God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Jute]

Honestly, as someone majoring in history, I'd say not at all. This is what some atheists like to believe, a way of wishful thinking to justify their standpoint. Not any better than wishing the entire world to be Christian and expecting it to solve some problems.

That's a little bit presumptuous don't you think? I'm not looking to 'justify' my standpoint through my belief that elimination of religion would stop a lot of wars and other conflict.

We can't assume that there would be MORE wars because there is little reason to do so. What we have today and have had for thousands of years is many wars and extreme hostility between people BECAUSE of their belief in THEIR version of God. We know that without religion those particular conflicts would no longer occur. We have no way to knowing what conflicts if any would take their place. The human race is entirely capable of not killing each other if you take away the things that are giving them excuses to do so.

We like to tell ourselves that it's human nature. That humans just kill each other because that's what we do. I don't think so. There was a time before war when humans didn't murder each other over stupid things, such a time will hopefully come again when we've gotten our shit together and get rid of the problems that are giving us a reason to fight. And that isn't just religion, the whole over population thing needs to be addressed among other things. People need to stop having kids for the sole purpose of sucking up free money from the government, they can't see it now and nor do they care but they are actually making the whole 'poor' thing worse by doing that. Sorry got off topic.

Did you even read the FAQ in the opening post? Only 7 % of all recorded wars can be labeled "religious", if at all, according to the BBC. I'm so tired of atheists bringing up this myth again and again (and then assume I'm an offended Christian trying to downplay the horrors for which religion has been exploited)
Most atheists in this forum agree: Religion is a tool, like a hammer, and can be used for both good and bad things. Getting rid of the hammer because it has been used for terrible things solves nothing, but leaves us with one valuable tool less.

[Stormwind-City]

That's a little bit presumptuous don't you think? I'm not looking to 'justify' my standpoint through my belief that elimination of religion would stop a lot of wars and other conflict.

We can't assume that there would be MORE wars because there is little reason to do so. What we have today and have had for thousands of years is many wars and extreme hostility between people BECAUSE of their belief in THEIR version of God. We know that without religion those particular conflicts would no longer occur. We have no way to knowing what conflicts if any would take their place. The human race is entirely capable of not killing each other if you take away the things that are giving them excuses to do so.

We like to tell ourselves that it's human nature. That humans just kill each other because that's what we do. I don't think so. There was a time before war when humans didn't murder each other over stupid things, such a time will hopefully come again when we've gotten our shit together and get rid of the problems that are giving us a reason to fight. And that isn't just religion, the whole over population thing needs to be addressed among other things. People need to stop having kids for the sole purpose of sucking up free money from the government, they can't see it now and nor do they care but they are actually making the whole 'poor' thing worse by doing that. Sorry got off topic.

Did you even read the FAQ in the opening post? Only 7 % of all recorded wars can be labeled "religious", if at all, according to the BBC. I'm so tired of atheists bringing up this myth again and again (and then assume I'm an offended Christian trying to downplay the horrors for which religion has been exploited)
Most atheists in this forum agree: Religion is a tool, like a hammer, and can be used for both good and bad things. Getting rid of the hammer because it has been used for terrible things solves nothing, but leaves us with one valuable tool less.

The blog you quote has no sources and says that he heavily believes athiests have asperger's syndrome.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Religion, is not to be blamed for causing wars. If anything, it's one of the worst arguments for religion. The Napoleonic Wars, World War II, World War I, Seven-Year War, Hundred Years' War, Vietnam War and even the Korean War were not caused by religion. At least, limit the bash on religion at the Crusades.

The simple evidence that not all war is caused by religion is the fact is that you did not hear about Buddhist wars, Hindu wars, Rastafarian wars, Shinto wars, Confucian wars, Jainist wars and Bahaist wars. It's only Christians and Muslims doing most of the fighting.

you realize most of those actually did happen, right?
just because they did not involve Europeans does not mean they didn't happen.

You might have misunderstood my language, but when in history did you learn about Buddhist crusaders starting a war against the Confucianists and the Shinto Japanese in the name of Siddharta Gautama Buddha? Where the heck did you learned about Bahaists chanting Bahau'llah Akbar and then goes on to start an invasion of a Hindu country because they are worshipping several gods contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i faith?

Most of warfare in East Asia seems to be secular in nature. The Warring States of China have no religious cause. The Sengoku of Japan have no such religious cause (though there might have been minor Buddhist-inspired insurrections). The Mongol invasions also have no religious cause, Genghis Khan did not need to chant the name of his Tengriist gods to further his conquests. And in other places of Central Asia and South Asia, it's probably the Muslims who are just starting the religious wars anyway. As well as in Aboriginal Australia, the Pacific Islands, the Native American North America, we don't hear of any religious-inspired conquests. In Latin America and in South America, we have some Mayans and Aztecs sacrificing some captives for their gods, but that's it. No more religious war there after the Meso-American zealots.

To simply put it in simpler words, few religious belief systems led to warfare.

[Wallenburg]

I would not make comments on other's understanding of words when you yourself are butchering their definitions for your own ends.

As has been established many times before (and, unfortunately, likely will many times in the future) this is not the scientific definition of theory and the fact that people are still trying to use the arguments of "well X is only a theory" makes me rather sad.

In common usage, yes, a theory is an unsubstantiated claim. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." (Wikipedia, you can fact check that one all you want). In this context, you're talking about something along the lines of a postulate or a hypothesis.

And to essentially sum up a response to the rest of that, I have one statement to make. If supernatural events exist but science supposedly is to have nothing to do with them, and they can't be classically modeled, predicted, measured, or observed, then I see no reason why we should even bother about them. If it is either so minute in effect as to not be detectable or so bizarre as to be completely unobservable, then there is no purpose wasting human thought on their existence or impact.

Hear hear. If science cannot measure it or otherwise detect it, there is no reason at all for us to say that it is anything other than an imaginary friend that people get into fights over.

Basically. Why believe in some random entity? Just live your life well and righteously. If there is a God, I would hope he would see this path as both logically and morally sound.

[Jute]

Hear hear. If science cannot measure it or otherwise detect it, there is no reason at all for us to say that it is anything other than an imaginary friend that people get into fights over.

Basically. Why believe in some random entity? Just live your life well and righteously. If there is a God, I would hope he would see this path as both logically and morally sound.

That's true, and I agree. But I guess some are already so thankful ahead of time that they start worshiping during their lifetime and turn to him for support, guidance and wisdom

[Jute]

you realize most of those actually did happen, right?
just because they did not involve Europeans does not mean they didn't happen.

You might have misunderstood my language, but when in history did you learn about Buddhist crusaders starting a war against the Confucianists and the Shinto Japanese in the name of Siddharta Gautama Buddha? Where the heck did you learned about Bahaists chanting Bahau'llah Akbar and then goes on to start an invasion of a Hindu country because they are worshipping several gods contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i faith?

Most of warfare in East Asia seems to be secular in nature. The Warring States of China have no religious cause. The Sengoku of Japan have no such religious cause (though there might have been minor Buddhist-inspired insurrections). The Mongol invasions also have no religious cause, Genghis Khan did not need to chant the name of his Tengriist gods to further his conquests. And in other places of Central Asia and South Asia, it's probably the Muslims who are just starting the religious wars anyway. As well as in Aboriginal Australia, the Pacific Islands, the Native American North America, we don't hear of any religious-inspired conquests. In Latin America and in South America, we have some Mayans and Aztecs sacrificing some captives for their gods, but that's it. No more religious war there after the Meso-American zealots.

To simply put it in simpler words, few religious belief systems led to warfare.

That's because history in Western nations tends to be centered around the history of Western nations. Regardless, as I said, in those places religious wars might have existed, but were just as rare as in Europe.

[Jute]

Did you even read the FAQ in the opening post? Only 7 % of all recorded wars can be labeled "religious", if at all, according to the BBC. I'm so tired of atheists bringing up this myth again and again (and then assume I'm an offended Christian trying to downplay the horrors for which religion has been exploited)
Most atheists in this forum agree: Religion is a tool, like a hammer, and can be used for both good and bad things. Getting rid of the hammer because it has been used for terrible things solves nothing, but leaves us with one valuable tool less.

The blog you quote has no sources and says that he heavily believes athiests have asperger's syndrome.

It doesn't have links in the end, but it does name its sources inside the text. Namely, a BBC documentary, among other things. Which stands independent of his belief/assumption/hypothesis that atheists might have Asperger's syndrome.

[Stormwind-City]

The blog you quote has no sources and says that he heavily believes athiests have asperger's syndrome.

It doesn't have links in the end, but it does name its sources inside the text. Namely, a BBC documentary, among other things. Which stands independent of his belief/assumption/hypothesis that atheists might have Asperger's syndrome.

1. He's poisoning the well against atheists.
2. The crusades and other wars like it killed a higher percentage of the human population of those times than wars approaching the modern era.
3. This BBC study seems very arbitrary and fails to take in the severity or length of said wars.
4. They [the authors] espouse that most major religions preach peace. But at the same time, these holy books glorify warriors of god, genocide, the killing of women & children/noncombatants, and the oppression of subjugated peoples through tyranny. Even Jesus, the man of peace, will supposedly return to wage a war against the forces of Satan led by the anti-christ.

[Jute]

It doesn't have links in the end, but it does name its sources inside the text. Namely, a BBC documentary, among other things. Which stands independent of his belief/assumption/hypothesis that atheists might have Asperger's syndrome.

1. He's poisoning the well against atheists.
2. The crusades and other wars like it killed a higher percentage of the human population of those times than wars approaching the modern era.
3. This BBC study seems very arbitrary and fails to take in the severity or length of said wars.
4. They [the authors] espouse that most major religions preach peace. But at the same time, these holy books glorify warriors of god, genocide, the killing of women & children/noncombatants, and the oppression of subjugated peoples through tyranny. Even Jesus, the man of peace, will supposedly return to wage a war against the forces of Satan led by the anti-christ.

I might be able to find a different website talking about it, then. Point is, religion is clearly not as often at fault for wars as some people tend to believe.
As for 2., that is just a claim. Can you actually show me numbers to back that uop?
3. These are up for debate, but I'd say that the most severe and horrible wars almost all took place in the previous era.
4. A second coming is only preached by a minority of Christian denominations. The Quran actually does not glorify genocide. "Jihad" is your inner struggle, the struggle to build a better society and finally, fighting in defensive wars against intruders, which is the only exception to otherwise rather peaceful tenets of Islam. I don't know about the rest about your claims, I'd like to see the lines/verses you're referring to for that.

[Godular]

Hear hear. If science cannot measure it or otherwise detect it, there is no reason at all for us to say that it is anything other than an imaginary friend that people get into fights over.

Basically. Why believe in some random entity? Just live your life well and righteously. If there is a God, I would hope he would see this path as both logically and morally sound.

Indeed. I like to think that I do good because I can, and because *I* want to. I'm not attempting to score brownie points with some ephemeral entity, I would just try to do good for the sake of doing good. Good old categorical imperatives and all that.

[Vilatania]

I love how Christians always say that the Crusades, Jihads and countless holy wars all over the world don't count. Sorry but you don't get to determine whether they count or not.

The point isn't that there wouldn't be war. The point is that there wouldn't be holy war, religious massacre, religious terrorism. And in case you haven't noticed; ALOT of Americans treat the so called 'war on terror' as a crusade against Muslims. Is it? No, but people want it to be because they hate Muslims. Did you know what the Muslims are doing right now? Jihad. There is always religious war and conflict going on. It never ends.

[LA Cheese]

Physicalism, as the best ontology, rules out the existence of any non-physical entities. A non-physical god, as such, clearly does not exist.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I love how Christians always say that the Crusades, Jihads and countless holy wars all over the world don't count. Sorry but you don't get to determine whether they count or not.

The point isn't that there wouldn't be war. The point is that there wouldn't be holy war, religious massacre, religious terrorism. And in case you haven't noticed; ALOT of Americans treat the so called 'war on terror' as a crusade against Muslims. Is it? No, but people want it to be because they hate Muslims. Did you know what the Muslims are doing right now? Jihad. There is always religious war and conflict going on. It never ends.

The Crusades were driven by political reasons more than religious ones.

And no, the War on Terror isn't religious.

[Fralinia]

As for 2., that is just a claim. Can you actually show me numbers to back that up?

I have done the math myself on that one.

Estimates (which are very rough and very vague, since these wars did happen at the end of the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. ) assign the Crusades a death toll of roughly a million people. At the time, the population of the world was ~320 million (AD 1100). This gives a percentage of 0.003 (very rough).

WWII and I, however, are rather more well-documented. The population of Earth in 1913 was ~ 1,791,091,000, and the death toll of WW1 was approx. 16 million soldiers and civilians, giving a percentage of 0.008, higher than the Crusades by 5 thousandths of a percent.

The population in 1940 was 2,307,348,000, and estimates of total deaths from WW2 range from 50-80 million. The lower estimate gives us a percentage of 0.021, significantly higher than the Crusades, and the upper range a whopping 0.034% of the world's populations.

So, yes, wars (in the 20th century at least) were rather more deadly. Now, the percentage for the Holocaust alone (0.004) is rather closer to the Crusades mark, but overall, modern conflict is just deadlier.

[Sociobiology]

The blog you quote has no sources and says that he heavily believes athiests have asperger's syndrome.

It doesn't have links in the end, but it does name its sources inside the text. Namely, a BBC documentary, among other things. Which stands independent of his belief/assumption/hypothesis that atheists might have Asperger's syndrome.

a BBC documentary is not a source, not anymore than a blog is.
also did you check to see if the BBC documentary actually supports it? because claiming a source backs you when it doesn't is a fairly common thing for bullshit claims.

[Sociobiology]

As for 2., that is just a claim. Can you actually show me numbers to back that up?

I have done the math myself on that one.

Estimates (which are very rough and very vague, since these wars did happen at the end of the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. ) assign the Crusades a death toll of roughly a million people. At the time, the population of the world was ~320 million (AD 1100). This gives a percentage of 0.003 (very rough).

WWII and I, however, are rather more well-documented. The population of Earth in 1913 was ~ 1,791,091,000, and the death toll of WW1 was approx. 16 million soldiers and civilians, giving a percentage of 0.008, higher than the Crusades by 5 thousandths of a percent.

the crusades were not the only war at the time, so either only include populations for the countries involved or add in the other wars.

So, yes, wars (in the 20th century at least) were rather more deadly. Now, the percentage for the Holocaust alone (0.004) is rather closer to the Crusades mark, but overall, modern conflict is just deadlier.

but are less frequent
which brings the average death toll down by a lot.

and no they really are not that much deadlier you are using the deadliest modern conflicts against an average for the non-modern. There are plenty of non-state wars with death tolls of 25-50% of those involved.

[Clinical Idiots]

As for 2., that is just a claim. Can you actually show me numbers to back that up?

I have done the math myself on that one.

Estimates (which are very rough and very vague, since these wars did happen at the end of the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. ) assign the Crusades a death toll of roughly a million people. At the time, the population of the world was ~320 million (AD 1100). This gives a percentage of 0.003 (very rough).

WWII and I, however, are rather more well-documented. The population of Earth in 1913 was ~ 1,791,091,000, and the death toll of WW1 was approx. 16 million soldiers and civilians, giving a percentage of 0.008, higher than the Crusades by 5 thousandths of a percent.

The population in 1940 was 2,307,348,000, and estimates of total deaths from WW2 range from 50-80 million. The lower estimate gives us a percentage of 0.021, significantly higher than the Crusades, and the upper range a whopping 0.034% of the world's populations.

So, yes, wars (in the 20th century at least) were rather more deadly. Now, the percentage for the Holocaust alone (0.004) is rather closer to the Crusades mark, but overall, modern conflict is just deadlier.

I'm terrible at statistics, I would've extrapolated the premise that modern conflict is just deadlier to itself account for the differential (given the field deaths in WWI included the first industrialized application of a variety of weapons and strategic milieu that might make it so unlike prior warfare that, when combined with the earlier concessions of roughness and vagueness of source data would leave an inference beneath the threshold of presentable confidence.

[Fralinia]

I have done the math myself on that one.

Estimates (which are very rough and very vague, since these wars did happen at the end of the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. ) assign the Crusades a death toll of roughly a million people. At the time, the population of the world was ~320 million (AD 1100). This gives a percentage of 0.003 (very rough).

WWII and I, however, are rather more well-documented. The population of Earth in 1913 was ~ 1,791,091,000, and the death toll of WW1 was approx. 16 million soldiers and civilians, giving a percentage of 0.008, higher than the Crusades by 5 thousandths of a percent.

the crusades were not the only war at the time, so either only include populations for the countries involved or add in the other wars.

If we're dealing with only populations of countries involved, then the Crusades were most likely far more deadly. I suppose that's true. Unfortunately, just calculating the population of the world at the time is vague enough as it is, let alone individual countries.

So, yes, wars (in the 20th century at least) were rather more deadly. Now, the percentage for the Holocaust alone (0.004) is rather closer to the Crusades mark, but overall, modern conflict is just deadlier.

but are less frequent
which brings the average death toll down by a lot.

Yes, but the number of wars pertaining to religion is much lower than one would think. Oh yes, there was plenty more conflict in the Middle Ages, but the fact of the matter is that most of you wars were over things like pissed of kings and petty landgrabs, the occasional dynastic struggle, and only rarely religion. Fighting other religions back then usually (save things like the various uprisings against the Catholics) required getting up and sailing across small oceans, which is expensive and usually not very appealing to monarchs, unless you've got a lot of religious fervor backing it (like Papal bulls could provide).

and no they really are not that much deadlier you are using the deadliest modern conflicts against an average for the non-modern. There are plenty of non-state wars with death tolls of 25-50% of those involved.

Define modern. Unless you're wanting to go back to Napoleon, there haven't really been many major conflicts across large theatres that involved more than a handful of countries.

And if we're talking about casualty rates out of the armies involved and not the populations of the countries involved, that's completely different. The Crusades and the wars of that era were brutal.


And on top of all of that, modern wars are rather more sensitive. Even ISIS, which is undeniably a religious organization, knows that it can't effectively do the whole "salt the earth, rape the women" routine. We have lovely things like Geneva Conventions and treaties and also common sense, and we've reached the point where it's no longer reasonable or practical to go through and kill entire cities full of people, which the Crusaders had few qualms about.



I'm not saying the Crusades were any less awful or anything- the Crusades were arguably some of the worst wars in history. But the question was the percentage of deaths in wars over time, I interpreted that as being out of the world population, and I did some math. I apologize for any misconceptions this may have given you.

[New Neros]

I have done the math myself on that one.

Estimates (which are very rough and very vague, since these wars did happen at the end of the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. ) assign the Crusades a death toll of roughly a million people. At the time, the population of the world was ~320 million (AD 1100). This gives a percentage of 0.003 (very rough).

WWII and I, however, are rather more well-documented. The population of Earth in 1913 was ~ 1,791,091,000, and the death toll of WW1 was approx. 16 million soldiers and civilians, giving a percentage of 0.008, higher than the Crusades by 5 thousandths of a percent.

The population in 1940 was 2,307,348,000, and estimates of total deaths from WW2 range from 50-80 million. The lower estimate gives us a percentage of 0.021, significantly higher than the Crusades, and the upper range a whopping 0.034% of the world's populations.

So, yes, wars (in the 20th century at least) were rather more deadly. Now, the percentage for the Holocaust alone (0.004) is rather closer to the Crusades mark, but overall, modern conflict is just deadlier.

I'm terrible at statistics, I would've extrapolated the premise that modern conflict is just deadlier to itself account for the differential (given the field deaths in WWI included the first industrialized application of a variety of weapons and strategic milieu that might make it so unlike prior warfare that, when combined with the earlier concessions of roughness and vagueness of source data would leave an inference beneath the threshold of presentable confidence.

War and death by war has actually decreased since ancient times.

[Sociobiology]

you realize most of those actually did happen, right?
just because they did not involve Europeans does not mean they didn't happen.

You might have misunderstood my language, but when in history did you learn about Buddhist crusaders starting a war against the Confucianists and the Shinto Japanese in the name of Siddharta Gautama Buddha? Where the heck did you learned about Bahaists chanting Bahau'llah Akbar and then goes on to start an invasion of a Hindu country because they are worshipping several gods contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i faith?

wow wonderful strawman when did ever claim any of that happened.

Most of warfare in East Asia seems to be secular in nature.

The Warring States of China have no religious cause. The Sengoku of Japan have no such religious cause (though there might have been minor Buddhist-inspired insurrections).

minor he says.
of course during other times they also killed you if you belonged to the wrong religion making it hard to build up the numbers for a war.
its true that east Asia had few religious wars during that time, but you can find religiously peaceful times in other places as well, just because they did most of their religious wars earlier or later does not mean they did not happen, And of course this is only true you say India and China is not part of east Asia. I mean different Buddhist sects loved going to war with each other.

The Mongol invasions also have no religious cause, Genghis Khan did not need to chant the name of his Tengriist gods to further his conquests.

here I for once agree the mongols were weird partially because there religion did not encourage or really allow conversion.
And of course he did believe his gods helped him gain victory.

And in other places of Central Asia and South Asia, it's probably the Muslims who are just starting the religious wars anyway.

wow that's not a blatantly racist assumption or anything.
cognitive dissonance much

As well as in Aboriginal Australia, the Pacific Islands, the Native American North America, we don't hear of any religious-inspired conquests.

then you are not looking into them their were plenty of religious wars, they just tended to be smaller because the societies involved were smaller, also I notice you switched from conflict to conquest, tribal cultures engage in less conquest but more conflict, coincidence?

In Latin America and in South America, we have some Mayans and Aztecs sacrificing some captives for their gods, but that's it. No more religious war there after the Meso-American zealots.

because they were replaced by European religions which had there own wars.
also I notice you left out Africa and its several pre-colonial religious wars.
So 3/4* places in which large powerful states arise you have large religious wars.
* Africa, Central America, west Asian, excluding east Asia, and only if you exclude India from east Asia.

To simply put it in simpler words, few religious belief systems led to warfare.

actually it looks like religion plus the capabilities to wage large scale war tends to lead to religious war.

[Sociobiology]

the crusades were not the only war at the time, so either only include populations for the countries involved or add in the other wars.

If we're dealing with only populations of countries involved, then the Crusades were most likely far more deadly. I suppose that's true. Unfortunately, just calculating the population of the world at the time is vague enough as it is, let alone individual countries.

actually those countries are easier than the world because those countries involved kept records.

but are less frequent
which brings the average death toll down by a lot.

Yes, but the number of wars pertaining to religion is much lower than one would think. Oh yes, there was plenty more conflict in the Middle Ages, but the fact of the matter is that most of you wars were over things like pissed of kings and petty landgrabs, the occasional dynastic struggle, and only rarely religion. Fighting other religions back then usually (save things like the various uprisings against the Catholics) required getting up and sailing across small oceans, which is expensive and usually not very appealing to monarchs, unless you've got a lot of religious fervor backing it (like Papal bulls could provide).

oh I agree there are far more wars for other reasons than for religion but the fact their are wars at all about which imaginary friend you have is disturbing to some. On top of that wars rarely have one single cause.

Define modern. Unless you're wanting to go back to Napoleon, there haven't really been many major conflicts across large theatres that involved more than a handful of countries.

well I tend to think of modern as since the invention of agriculture, but even for a more common definition you run into the problem that large scale conflicts are just rare period because they require large states to accomplish, tribal war tends to be far deadly and more common but involve much smaller communities. So its a trade off you get fewer wars and you are less likely to die in one but wars you do get tend to be larger. but I'll always go with being less likely to die due to warfare which modern states have in spades, plus you are less likely to die of other things as well.

And if we're talking about casualty rates out of the armies involved and not the populations of the countries involved, that's completely different. The Crusades and the wars of that era were brutal.

but less than earlier wars, hyperbole aside it was not common for them to exterminate all civilians during the crusades. Contemporary sources said they basically took anything of value and just killed a few thousand civilians. Now as strange as "just a few thousand" sounds killing only 10-20% of the population of a city would have seemed like a slap on the wrist compared to earlier wars were exterminating every man, woman, and child you could find in a city was common. Brutal by today standards but by the standards of the time fairly normal. As you said, we have just gotten less accepting of violence.

And on top of all of that, modern wars are rather more sensitive. Even ISIS, which is undeniably a religious organization, knows that it can't effectively do the whole "salt the earth, rape the women" routine. We have lovely things like Geneva Conventions and treaties and also common sense, and we've reached the point where it's no longer reasonable or practical to go through and kill entire cities full of people, which the Crusaders had few qualms about.

thank states, literacy, and education, each have resulted in more empathy and less acceptance of violence.

I'm not saying the Crusades were any less awful or anything- the Crusades were arguably some of the worst wars in history. But the question was the percentage of deaths in wars over time, I interpreted that as being out of the world population, and I did some math. I apologize for any misconceptions this may have given you.

You might like better angels of our nature by pinker it deals with the decline in violence really well.
my personal favorite chart
https://unsafeharbour.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/pinker-violence.jpg

FYI get a Newer edition, they have better data.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

If hell is real, I have no real need to worry, because I'm in good company.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

wow wonderful strawman when did ever claim any of that happened.

None, at all, so more reason to doubt the fuss that religion starts all wars.

minor he says.
of course during other times they also killed you if you belonged to the wrong religion making it hard to build up the numbers for a war.
its true that east Asia had few religious wars during that time, but you can find religiously peaceful times in other places as well, just because they did most of their religious wars earlier or later does not mean they did not happen, And of course this is only true you say India and China is not part of east Asia. I mean different Buddhist sects loved going to war with each other.

Definitely, but definitely minor. I am well aware of Buddhist insurrections in Japan called the "sohei" or warrior monks? Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei#Founding_and_feuds. Though most of the warfare there are mostly political in origin. There is very little and negligible religious war in East Asia overall. China is part of East Asia, but India is not. India more accurately belongs to the South Asian geographical category.

And lol, study your history here. I am well aware of religious persecution in East Asia (If East Asia is what we're talking about) but overall, it's not that severe as in the Islamic world. Most of martyrdom only arose when Christians came in China, Japan and Korea. And warring Buddhist sects? Where did you get your info on that?

here I for once agree the mongols were weird partially because there religion did not encourage or really allow conversion.
And of course he did believe his gods helped him gain victory.

No reason to blame religion here. Good attempt at strawman. Every general might as well have believed in his God.

wow that's not a blatantly racist assumption or anything.
cognitive dissonance much

What race is Islam? What race?

then you are not looking into them their were plenty of religious wars, they just tended to be smaller because the societies involved were smaller, also I notice you switched from conflict to conquest, tribal cultures engage in less conquest but more conflict, coincidence?

What made you assume that the only war tribal societies engage in are of a religious nature? Could we please stop thinking tribal peoples as less progressed and advanced societies than we are? That assumption is horribly outdated. Tribal peoples are peoples like us and can go to war for sex, money and fame (not good words) just like anyone else.

because they were replaced by European religions which had there own wars.
also I notice you left out Africa and its several pre-colonial religious wars.
So 3/4* places in which large powerful states arise you have large religious wars.
* Africa, Central America, west Asian, excluding east Asia, and only if you exclude India from east Asia.

Europeans? Sure, the Spanish and the Portuguese's colonizations might have religious overtones such as the "Reconquista" but if they're not busy spreading Catholicism, they're mostly colonizing for gold, spices, slaves, you know, the real stuff that matters. I exclude mostly wars done mostly by Muslims because I believe I've made my point clear that few religions ever lead to such horrible war of any kind.

actually it looks like religion plus the capabilities to wage large scale war tends to lead to religious war.

And, now, no. You know do me a favor -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499

Read these lists and count all religious wars. How many religious wars could be there? Hmm. 5? 10? 15? 20? Please, do that.

I might have not done a good way of saying what I'm trying to say in my previous statement, but few religions have led to warfare in any kind and that not all warfare is caused by religion. If anything, it's just a reinterpretation of religious beliefs to fit other reasons to go to war. Religion itself is rarely the major fuel for warfare, most are made for their own gains, rather than pure religious belief. That is human nature, humans just find a lot of excuses to just piss off with anyone. Remove religion, and people will still war each other for other reasons, such as ideology, ethnicity, resources and others.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I love how Christians always say that the Crusades, Jihads and countless holy wars all over the world don't count. Sorry but you don't get to determine whether they count or not.

The point isn't that there wouldn't be war. The point is that there wouldn't be holy war, religious massacre, religious terrorism. And in case you haven't noticed; ALOT of Americans treat the so called 'war on terror' as a crusade against Muslims. Is it? No, but people want it to be because they hate Muslims. Did you know what the Muslims are doing right now? Jihad. There is always religious war and conflict going on. It never ends.

Remove religion and war could have found itself another excuse to get itself running. People will war because of ideological, cultural, racial, ethnic differences or just because of dynastic reasons. I recommend you to read these again - http://www.cracked.com/article_17123_the-5-most-retarded-wars-ever-fought.html.

There are wars started because someone cut off an ear, someone liked to sit on a golden stool, a war to cut the most flags, a military confrontation because a lone pig crossed a border and an army warred its own comrades because they're all drunk. And the Football War between Honduras and El Salvador was aggravated because some country's team lost the football match. More retarded reasons to war other than religion.

Note Einstein's quote:

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

[Vilatania]

I think somewhere along the line someone didn't bother paying attention to what I actually said. Many posts arguing against my point that religion causes war have said something along the lines that I was claiming that religion was the cause of ALL wars. I never said this, and if you would go back and re-read what I said you 'might' be able to understand.

I'm saying that religion has caused 'many' wars. I think that anyone with any sense can agree that 1 war is 1 war too many. You cant justify one cause of war just because there are other causes of war. Each religious war has cost many lives, lives that did not need to be lost and were lost because of an unjustified belief system. Lives that would not have been lost in that war if religion wasn't around to cause it.

It doesn't even MATTER if the crusades were caused more by political concerns(which btw I disagree with) because religion made them possible in the first place. Saying "oh well something else would have caused them" is ignorant. You have no idea what would or wouldn't happen with religion out of the picture.

And the war on terror isn't a religious war? Not officially, and I never said it was. I said that people treat it like one. That alone means people are out there killing each other in the name of their God. And you wanna get technical? Al Qaeda declared Jihad. Jihad is a religious holy war like the crusades. We're fighting against a Jihad.