Written by eximius on 09.04.2008 at 19:21

Written by Clintagräm on 09.04.2008 at 19:11

I was wondering, if everyone is of the opinion that religion doesn't cause wars, then how would you define the wars in Israel? Zionists believe that it is their divine right to occupy Israel. It is in their scripture and thus part of their religion. Is this not religion fueling war?

People are causing war, religion is just a meme, a virus spreading from bran to brain or shall i say from lack of brain to lack of brain?
... good point

This is the point that I was making. So is this religion causing war or not? Just look at the 1967 Six Days War and the Occupied Territories.

Religion causesd war, always. It really is about something. I think 90% of the wars are more about religion than about patriotism. For many people religion is much more important than the land of their birth.

I have a faith. I can't proove it. You have your faith, you can't proove it either. Yours is probably wrong either. You can't understand most of it also. Would you learn me that my religion is wrong? I know that there is a God. And I am not afraid to die for it, I am not even afraid to go to hell for it. I am not blind as you might think. I wouldn't kill for my faith, but I am ready to kill if any of my friends, family, brothers and sisters in Christ or even you is in danger. You must take religion very seriously, for you don't know the powers that are behind it, whether it comes from demons or from God.

Dude, I had this theory for several years now, I am glad someone made it public, also you forgot the biggest war in your description, world war 2, where protestants fought against well, everyone, mainly jews.
Another thing is democracy, and the war in Iraq is a good example for stupid democrats trying to force their beliefe on others (republicans are a form of democrats for everyone that doesn's know).
I think that religion, especialy monotheistic religions such as christianity, jewdeism and islam are the main cause of wars, take paganism for instance, even though there are many different beliefes like the norse mythology, ancient egyptions, ancient greeks and romens, the different beliefes did not fight each other for their beliefes, but for food, land, resources and so on and they did not start stupid and un-nessessary war against each other.

Written by Berfones on 11.04.2008 at 19:51

Dude, I had this theory for several years now, I am glad someone made it public, also you forgot the biggest war in your description, world war 2, where protestants fought against well, everyone, mainly jews.
Another thing is democracy, and the war in Iraq is a good example for stupid democrats trying to force their beliefe on others (republicans are a form of democrats for everyone that doesn's know).
I think that religion, especialy monotheistic religions such as christianity, jewdeism and islam are the main cause of wars, take paganism for instance, even though there are many different beliefes like the norse mythology, ancient egyptions, ancient greeks and romens, the different beliefes did not fight each other for their beliefes, but for food, land, resources and so on and they did not start stupid and un-nessessary war against each other.

i personally believe that there is no such thing as unnecessary war. war is necessary the strengthen the power of a group and state. the state that wins the war is mostly the state that becomes more powerful. the group controling that state also strengthens itself from their citizens and their dependant states. so a state that wins more wars is a state that moves (slowly or fast) to absolutism because the group will eventually battle itself to have a leader who will strengthen himself from the leading group. but then when a weaker leader comes to power the former leading group (if it is composed out of strong individuals) and the people will overthrow the absolutism.
so resumed a state evolves from
tribe based on equality to
tribe based on inequality with a leading group
state with a leading group
civil war
absolutism with leading group
absolutism without leading group
revolution (sometimes the same as civil war)
state with leading group
...
i just composed this theory so there could be some mistakes

Written by belisarius on 11.04.2008 at 21:02

Written by Berfones on 11.04.2008 at 19:51

Dude, I had this theory for several years now, I am glad someone made it public, also you forgot the biggest war in your description, world war 2, where protestants fought against well, everyone, mainly jews.
Another thing is democracy, and the war in Iraq is a good example for stupid democrats trying to force their beliefe on others (republicans are a form of democrats for everyone that doesn's know).
I think that religion, especialy monotheistic religions such as christianity, jewdeism and islam are the main cause of wars, take paganism for instance, even though there are many different beliefes like the norse mythology, ancient egyptions, ancient greeks and romens, the different beliefes did not fight each other for their beliefes, but for food, land, resources and so on and they did not start stupid and un-nessessary war against each other.

i personally believe that there is no such thing as unnecessary war. war is necessary the strengthen the power of a group and state. the state that wins the war is mostly the state that becomes more powerful. the group controling that state also strengthens itself from their citizens and their dependant states. so a state that wins more wars is a state that moves (slowly or fast) to absolutism because the group will eventually battle itself to have a leader who will strengthen himself from the leading group. but then when a weaker leader comes to power the former leading group (if it is composed out of strong individuals) and the people will overthrow the absolutism.
so resumed a state evolves from
tribe based on equality to
tribe based on inequality with a leading group
state with a leading group
civil war
absolutism with leading group
absolutism without leading group
revolution (sometimes the same as civil war)
state with leading group
...
i just composed this theory so there could be some mistakes

If you see the state as the strongest social group then this may be right, but the state is not the strongest, as I see it at least, for it needs the people to support it in order to gain strength, furthemore, in this capitalistic, matirialistic and well, diplomatic age there is no place for arguing about war as it is mainly taking place on paper, once, if one tribe or any sort of group wanted to fight another they did so, they took their weapons and went to war, whereas nowadays if you want a war you need to turn to commities and councils and the proccess is very birocratic, instead of fighting with skill soldiers today fight with guns and just shot everywhere with hope that one bullet would hit, instead of the most prepared and strongest army to win the rich one does and by doing so is getting richer, no wisdom is required in order to win a war today, just money and the right conections, a day old baby can win a war today if money is at hand.
And war is not always necessary, take Iraq for instance, the FUSA (former united states of america) when to war in Iraq under the claim that they want to kill terrorism, or find Bin-Laden, or give them democracy, you choose (everyday the reason changes), democracy is not achieved by war, the only solutions for every problem is enialation of man kind, without humanity there is no war, no money, no global warming, no unnecessary wild life extintion, if you think about it, humanity is the source of all the problems

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 08:39

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

You're right, but if the americans did not go to Iraq they would not fail, and this is showing that it was unnecessary to go over there, if the americans would mind their oun bussiness they will not fail

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 09:52

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 08:39

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

You're right, but if the americans did not go to Iraq they would not fail, and this is showing that it was unnecessary to go over there, if the americans would mind their oun bussiness they will not fail

Just like the world is minding their own business and ignoring Tibet and Palestine?

Written by Clintagräm on 12.04.2008 at 10:38

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 09:52

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 08:39

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

You're right, but if the americans did not go to Iraq they would not fail, and this is showing that it was unnecessary to go over there, if the americans would mind their oun bussiness they will not fail

Just like the world is minding their own business and ignoring Tibet and Palestine?

Yes!!
When nations started helping one an other the idea of the strongest to survive had died out, if people cannot help themselves than other countries should not help them, I believe this is called "survival of the fittest", the strong kills the weak, this is the order in nature and so must be in this case

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 09:52

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 08:39

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

You're right, but if the americans did not go to Iraq they would not fail, and this is showing that it was unnecessary to go over there, if the americans would mind their oun bussiness they will not fail

but then the people would grow unhappy because their country wouldn't have any international meaning

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 13:49

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 09:52

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 08:39

in my opinion iraq isn't unnecessary, but a failure. if the american army won there then the people would be very excited, but instead they're making a mess of it and that's why it fails. so in other words if they had won then the people would be tamed, if not the people are angry. winning is only possible with strong leadership (and money because without money there isn't strong leadership) and in my opinion bush doesn't have strong leadership, if he had he wouldn't need to justify himself and lie to his people all the time.

You're right, but if the americans did not go to Iraq they would not fail, and this is showing that it was unnecessary to go over there, if the americans would mind their oun bussiness they will not fail

but then the people would grow unhappy because their country wouldn't have any international meaning

maybe, but now, after a long fighting time there, do they have international meaning?

If they had won they would've been the saviours of the western ideals. so the rule of international meaning only applies when they win, if they lose it's even worse than not to go.

Many of you here say you do believe in a god and give examples like hell or whatever and you say you would die for your religion, I do not believe that there is a god, and I am willing to die for that, and I almost have died because of that for several times, if any religion is true and hell does exist that you all go to hell for you are probobly wrong, and even if your religion is the true one you will go to hell too because the words of god are for each to understand in his own way and not for someone to tell all the other how it was suppose to be, I know what makes people believe in a god, most of them are just filling up blanks in knowladge and some are afraid to be wrong because if you do believe in a god and there is none then nothing happens, but if you do not believe in it and there is one or several gods then you will be punished after death, I have no such fear, I would not believe in a god just because someone told me to, and if there is a god he probobly would want everyone to live his own life and not to follow blindly after what people said under a claim that it is the word of god, if a god had created life he would want people to live them as they wish, and if a god had created life and earth and they are his biggest achievements then he probobly would not let humanity destroy his planet nor the life he gave upon it

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 15:36

If they had won they would've been the saviours of the western ideals. so the rule of international meaning only applies when they win, if they lose it's even worse than not to go.

but are western ideals right? I mean, can a sociaty built on capitalism, greed, desire for power, weaponary, hypocracy, lies and manipulations really preach other sociaties how to be like? if taking Iraq again, in the FUSA (former united states of america) there are milions of homeless people and high rates of poverty and instead of helping those people the government takes bilions of dollars and go to war in the cover of democracy or fighting terrorism of national security or whatever when all they really want is to get their oil so the rich will be richer and the poor poorer.
think about it and then tell me if this war is still coming from such pure motives

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:53

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 15:36

If they had won they would've been the saviours of the western ideals. so the rule of international meaning only applies when they win, if they lose it's even worse than not to go.

but are western ideals right? I mean, can a sociaty built on capitalism, greed, desire for power, weaponary, hypocracy, lies and manipulations really preach other sociaties how to be like? if taking Iraq again, in the FUSA (former united states of america) there are milions of homeless people and high rates of poverty and instead of helping those people the government takes bilions of dollars and go to war in the cover of democracy or fighting terrorism of national security or whatever when all they really want is to get their oil so the rich will be richer and the poor poorer.
think about it and then tell me if this war is still coming from such pure motives

i din't say the western ideals were right and in fact i share your opinion in some way. my political beliefs are a kind of weak marxism and something that i call evolutionism.

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I am willing to die for that

Nop, I am not willing to die for evolution, I am not willing to die for atheism, I am not willing to die for many many other reasons but I strongly believe they are right.
To die, nop, not gonna do that. We have no after life, nothing besides this world. Why should I die? Give up everything. I don't think there is something I could die for. Definitely not at this age!!

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 16:01

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:53

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 15:36

If they had won they would've been the saviours of the western ideals. so the rule of international meaning only applies when they win, if they lose it's even worse than not to go.

but are western ideals right? I mean, can a sociaty built on capitalism, greed, desire for power, weaponary, hypocracy, lies and manipulations really preach other sociaties how to be like? if taking Iraq again, in the FUSA (former united states of america) there are milions of homeless people and high rates of poverty and instead of helping those people the government takes bilions of dollars and go to war in the cover of democracy or fighting terrorism of national security or whatever when all they really want is to get their oil so the rich will be richer and the poor poorer.
think about it and then tell me if this war is still coming from such pure motives

i din't say the western ideals were right and in fact i share your opinion in some way. my political beliefs are a kind of weak marxism and something that i call evolutionism.

mine too

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:14

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I am willing to die for that

Nop, I am not willing to die for evolution, I am not willing to die for atheism, I am not willing to die for many many other reasons but I strongly believe they are right.
To die, nop, not gonna do that. We have no after life, nothing besides this world. Why should I die? Give up everything. I don't think there is something I could die for. Definitely not at this age!!

I did not mean atheists and believers of evolution as I said that they are willing to die for their religion, I am an atheist too and I believe in evolution but I am willing to die rather than accepting any religion

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 16:25

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:14

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I am willing to die for that

Nop, I am not willing to die for evolution, I am not willing to die for atheism, I am not willing to die for many many other reasons but I strongly believe they are right.
To die, nop, not gonna do that. We have no after life, nothing besides this world. Why should I die? Give up everything. I don't think there is something I could die for. Definitely not at this age!!

I did not mean atheists and believers of evolution as I said that they are willing to die for their religion, I am an atheist too and I believe in evolution but I am willing to die rather than accepting any religion

I got that. Are you willing to die rather than accepting any religion, even though you don't believe in it? Of couse this is not plausible, i don't find any circumstances for that to happenand I'll take it as an emphasize for your ideas...

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:32

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 16:25

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:14

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I got that. Are you willing to die rather than accepting any religion, even though you don't believe in it? Of couse this is not plausible, i don't find any circumstances for that to happenand I'll take it as an emphasize for your ideas...

It is an emphasize, but I was involved in an argument that in the end of it someone tried to stab me for being an atheist, the only reason I am not dead is that I have no problem dying, I was not afraid so he chikhened out and ran away

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 17:13

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:32

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 16:25

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:14

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I got that. Are you willing to die rather than accepting any religion, even though you don't believe in it? Of couse this is not plausible, i don't find any circumstances for that to happenand I'll take it as an emphasize for your ideas...

It is an emphasize, but I was involved in an argument that in the end of it someone tried to stab me for being an atheist, the only reason I am not dead is that I have no problem dying, I was not afraid so he chikhened out and ran away

Noone can be forced to take a religion against it's will. If someone is forced to confess anything he might probably do that, but it won't change the heart. But what if someone really beliefs, not out of fear, not out of filling up the blanks, but because someone knows how it is to be certain and has found all the evidence in his own life, wouldn't that be a good reason to die for it? (He, to bad for you someonewanted to stab you man!)

Written by [user id=30512] on 12.04.2008 at 17:26

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 17:13

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:32

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 16:25

Written by eximius on 12.04.2008 at 16:14

Written by Berfones on 12.04.2008 at 15:45

I got that. Are you willing to die rather than accepting any religion, even though you don't believe in it? Of couse this is not plausible, i don't find any circumstances for that to happenand I'll take it as an emphasize for your ideas...

It is an emphasize, but I was involved in an argument that in the end of it someone tried to stab me for being an atheist, the only reason I am not dead is that I have no problem dying, I was not afraid so he chikhened out and ran away

Noone can be forced to take a religion against it's will. If someone is forced to confess anything he might probably do that, but it won't change the heart. But what if someone really beliefs, not out of fear, not out of filling up the blanks, but because someone knows how it is to be certain and has found all the evidence in his own life, wouldn't that be a good reason to die for it? (He, to bad for you someonewanted to stab you man!)

If you believe with a full heart, do it.
Not only religion, I believe that you should fight for what you believe in, not to convert others, not out of fear, not to make others follow you, you should do what you believe in just to get recognition that others are aware of you, do not fight nations, fight sociaty for it oppresses any opinion other than the mainstream, and if you believe in something, and you think it's worth it, death is an option. I do not believe in after-life but if my death is needed in order to convay my message, so be it.
And for the stabbing, it was pretty funny seeing this dude taking his knife and trying to make me say a prayr to god, I did not mind dying as he will suffer more than I will if he kills me, that's one way to look at a murder attempt...

i never had problems with being an atheist, but that's probably because most people i know are also atheists. but i'm one of the only who actually have arguments to not beleiving except saying it's just stupid. where i live most people don't beleive, but they don't know what religions are all about and they even don't know what atheism actually is. people like that frustrate me sometimes because they just don't know what atheism is but still they blasphemate god without knowing anything about that god.

Written by belisarius on 12.04.2008 at 18:11

i never had problems with being an atheist, but that's probably because most people i know are also atheists. but i'm one of the only who actually have arguments to not beleiving except saying it's just stupid. where i live most people don't beleive, but they don't know what religions are all about and they even don't know what atheism actually is. people like that frustrate me sometimes because they just don't know what atheism is but still they blasphemate god without knowing anything about that god.

Here most people are either Jews or Muslem and the entire state is based on Judaism so I was raised to believe in god, I also have arguments againt believing, but here if someone knows you are an atheist, or anything other than jew you will find yourself some trubles

Where I live everybody is openminded, so, when I am a christian I have a problem because I am not openminded in their opinion. That's annoying.

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.04.2008 at 12:45

Where I live everybody is openminded, so, when I am a christian I have a problem because I am not openminded in their opinion. That's annoying.

Yes, you live in a civilized country. Today I spoke with some dutch people who came into my school . (My high school has a partnership with another high school from holand). They looked very open minded and in some presentations they regarded religion as something rare in your country, mostly people who live isolated from the rest of civilized people tend to be religious...
They might be right about your open mind, I don't know. Or maybe all of them are plain ignorant...

Dutch people aren't more openminded, but on another way cloes minded. Humans tend to be all closeminded, when they are right and when they are wrong. And when the ideas of someone are common sense it isn't very often seen as closeminded, but we all are closeminded on some way I think.

Written by [user id=30512] on 14.04.2008 at 15:58

Dutch people aren't more openminded, but on another way cloes minded. Humans tend to be all closeminded, when they are right and when they are wrong. And when the ideas of someone are common sense it isn't very often seen as closeminded, but we all are closeminded on some way I think.

Open or close minded people, in every place there are both kind, but keeping some level of an open mind can only do good, I think, you don't have to agree, but getting to know the other ideas about some subject can expand your mind.
But some times you must hold on to your ideas because some opinions are better left unheard

If everyone was completely openminded we all would think the same. Wouldn't that get boring? I agree with you completely in this.