'I dont like religion - it causes wars'

[Booldawg]

This is often a blanket statement made by atheists to berate the notion of any kind of involvement in a mainstream faith.

Its also a well documented fact that securing substantial and affordable oil reserves causes wars; I wonder if these same people refuse to drive cars or provide revenue for oil based products?

Are people only able to make moral choices if it has very little impact on their everyday lives?

[123everton]

I actually posted a question on this a while ago the consensus of opinion rather huffily concluded and conceded was that religion had'nt caused a war since the reformation.
I think your final statement is very accurate, who cares about the environment now?
Look at the fall in sales of organic food.

[DaisyMae]

To be simplistic - it isn't religion that causes wars, it is men.

[keyplus90]

Religions do not cause war. It is the people who misinterpret the teachings of the religions or use religion to get few people on board for their own ill objectives.

And then there are few people who do not accept any sort of explanation as it refutes their claims.

You would surely see what I mean in a minute once I have posted this.

[beso]

Yes it is usually misinterpretation. Take the Book of Joshua. In this story the Israelites only massacred defenceless communities. They didn't get a chance to fight back so it wasn't really a war.

Later on, people have been inspired at what the Israelites achieved with the help of God and attacked more powerful societies causing protracted wars. God only helps those who slaughter the defenceless.

[naomi24]

Keyplus is right. We had a long discussion on this not so long ago, and the general consensus was that religion, in itself, doesn't cause wars.

[Octavius]

Yes, you could conversely draw a similar simplistic analogy from Lenins Red Terror and Stalins Night of the Murdered Poets.

[Tom Braider]

I don't think the "religion causes wars" argument is put by atheists nearly as often as religionists would have us believe. But if you do actually encounter it, then yes, you're entitled to point out another cause of war and ask what is the correct attitude to that.

I fear that you're right about people's "moral" choices depending on their own circumstances - not everybody, of course, but a pretty large proportion. Certainly it's a lot easier to take a high moral tone if it's not costing you anything.

Maybe that's why religionists tell us we can't be trusted to make our own moral choices and have to take their word for what a god wants us to do.

But seeing as the directives of any organised religion or secct thereof tend to change over time and from place to place, it seems to me that to take your moral stance from a church of any kind is no different from just acting according to the expectations of non-religious society. Hmm...

[Octavius]

��.[religionists] tell us we can't be trusted to make our own moral choices and have to take their word for what [a god*] wants us to do.�

Doesn�t that statement actually refer to any authority in place at any time, whether by religious motivation or not? We also refer to them as dictatorships or nanny states.

* insert any political ideology/popular deity/government party��..