Monotheists vs. monotheists. Imagine a world without this divisive cancer.

Donnerboy,

The generated list was in response to Null's blanket statement that links war with monotheists and implicitly suggests that without such believers the world would be free of a cancer.

War is a cancer, but not the domain of monotheists. It is a social evil that says something about human nature in general as it latches on to any ideology or religious belief. My list demonstrates that a world without monotheism would still contain war. Eradicating monotheism would not shrink the tumor. It would simply matastize to some other ideology.

This is an obvious truth that is lost on people with an axe to grind..

The Roman Germanic wars began in the third century BC among the two pagan cultures and lasted into the christianization of Rome centuries and centuries later.

Null,

You ask us to imagine a world without monotheists implying that in its absence there would be less war. I believe I have demonstrated that war is part if the human condition regardless of specific beliefs. Eradicate monotheism and you have fewer monotheists not less war.

No way to tell for sure.

Any statement predicting the future is uncertain. This is why we search the past to better prepare for the future. The past shows us that the war is part of the human condition regardless of specific beliefs. Your statement suggesting the absence of monotheism would mean greater peace is based simply on your uncertain belief. It suggests that with the absence of monotheism humanity will suddenly throw off the inclination for war which has characterized the human condition for the last 4000 years or more in almost every monotheistic and non monotheistic society. And you think theists make great unsubstantiated leaps to support their own beliefs?

I find you second statement to be a bit odd and potentially troubling. You suggest fewer artificial divisions the better. You do not define what you mean by artificial. Arguably All distinctions and divisions are the product of a mind--and are therefore constructed--artificial. What kind of world do you "imagine" without distinctions or divisions? The only one I can "imagine" is one in which everyone holds exactly the same ideology or value system. How stifling. How unimaginative. How potentially oppressive. Let me guess ; you believe the ideology that we all should hold coincides with your own.

Finally, I always thought Lennon's song to be funny in that he doesn't mean what he even intended. Imagine there's no heaven, he sings. The unintended implication is that Heaven is real since I have to imagine that it doesn't exist. Think about it. Do I have to imagine there are no unicorns? Elves? No, that doesn't require imagination. Imagine there are no elephants implicitly accepts the existence of elephants--as does "imagine there's no heaven."

Lennon's song implicitly affirms the existence of heaven. Imagine that!

Yet in this day in age war is no longer necessary but is perpetuated by the mistaken belief that if one dies in the name of ones God then they will attain Nirvana and eternal life or perhaps even some hot virgin sex. Churches and Imams feed upon this ignorance to our determent as a species and allows the military industrial complex to grow like an out of control parasite that sucks the blood out of our souls (and our budgets).

Since you wish to talk about the present, can you tell me which wars that Christians have fought in the West in the last 100 years in which the promise of eternal salvation was presented as the motivation for individuals for entering the war? I remember Uncle Sam wants you. I don't remember recruitment posters saying "mother church wants you"

The hymn you cite was not written as a war march, but a processional for children--martial imagery was meant metaphorically--it was not a call to actual battle but to fight against evil--no more than a call to fight the war on poverty is a call for an actual battle. The song was appropriated by secular politicians (not religious organizations) in the Second World War .

Even if taken literally, which would be foolish--the song offers no reward for martyrdom which you suggest as the main connection between religion and war.

It should be noted here that most rational scientific beings abhor war and the use of their technologies for war. And when they do research for war it is to end war...not to perpetuate it. I wish I could say the same for Christians and Muslims.

Lots of assumptions here.

Recruitment

I have to agree that I went a bit broad with that there brush. . . .I do think that anyone who Blindly supports the religions of Death are guilty of being part of the problem and not part of the solution whether they pick up a gun or not.

You seemed to have put down one broad brush only to pick up another.

I think we probably agree that in regard to the metaphorical blindeness which you cite, the blind do not comprehend their own blindness. I have often found, however, that those accusing others of blndness are unaware of their own wide and deep blind spots. It is the kind of irony that Sophocles points out in Oedipus, and that Christ points out in the gospels. It is the kind of irony found in your post.

"If people weren't blind to the truth then everything would be better." This is what you seem to be saying. Of course there are many adherents of many different ideologies and theologies that utter that.

But you know, you know. You are the one that is not blind.

And many, perhaps you, believe religious people are arrogant for thinking they have a lock on the truth and trying to persuade others to it. That is a great irony.

I am trying to put forth the idea that we as a species are evolving beyond the need for warfare. But, we are not ALL there yet and our superstitions and misunderstandings of the nature of the Universe are actually a hindrance to that evolution.

You aver there is a "there" which you are apparently are at, which inaccessible to anyone who doesn't hold your worldview, but is the best place we all need to be. In doing so you elevate your understanding of the world as better, more accurate than others.

In short, you believe the world would be better off if more people adopted your kind of thinking. Apparently only religious people who think that way are the problem.

Like it or not you are registering on the irony meter, and to point that out is not a personal attack.

I am glad that you will not kill anyone for not agreeing with you. It is admirable and shows character.

Killing is, indeed, a bad thing.

People do so for all kinds of reasons.

That people kill in the name of religion does no more impugn religion than people killing in the name of democracy impugn democracy.

"let me know when some other "religion" . . .