Does religion cause war?

[Gregory Thompson]

I will be forced to ask mod's to close the thread, if political arguments continue. The OP is about religion and war, and religion and nobel peace prizes. Nobody commented on the fact that 4% of wars are caused by religion while 80% of the nobel peace prizes are caused by christianity. That is an amazing statistic that no one has been able to quote valid studies to disprove.

The stats are fake news since most of the leaders starting wars are part of a religion. That the state is a non-religious entity is cosmetic.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oversimplified indeed.

so lets get started..

Some historians argue that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy" and a modern invention from the past few centuries, arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[5] Similar opinions were expressed as early as the 1760s, during the Seven Years' War, widely recognized to be "religious" in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests.[6]

Religious war - Wikipedia

is that what religion is defined as in the actual encyclopedia of war that I cited in the OP, if not then this is arbitrary.

As for the personal religion of the Nobel prize winner to mean something you would first have to demonstrate how that is linked to the prize.

For example 96,71 % of the Nobel Prize winner are male while 3,29% are female. Do you really think this means that females are 29 more times warlike than males ? Or that having testicles is 29 more times like to result in peace prize for yourself than your wife?

The Nobel gender gap is worse than you think

uum arbitrary again sir. I never said they made a nobel peace price ON CHRISTIANITY, but that they WERE christian that got the nobels.

so I hope that clears up some of the misconceptions of the OP

 

[createdtoworship]

The stats are fake news since most of the leaders starting wars are part of a religion. That the state is a non-religious entity is cosmetic.

even though stats are used in 90% of all science. Yeah, I don't think so sir. Nice try.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

80% of the nobel peace prizes are caused by christianity.

This is the claim you need to prove. Let`s try once again.

That 80% of Nobel Prize winners are Christians does not meant that "Nobel peace prizes are caused

by Christianity " any more than

that since 96% + Nobel Prize winners are males then it means that Nobel Peace Prizes are caused by testicles.

See the logic ? Or lack of ?

 

[createdtoworship]

This is the claim you need to prove. Let`s try once again.

That 80% of Nobel Prize winners are Christians does not meant that "Nobel peace prizes are caused

by Christianity " any more than

that since 96% + Nobel Prize winners are males then it means that Nobel Peace Prizes are caused by testicles.

See the logic ? Or lack of ?

Sir I don't see the logic at all. Testicles are not what makes us male. It's the result of God making us male, it's the cart before the horse mentality. But to say that Christians by and large are the ones making the most nobel peace prizes is a vary valid form of evidence. Again these skeptical posts coming from you makes me doubt you believe the Bible at all. I mean if I just said that black people have the highest IQ's in the world, and you were black. You should feel good. Right? But if you are another skin color you may be offended. But being offended reveals you are not black. So too, you fighting about the success of christianity makes your personal belief in christianity look questionable or weak. I am just saying it looks odd to say the things you are saying, criticizing christianity, AS A CHRISTIAN. (When I say christian I am uniting christian and catholic, like CF does)

 

[chilehed]

Definition of demagogue

a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

Sound like anyone we know ?

Yep, it sounds like every Democrat presidential candidate since I can remember. Obama and Hillary certainly fit the bill.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

But to say that Christians by and large are the ones making the most nobel peace prizes is a vary valid form of evidence.

No. That is only your prejudice speaking.

If you can not show how being a Christian makes you more likely to receive the Prize then just quoting % figures of Prizes received is just as meaningless as assertion that 96% of the people winning the Prize have testicles so it must be they got the Prize because of it.

 

[A Realist]

I will be forced to ask mod's to close the thread, if political arguments continue. The OP is about religion and war, and religion and nobel peace prizes.

"War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means." - Karl Von Clausewtiz

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Yep, it sounds like every Democrat presidential candidate since I can remember. Obama and Hillary certainly fit the bill.

Thanks Obama. I guess it never gets old.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. That is only your prejudice speaking.

If you can not show how being a Christian makes you more likely to receive the Prize then just quoting % figures of Prizes received is just as meaningless as assertion that 96% of the people winning the Prize have testicles so it must be they got the Prize because of it.

see the OP sir, solid proof there and not from wikipedia.

just as testicals do not cause one to be male any more than an arm causes one to be human, thus this illustration brakes down entirely. Testicals is a result of being male, not a cause.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

see the OP sir, solid proof there and not from wikipedia.

Only thing that proves is your inability to understand logic if it goes against your prejudices.

 

[A Realist]

see the OP sir, solid proof there and not from wikipedia.

In actuality, Wikpedia quoted your source from the pie chart in the OP. Are we to ignore it now, since Wikipedia mentioned it?
Religious war - Wikipedia
"In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document 1763 notable wars in world history out of which 121 wars are in the "religious wars" category in the index.[20][1] They note that before the 17th century, much of the "reasons" for conflicts were explained through the lens of religion and that after that time wars were explained through the lens of wars as a way to further sovereign interests.[21]"

 

[createdtoworship]

Only thing that proves is your inability to understand logic if it goes against your prejudices.

We all have opinions and biases, you can't get around that. But I guess we know now your bias against christianity, that for sure. You are literally the only christian in this thread questioning the validity of the report.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

You are literally the only christian in this thread questioning the validity of the report.

Report ? You mean the picture you grabbed from some tweet ? Now how could we doubt something as valid as that.

Think the source is the same for wikipedia as well although the % claimed there is 65.

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

The point was that having a majority of people winning the peace prize to you it represents divine will or moral high ground or something like that.

But you are unable to link anything that says they won their prizes because they were Christians.

Just like 96% of them were men does not mean they won because of that. How hard is this concept for you ?

 

[dqhall]

It would be a good quote accept that it came from a publicly edited site, wikipedia literally will let any one log in and write stuff, no credentials needed. So that is not a great place to find history or any other source of debate information. I do use it for fast food information, that does seem to be a good source for that, but for debates I have noticed a lot of factual errors...

1. Most Wikipedia entries about companies contain factual errors, study finds
2. Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Daily Mail Online
3. 90% of Wikipedia medical entries are inaccurate, say experts | Daily Mail Online
   
4. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia

not wikipedia again....

not wikipedia again

so here you should never mock of make fun of people in leadership, but honor and obey them.

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2

"for he is God’s minister" Romans 13:4

"for they are God’s ministers" Romans 13:6

in conclusion let me post some proof of wikipedia's anti christian bias:

"Anti-Christianity
See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

1. Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"[25] a term that is an idiotic mockery of the Christian faith. Wikipedia used to say that the term is "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-Christian mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
2. Arguments for atheism are prominently featured in Wikipedia's atheism article, but it fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per-capita basis, even when church giving is not counted for theists.[26] In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive. Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.[26] Finally, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that atheism is a causal factor for suicide.

above quote from links above

The apostles were told to stop teaching and preaching the Gospels by the governing authorities. They were arrested, beaten and killed. Texts requiring obedience to governing authorities are not good enough. Nero was a Roman ruling authority. He killed Christians.

 

[Josheb]

"All religion does is cause war!"
"What have Christians done for the sciences and humanities?"

Enjoy this graphic.
View attachment 272420

(click to enlarge)

This graph is a simplification of the data. Some debate remains as to if the 7% figure should be lower considering a lot of movements are contained in the number. The percentage drops to 3% after the Islamic wars are deducted.​

(josh purses lips impressed) I kinda like this.

Think it's unnecessary but I like it. It has long been understood that wars are fought for money. They are often not long-term profitable but that does not change the motive. Furthermore, It has also been understood that historically Christianity drove an exploration of the world in many domains, including global expansion and scientific investigation. This is understood by the emphasis placed on Genesis 1:28 by Christians from its inception. I'd find it odd someone doesn't know this.

 

[Josheb]

Religion is basically one group saying we're right and you're wrong, and your God is a demon. I can kind of see why they'd start some wars.

nt

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

This is understood by the emphasis placed on Genesis 1:28 by Christians from its inception.

It sure did give great justification for subjugating the natives. God`s will and all that. Not like we are the bad guys but heathens....they don`t really know how to proplerly exploit their lands anyway so having them as slaves growing sugar cane will make them appriciate the fact.

Cheers for moral high ground.

 

[Archivist]

again sir, I quoted chapter and verse (twice) and you just walked all over them, you obviously don't believe in the Bible. And that is fine, it's not my job to convince you.

I am not trying to be rude, but I thought you were done posting here?

 

[Josheb]

It sure did give great justification for subjugating the natives. God`s will and all that. Not like we are the bad guys but heathens....they don`t really know how to proplerly exploit their lands anyway so having them as slaves growing sugar cane will make them appriciate the fact.

Cheers for moral high ground.

What's this op about?