrenched habits of faith-based, evidence-free wishful thinking.
The whole oxymoronic notion of a "just war" arises from religious sentiments and ideologies.
War is a human instinct, and therefore equally bad, for whatever reason (it is always competition for tribal domination instinct - and religion makes for a 'tribe' within a tribe.) but religious causes can be so effective in focussing effort. And the horrible effect of faith -wars is that human values can be set aside becasue your religion permits and even requires you to do whatever is necessary to win.
The ghastly fall -out though is that, when you win, the faith needs to feed more and more. The Spanish Inquisition came out of the defeat of the Muslims. The witch burnings came out of the wars of the reformation. The hunting down of enemies of the state came out of the Russian revolution (yes, the Soviet regime was based in a political Dogma as faithlike and faith based as any Crusade or Jihad). And the last ditch revival in the Confederate army hope that God would give them the win they believed they deserved, led to the racial lynchings, Creationism and anti -gay polemics of the last century and the present one.
It gives us people like Alexander, Saladin, and the "heavenly prince" of the Tai P'ing, it gives us Nelson and Napoleon (both with faith in their 'destiny' and never mind religion) and George Patton, a fine general, but as bad for politics and George Bush - either 'WMD exist because we can't prove they don't' or 'No, atheists are not citizens or patriots'.
Every time I critique the evils and violence of Islam in a specifically Islam section and topic, Muslims and their apologists will make an attempt to deflect away by referring and accusing secular wars are worse.
Examples:
Question: Does the rate of violence among Muslims actually differ from the rate for other groups?
Here's a wonderful list of wars in the name of "spreading freedom & democracy!!!!"...also known as spreading imperialism through outright invasion & takeover and/or attempting to force the hand of certain countries to put Governments/dictators in place that are friendly to "modern societies" imperialist interests.
Such deflections reflect a logical fallacy and represent bad critical thinking on their part.
To avoid the above, herewith is an OP dedicated to comparing the evils and casualties of wars arising from secular and religious elements.
To be more refine in our critical thinking we should make the following comparisons;
1. Number of casualties of purely secular wars and those have significance relation with religion [e.g. the crusades, Muslims imperialism, etc.
To be much more refine in our critical thinking we should also analyze;
1. whether the said wars are related to direct elements from the religious texts. For example wars started by Buddhist are related to religion but they are not motivated and inspired by religious texts and the religions per se.
Questions:
1. Wars -Which is Worse, Secular or Religious?
2. Do you agree some wars that are linked to religions are not actually inspired by the religion itself but rather by the evil nature of the believers as human beings?
3. Do you agree, a religion is responsible for wars if it has specific verses that directly and indirectly condone and promote wars on non-believers or amongst its own sects?
Your views and perspectives on the above?
War is bad period.
Some religions just make it bad for fellow believers by sanctioning the killing of their brothers for their Nation.
Hmmm...OK, World War II was a religious war? I don't classify it as a religious war; the Nazis flew the Swastika, which is a reference to the Aryan roots of the German Identity being linked to Proto-Indo-European, and they didn't fly the Cross. Stalin killed tons more than Hitler and that was not related to religion; well, unless you count anti-religion as a religious cause. Mao, Pol Pot, may have incidentally been Buddhist but they did nothing in the name of Buddha; hence, killing millions to wipe out ideas such as religion.
The Crusades were a religious war, but honestly had the Catholics been successful there would be no ISIS, there would be much less Islam. So, I'm not certain you want to take that war back to be honest. I mean without the Crusades you might not even have a Europe, you may have had a Muslim world. So, I wouldn't take that war back; I would double down and argue we should have kept fighting. Honestly, outside of the Crusades I know of no religious wars and I kind of wish we would have won that one.
Every time I critique the evils and violence of Islam in a specifically Islam section and topic, Muslims and their apologists will make an attempt to deflect away by referring and accusing secular wars are worse.
Examples:
Question: Does the rate of violence among Muslims actually differ from the rate for other groups?
Here's a wonderful list of wars in the name of "spreading freedom & democracy!!!!"...also known as spreading imperialism through outright invasion & takeover and/or attempting to force the hand of certain countries to put Governments/dictators in place that are friendly to "modern societies" imperialist interests.
Such deflections reflect a logical fallacy and represent bad critical thinking on their part.
To avoid the above, herewith is an OP dedicated to comparing the evils and casualties of wars arising from secular and religious elements.
To be more refine in our critical thinking we should make the following comparisons;
1. Number of casualties of purely secular wars and those have significance relation with religion [e.g. the crusades, Muslims imperialism, etc.
To be much more refine in our critical thinking we should also analyze;
1. whether the said wars are related to direct elements from the religious texts. For example wars started by Buddhist are related to religion but they are not motivated and inspired by religious texts and the religions per se.
Questions:
1. Wars -Which is Worse, Secular or Religious?
2. Do you agree some wars that are linked to religions are not actually inspired by the religion itself but rather by the evil nature of the believers as human beings?
3. Do you agree, a religion is responsible for wars if it has specific verses that directly and indirectly condone and promote wars on non-believers or amongst its own sects?
Your views and perspectives on the above?
All war is bad. Religious or otherwise. There is no such thing as a "good war". Sometimes war is necessary...but it's never good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
