Simplified, Grim,yes. Oversimplfied... not so sure.

>>With respect, Pericles, to imply an absence of religion would result in an absence of war -which I accept you haven't strictly done- is to oversimplify the case.<<

I was pointing out that an absence of religious differences would have eliminated one fairly well-used justification for beating up on one's neighbour (Belfast) or travelling halfway across the world to beat up on some foreigners (the Crusades).

To simplify the James I Irish land-grab by the (predominantly Scottish) aristocracy, to the point where Catholic and Protestant doesn't feature as a motivating force would be, I suggest, to rewrite the history of Europe. Don't forget the direction Irish Catholics turned for assistance was... Catholic France. Surely that wasn't purely coincidental.

Here's a timeline, starting with St Patrick. Observe the frequency with which the words Catholic and Protestant appear... (33 and 18, to save you actually having to count).

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm

And how their history is punctured by battles, wars and terrorism as a result.

Similarly, to classify the Crusades as being a religion-free event would be entirely wrong.

"At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon Christians in Europe to respond to an urgent plea for help from Byzantine Christians in the East. Muslims were threatening to conquer this remnant of the Roman Empire for Allah. The threat was real; most of the Middle East, including the Holy Land where Christ had walked, had already been vanquished. Thus began the era of the Crusades, taken from the Latin word crux or cross. Committed to saving Christianity, the Crusaders left family and jobs to take up the cause."

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/crusades.html

The two sides of the dispute were Muslims and Christians. Once again, the question of who started it is irrelevant. If Islam hadn't been invented, they wouldn't have been swarming through the Middle East and Europe "for Allah", nor would Christians have been obliged to beat them back.

>>Likewise the current war in Iraq could be classified as a religious conflict...<<

I suspect the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988 could, though, eh?

AJ,

I’m not sure we are/ever were speaking on the same terms. Seems like this has degenerated into a discussion about semantics, and as a result I don’t believe you’re understanding my arguments. And I'm guessing you feel the same. I’m only interested in discussions that lead to fruitful dialogue (read: Understanding. This does NOT mean I expect to convince you of anything). So I think we finish it there.

I would add one comment though (as a final comment)- perhaps it is our application of reason, not reason itself that is the problem. But that is of no practical consequence when you consider how little control we finite humans may actually have over our ability to improve our application of it

Pericles,

I have found it helpful in another discussion with another user to utilise the dictionary.

According to dictionary.reference.com a cause is "a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result".

My contention is that human nature is the cause of war. People will utilise whatever excuse they can find to butcher each other. It's been happening constantly throughout history- see 20th century- mass killings of millions of people due to politics and ideology. People have sometimes used religion as an excuse (but, far less often than popular folklore would have you believe), however if religion didnt exist people would simply use the other excuses more often.

The common denominator with wars is human pride, ego, and the insatiable quest for power, NOT religion. Those things exist EVERY time there are wars. People observe that, on the odd occasion, in a very small minority of cases, these things are clothed in religious excuses and then decide to blame religion itself for wars and vehemently declare that religion is some kind of dangerous disease that the world needs to get rid of. This strikes me as an embarrassingly simplistic and poorly thought out comment, followed by an emotional reaction. Usually, the only people that make these comments are the same people who have a strong emotional dislike for religions. So my point is valid- even people who claim to try their best and use objective reason fail miserably at it.

Can all you devout "religious" people clarify on the message from the USA preacher, that 21 May 2011 is the end of the world.
He and his followers say that only those who believe in god will be saved and go to "Heaven", and us other lot will be cast aside to the "front bar of the pub!"
Again we have religious extremists imposing fear, in hope of control and sucking in the vunerable. Do you lot have no respect for people other than your outdated ancient dogma (and still to be proven is true). Respect for your beliefs goes without question, but when you try to impose your beliefs on others, says that you are not at one with yourself and being as an individual person; but full of insecurities.

Take it easy, Kipp: When tomorrow comes and goes, and everything is still in place, all that will show is that some deluded cleric got it badly wrong - or some may even rejoice in the thought that, as everyone is still here, then no-one could have been a true believer. How about that? All saved, hence, all must surely be damned? Forget it mate, it's just another beat-up.

Unfortunately, I guess we will have to put up with these various specialised religious groups, or orders, which seem to think they have something special going on. I doubt that God would be amusued - that is if he really exists for many of these "specialists". We can only hope that one day these various questionable specialisations will be over and done with, and humanity can get on with getting on with one another.

Saltpetre,

You mentioned that you were thought that God would be not amused at the antics of the deluded clerics.

Not amused! - I'll bet he's downright depressed!....and not just at nutty ministers, but at the entire barbaric history of mankind.

Fancy going to all that trouble to fashion an intelligent being, and then spending millenia witnessing your creation galumphing about its dominion lobbing projectiles at each other.