If we could remove religion from the world, how many conflicts would cease and how many people would not be killed?

If we could remove religion from the world, how many conflicts would cease and how many people would not be killed?

Only a few. Other reasons to kill each other would come up. Also, if you would actually study the cause of most conflicts you will see that religion plays only a minor role in a lot of them. Nationalism, ideologies, preservation of national interests of superpowers or regional powers play much bigger roles in the causes of war and arguably have a much higher body count.

I think religion is used as an excuse to justify many conflicts but it is not the cause of said conflicts.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

So don't you think that religion plays a big part in determining the actions and thoughts of people that make up their thoughts on nationalism and ideologies.

The communists in Russia tried to exterminate all religions and they were as warlike as any other regime.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

The communists in Russia tried to exterminate all religions and they were as warlike as any other regime.

The Communists trie to substitute the religious belief system with another belief system.

---

If we could remove religion from the world, how many conflicts would cease and how many people would not be killed?

People would be completely lost, the average Joe, I mean.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

So don't you think that religion plays a big part in determining the actions and thoughts of people that make up their thoughts on nationalism and ideologies.

In general? No, religion plays little to no role in determining this. Are there exceptions? Sure, in persons where religion plays an overwhelming role in determining the persons identity, such as fanatics, religion will also have an influence on that persons take on nationalism and ideology. Though even there, it would vary vastly from person to person and their take on their religion.

Is the real problem that of psychopaths gaining power and as part of that, it is the psychopaths who are most likely to seek power...?


From that, the rest of us are just a cursory aside to be dealt with without concern or feeling as whatever circumstances can be taken advantage of.

... Just like "business without morals".

Otherwise seen as the game of Kings?...


All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Otherwise seen as the game of Kings?...

Umm Martin don't you mean GAME of THRONES ....:::)))

Sorry couldn't resist that 1 :)

---

While it wouldn't eliminate all of our problems, the majority of our major problems would be eliminated if we could eliminate evil. That is a human trait that serves no useful purpose and causes much harm.

---

While it wouldn't eliminate all of our problems, the majority of our major problems would be eliminated if we could eliminate evil. That is a human trait that serves no useful purpose and causes much harm.

In the same vein as "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", Evil, to a large degree, is in the eye of the beholder.

Just where do you start and where do you stop in the elimination process ?

T.A.

While it wouldn't eliminate all of our problems, the majority of our major problems would be eliminated if we could eliminate evil. That is a human trait that serves no useful purpose and causes much harm.

In the same vein as "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", Evil, to a large degree, is in the eye of the beholder.

Just where do you start and where do you stop in the elimination process ?

T.A.

The concept of evil is pretty simple. It is defined by the 10 commandments but if you want a simple definition, evil is to harm another for personal gain. While evil is defined by christianity, other religions have the same concept. It's a socialistic idea to think evil is relative because it isn't. Now many people in history who were evil didn't consider themselves evil. We have seen examples in Germany, Russia, China and many other countries where I am sure the leaders thought they were doing the best thing they could for their country but killing millions of innocence people just to get them out of the way can't be called anything other than evil.

---

I don't think evil can be eliminated from the world but it can be controlled if the rest of us have the will to keep it at bay.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

One must make judgment's.

That was my point. On who's belief system/ideology do you make the judgement ?

If one believes that burying alive women and children, is a Freedom Fighter (The Jihadist's Do): Then you have the judgement of a NAZI.

What is this fascination you have with Nazis ? It is a word you trot out at every available opportunity while conveniently ignoring that Nazism's older brother, Fascism is alive and well in many countries and organisations. Plus, see answer below.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", is ridiculous, and leaves Evil out of the equation.

It was a quote to point out that many things, including evil, are in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be justified if out of context quotes from various "holy books" are twisted enough.

T.A.

I don't think evil can be eliminated from the world but it can be controlled if the rest of us have the will to keep it at bay.

I am not even sure it can be controlled. People are willing to look the other way when they profit from an evil. They are happy to profit off evil if they don't have to get their hands dirty. It can be as simple as our progressive tax code that steals from the rich to give to the poor or as complex as Germany in WW II where the economic recovery was the backs of others. To really control evil, people have to be taught morals. If they know the concept of morality, not very many people apply it today.

---

While it wouldn't eliminate all of our problems, the majority of our major problems would be eliminated if we could eliminate evil. That is a human trait that serves no useful purpose and causes much harm.

The concept of evil is pretty simple. It is defined by the 10 commandments but if you want a simple definition, evil is to harm another for personal gain. While evil is defined by christianity, other religions have the same concept. It's a socialistic idea to think evil is relative because it isn't. Now many people in history who were evil didn't consider themselves evil. We have seen examples in Germany, Russia, China and many other countries where I am sure the leaders thought they were doing the best thing they could for their country but killing millions of innocence people just to get them out of the way can't be called anything other than evil.

My aren't you choke full of contradictions.

Firstly if evil serves no useful purpose then how can you define it as 'harming another for personal gain'? Clearly it then does serve a useful purpose, at least for the person who you deem evil. They gain something after all.

And in the bit in bold you contradict the first sentence immediately in the next sentence. If evil is absolute then people who do evil wouldn't be able to see them as anything but evil. Clearly this isn't the case but that also means that evil clearly isn't as absolute as you think it is.

Oh and moral relativism (the idea that good and evil are not absolute) has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The idea dates at least 2500 years back.

While it wouldn't eliminate all of our problems, the majority of our major problems would be eliminated if we could eliminate evil. That is a human trait that serves no useful purpose and causes much harm.

The concept of evil is pretty simple. It is defined by the 10 commandments but if you want a simple definition, evil is to harm another for personal gain. While evil is defined by christianity, other religions have the same concept. It's a socialistic idea to think evil is relative because it isn't. Now many people in history who were evil didn't consider themselves evil. We have seen examples in Germany, Russia, China and many other countries where I am sure the leaders thought they were doing the best thing they could for their country but killing millions of innocence people just to get them out of the way can't be called anything other than evil.

My aren't you choke full of contradictions.

Firstly if evil serves no useful purpose then how can you define it as 'harming another for personal gain'? Clearly it then does serve a useful purpose, at least for the person who you deem evil. They gain something after all.

And in the bit in bold you contradict the first sentence immediately in the next sentence. If evil is absolute then people who do evil wouldn't be able to see them as anything but evil. Clearly this isn't the case but that also means that evil clearly isn't as absolute as you think it is. '

I am completely consistent. One day I went to use my car and it was no longer there. I didn't have a credit card so I couldn't rent a car. It turned out a farm worker had taken it so he would have some wheels. Now you tell me, I am a programmer earning far more than a farm worker. Did society gain by providing a farm worker with wheels at the expense of a programmer who would no longer be able to work?? If you think being a thief is a gainful form of employment, you have a strange view of society.

Some people have never been taught right from wrong. Others are mentally defective and don't see anything wrong with harming others. You are arguing that mass murder is acceptable in any case where the murder thinks it's acceptable.

Oh and moral relativism (the idea that good and evil are not absolute) has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The idea dates at least 2500 years back.

Who ever said Karl Marx came up with anything original. The Pilgrims almost failed their first year because before they got off the ship they signed an agreement that all goods belonged to the community. They saw no reason to work so they entered the first winter with almost no food. They quickly saw the error in their ways and brought back the idea of private property and survived because of it.

Part of the reason the Roman Empire failed is because Rome became comfortable living off the wealth of the conquered lands. Much of what survives today was built with the wealth of other lands.

Your limit of 2500 years is nothing. Moses took the Jews to freedom from Egypt's slavery which was noting more that socialism. Then the Jews went on to conquer other lands and destroy the people who lived there imposing their own form of evil/socialism.

---

What is evil depends on your point of view. Change your point of view and what is evil changes.

Most points of view have rape and murder in the evil circle. Some don't. Once you realize this, you must accept that there is no universal definition of evil or good. It is entirely a man made concept.

As to some of those viewpoints where rape and murder are not evil, one place to find them is in two thousand year old books. Say where stoning people is encouraged. Where killing those who believe different is encouraged. Where offering up virgin daughters to a crowd of men is described as the act of a good man.

Man is quite capable of rationalizing anything, even WMD.

We have a long way to go, and religion is one of the things holding us back from development.

---

That is one of the best posts ever seen on this board in a very long time.