The Instigator
TheWalkingDrums
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Religion is not the cause of war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheWalkingDrums
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,962 times Debate No: 28445
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

TheWalkingDrums

Pro

To define the debate, this is all about debating if religion is the real reason for war or not. Non religious people would blame religion from the violence recorded in history like Crusaders and Islamic wars.

As a Pro, I will give proofs that religion is not the cause of war. Con has to take the other side.

Rules:
Round 1 will be for acceptance.
Round 2: Pro will take first, then Con.
Round 3, Pro will rebut Con from Round 2 and will take another argument, Con will rebut Pro from Round 2 and will take another argument
Round 4, rebuttals only from Round 3 (No added arguments)
Round 5, conclusion.

As long as possible, try to give details from history.
RationalMadman

Con

Religions is the result, is the cause and the very nature of war. xoxo
Debate Round No. 1
TheWalkingDrums

Pro

I have one point for Round 2. As the Pro, I will present statistics of religious vs non-religious wars.

The Myth that Religion is the #1 Cause of War
by Robin Schumacher
edited by Matt Slick

Atheists and secular humanists consistently make the claim that religion is the #1 cause of violence and war throughout the history of mankind. One of hatetheism's key cheerleaders, Sam Harris, says in his book The End of Faith that faith and religion are "the most prolific source of violence in our history."1

While there"s no denying that campaigns such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years" War foundationally rested on religious ideology, it is simply incorrect to assert that religion has been the primary cause of war. Moreover, although there"s also no disagreement that radical Islam was the spirit behind 9/11, it is a fallacy to say that all faiths contribute equally where religiously-motivated violence and warfare are concerned.

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod"s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature,2 which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.

(The statistic table is shown in http://carm.org...)

That means that all faiths combined " minus Islam " have caused less than 4% of all of humanity"s wars and violent conflicts. Further, they played no motivating role in the major wars that have resulted in the most loss of life.

Kind of puts a serious dent into Harris" argument, doesn"t it?

The truth is, non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for nearly all of humankind"s wars. Lives lost during religious conflict pales in comparison to those experienced during the regimes who wanted nothing to do with the idea of God " something showcased in R. J. Rummel"s work Lethal Politics and Death by Government:

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost

Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
Pol Pot - 2,397,0003
Rummel says: "Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs."4

The historical evidence is quite clear: Religion is not the #1 cause of war.

If religion can"t be blamed for most wars and violence, then what is the primary cause? The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Jesus provides the answer very clearly: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:21"23).

James (naturally) agrees with Christ when he says: "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel" (James 4:1"2).

In the end, the evidence shows that the atheists are quite wrong about the wars they claim to so desperately despise. Sin is the #1 cause of war and violence, not religion, and certainly not Christianity.

I suggest you look at the statistics table as shown in the given site: http://carm.org...
RationalMadman

Con

Religion: a particular system of faith and worship. http://oxforddictionaries.com...

When a soldier learns one set way of shooting, preparing a gun, running, when he/she trusts in his/her comrades to not betray them, when they put faith in their survival of that war what is it that gets them through? Religion. Without it wars wouldn't happen because generals themselves wouldn't put blind faith in a victory. They think "Oh if I just use this strategy I can't lose" but BOTH believe that, yet only one of them wins.

After a war many people often seek a way to cope with the fact they just slaughtered thousands of humans and as a collective army slaughtered millions. In order to do this they often beg for forgiveness from a 'greater power' as a means of therapy and contentment in order to avoid PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) where one becomes extremely violent, guilt-ridden and highly stressed with the victim usually drinking themselves to sleep to block out the harsh memories of those they killed, but by believing it's all okay because God is backing them up allows them to still feel happy to go to heaven when they die.

War: a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TheWalkingDrums

Pro

To rebut Con, I have to give my point:
Religion and Faith
Religion and faith are different. From the given website from Con, religion means:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world"s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

Religion has worship, has God, while faith, by definition:
Faith
a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something
b) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof

http://oxforddictionaries.com...

By given two definitions, faith is not limited for religion. The faith referred in Con's statement would mean trust: trust in soldiers since soldiers are not gods.

Religion have God or any supernatural form.

Second point: Statistics of religious and non religious wars
As seen in the site I had presented, we can just be amazed that only few religious wars happened compare to non religious ones.

For my entry point on Round 3:
1) "Religious wars" are not for religion at all:
- Israeli Arab wars are not for religion, but more of nationalism and territory.

2) Wars are more associated on possession than religion
Though religion may sometimes be a factor, it is still proven that territory is one main reason for war, and power as well. Religion is used for power, therefore, it is power that is one reason for war, religion as a forefront.

3) Non religious wars slaughtered more people:
As seen from Round 2, the list of atheist and their number of people killed in their time.

To conclude, we cannot blame religion for wars. Non religious wars are more on power. Religious personnel who battled for religion are actually seeking for power and territory, forefronting religion to hide their motives: One evidence is Spain: Using Catholicism to conquer Philippines.

Sources:
http://www.is-there-a-god.info...
http://carm.org...
RationalMadman

Con

your definiton is no more valid than mine you bloody smartarse idiot.
Debate Round No. 3
TheWalkingDrums

Pro

No rebut from me, I have nothing to rebut here.
RationalMadman

Con

same to you.
Debate Round No. 4
TheWalkingDrums

Pro

Round 5 finished. My points are just two: Statistics and Religion vs Power: Power are more priority for wars, forefronting religion.
RationalMadman

Con

To begin a war is to have faith you will win. This is religion.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
TheWalkingDrumsRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to pro as con has not grasped the fact that Hitler was actually Christian, and also did not respond to most of Pro's arguments. Conduct to Pro as Con has insulted Pro in Round 3.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
TheWalkingDrumsRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cursed, and stopped arguing. But he had a pretty good argument.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
TheWalkingDrumsRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were more convincing than Con's. Pro also gets conduct, seeing as how Con seemingly gave up on rebutting Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
TheWalkingDrumsRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit