[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 81 KB, 800x525, wat2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1396282 No.1396282 [Reply] [Original]

Exactly what wars have religion caused?

How has religion been a factor in wars?


I ask this because I had an argument with my grandad. He's very religious; I am not. He said that modern wars in the last 100 years, more specifically World War I and II, caused more deaths than religion has ever done.

Is this true, or can I prove him wrong ? Any help is appreciated, especially statistical answers. Pic unrelated.

>> No.1396294

Also, are there any numbers on (approximately) how many people lost their lives during the crusades ?

>> No.1396305

It's probably true, you can kill people alot more efficiently when you've got carpet bombing, napalm and machine guns.

>> No.1396307

crusades killed a lot.

northern vs southern ireland is a modern one

islam, fuck. especially islam in africa

founding this country, goal was to kill indians or convert them (the puritans)

>> No.1396306

OP is 12 years old.

>> No.1396309

>World War II
>Not related to religion
In Mein Kampf Hitler states that he's doing God's(christian God) work by exterminating the Jews.

>> No.1396324

Religion itself has caused very few wars. People with only a cursory knowledge of European history will say "WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!?!?!?!!!?11!23" but the Crusades were religious conflicts in the same sense that the U.S. invading Iraq was about freeing the Iraqi people and finding WMDs. The Crusades were largely about killing people whom the laws of chivalry didn't apply to. Also taking their stuff.

>> No.1396340

Thanks for the good response, /sci/.

>>1396306

And you're gay.

>> No.1396347

>>1396324
But they did it to them because they were of a different religion.
Stop trying to act edgy and different bby syaing the Crusades weren't about religion. They might not have had the clear goals to exterminate the other side, but they were definately about religion.

>> No.1396352
File: 18 KB, 510x430, 1278980147383.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1396352

Recent wars have involved larger populations and deadlier weapons. It's intellectually dishonest to compare the moralities of wars from different eras by casuality numbers. It would be like saying a disease that killed 10/50 million is worse than a disease that killed 4/5 million.

Also, I personally have doubts religion has caused many wars (there's always a political reason), but where religion comes into it is whipping up frenzied and unquestioning support for these wars. The crusades would naver have happened if the Pope hadn't influenced a heavily religious population to do so.

>> No.1396357

>>1396324
thnx

>> No.1396390

>>1396347
crusaders didnt give a fuck about your religion. they purged constantinople which was christian :p

>> No.1396441

>>1396347
The Crusaders didn't care about that. they were a group of people that the laws of chivalry didn't apply to, and that was all that really mattered. And yea, they stole a ton of religious artifacts, but you have to realize that at the time, there were basically three things that held any kind of value:
1) Things made of gold
2) spices
3) religious artifacts

The only way a war can be a religious conflict is if the war is fought specifically to spread your own religion. A case can be made that the Spanish conquering the Americas was a religious conflict, but it really was more about kids who grew up listening to stories of the Reconquista wanting to be as awesome as their ancestors.

>> No.1396451

1. All wars between 500 ad- 1000 ad have been because of religion.

2. Hitler was a white supremacist,Roman catholic

>> No.1396470

>>1396451
/thread

>> No.1396499

>>1396451
like what? there would be wars then, like there are now, just to expand your country..

>> No.1396512

The crusades *only* killed estimated 1-3 million people.
This was in 1100-1300 or so.

You have to think proportionally. If they had the weapons to kill like today, you can easily expect a good 120-140 million deaths.

>> No.1396515

>>1396499
did you not read my post? Every singles war between 500 ad - 1000 ad have religious backrounds.And Hitler was catholic and Roman catholic's are instructed to dislike jews of course indirectly.

>> No.1396518

You guys really don't feel like if religion wasn't around, they wouldn't have made up some other excuse to go kill people?
Shit would of happened either way.

>> No.1396522

>>1396518
We don't know that for sure. What we do know though, is that religion killed the most people.

>> No.1396530

Only one death is enough to declare it damaging to society.

>> No.1396536

>>1396522
Yes we do, if the christians had m16's and nukes they would have nuked all the Muslim nations

>> No.1396538

>>1396530
so we should get rid of cars, planes, electricity, list goes on and on?

>> No.1396543

>>1396522
Well, just look at modern society dude.
e.g. "wmds"

>> No.1396539 [DELETED] 

ＳＴｏp aTtaCｋiｎＧ www.ａNoＤOｎUＴsｔａlK.ｓE_REPLaｃe dOnUTｓ_ｗＩTｈ_N
p f gwdmaitv d jkhp a wl xju j k

>> No.1396548

>>1396522
no man killed most people

>> No.1396547

>>1396530
So then science is damaging to society?

>> No.1396553

>>1396518

Of course. That doesn't mean religion doesn't make it worse though.

>> No.1396562

>>1396553
So you're agreeing that it would have happened even without religion (giving the same result) but also saying religion makes it worse?

>> No.1396564

err... you've surely heard of the spanish inquisition... the crusades... the current crisis in the middle east (caused by british installation of Jewish settlement in Jerusalem) I could go on

>> No.1396571

>>1396562

Not quite. I think we would definitely have wars without religions, and definitely find reasons to kill each other. Religion makes it worse by adding another reason that has huge influence on people. I think without religion people would have been more critical about going to war, so there would be fewer wars and less death.

>> No.1396573

>>1396536
no they wouldn't. the crusaders saw war as a sport. It was part competition, since if two noblemen from opposing sides ran into eachother on the battlefield, they would fight until one killed the other, or they realized that they were equally strong, and would go their separate ways. There were a strict set of rules you had to follow while fighting other noblemen, for example, if your opponent fell off his horse, you had to dismount your horse, wait for him to stand up and ready himself, and engage him on foot. there were also a bunch of rules about what weapons you were and were not allowed to use. The other part was sort of like hunting. There weren't any rules that applied to peasants, so you could ride around the battlefield, killing peasants like animals.
The crusades were about fighting a people that the laws of chivalry didn't apply to. You could knock a dude off his horse and lance him while he lay in the mud. Also, the peasants looked different enough that you could kill as many as you wanted and you could know for sure that you didn't kill any of your own. It was still a sport to them. there is no sport in using nukes.

learn history before you try to talk about it.

>> No.1396574

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Religion's factor in most wars has been a way for the elite to rally the populace in kiling others who happen to not believe the "true faith."

>> No.1396578

yes people kill because of religion. they also kill because of color of your skin, language you talk, way you look, because they are crazy or maybe just because they are like that.
i dont see point making religion more of a cause to wars then any of those things.

>> No.1396584

>>1396573
those rules might be applied to 1vs1 duels, but i doubt anybody was following them in massive battles
even against nobleman

>> No.1396593

Copypasta:

Lmfao, dude, do you know anything about history? Okay, so I'll allow you to extrapolate the Crusades into 4 wars.

Wow. There's four. Let me list the ones that had nothing to do with religion:

First and Second Punic Wars
War of 1812
Spanish American War
Peloppenesian War
Greco-Persian Wars
World War 1
World War 2
Vietnam War
American Revolution
French Revolution
Napoleon's Conquests
All the wars propogated by the Dellian League (those numbering in the dozens)
Russian-Japanese war
French And Indian Wars
Hundred Years' Wars
Romans fighting the: Celts, Picts, Saxons, Huns, Goths, Visigoths
Mongol wars
Wars of Succession in Japan

My God I could go on forever.

>> No.1396594

>>1396593


Oh, but you had ONE example, how neato.

And the best part is that religion was a pretext for the Crusades, which were really about land acquisition.

Welcome to dumbfuckland, home of people like you.

Once again, idiot who doesn't know anything about history OR astronomy for that matter.

The reason Copernicus didn't publish is because he felt there was a fundamental flaw in his system. He didn't actually believe the planets revolved around the sun, but rather he believed his equations were useful in charting and understanding the stars, not explaining how they actually function. It severely vexed him and he was brow-beaten by a friend to finally publish, still against his wishes, because he simply believed he was wrong.

Furthermore, the Vatican didn't "burn" Copernicus's books, they were widely read among academics, who were mostly .... wait for it... Catholic.

And Gallileo's beef with the Church had NOTHING to do with his ides. It was a personal feud between him and the Pope. In fact, Galileo invited Cardinals and Bishops to view the heavens with his telescope and they declared it marvelous and wonderful and on and on.

The problem arose when Galileo had a discussion with the pope on the heavens. The pope, of course, held a geocentric view, Galileo the opposite. It was a friendly discourse (as they WERE friends) and that was that. But when Galileo published his book, it was the same discussion, except he portrayed the character playing the Pope as a bumbling, half-retarded, moron. It was a PERSONAL sleight that caused the Pope to be furious with him, it had jack-all to do with his dieas.

Oh what's that? You don't know a single fucking thing about history? I know. It's okay. You just vomit up what you read in some 16 year old's angsty blog.

>> No.1396598

>>1396594
>because the Dark Ages was basically the Church destroying everything else.

Another complete fucking idiot who doesn't know fuck-all about history. The fact that you even use the term "Dark Ages' reveals your profound ignorance.

The Church didn't "destroy everything else" you fucking fool, as there was nothing else to destroy. After the fall of Rome, we'll say...oh....600's AD, though some debate the 400's, we'll go with a later date to give you the slight benefit of the doubt.

So with the fall of Rome there were no unifying institutions in Europe. None. Not even the Church. The Church had next-to-no-influence on Europe until AFTER the Early Middle Ages (what you call the "dark ages"). It was Charlamegne's conquests that brought a slight unification and rise to Christianity, but it wasn't until the 1100's that the Church began to have real influence in Europe, hundreds of years later.

You're so stupid it's staggering.

tl;dr: The Church COULDN'T have "destroyed everything else" during the "dark ages" because it had no fucking power you halfwit.
Furthermore they didn't "create" the environment you simpering idiot, they're the reason any literacy survived at all.

Let's say the Catholic Church hadn't existed after the fall of Rome. Who would have been the learned men, preserving books, ancient texts, and literacy? Answer: None. There were no schools. There were no colleges. There was no institution of learning, anywhere. Why? Because Rome was destroyed and with it went any semblance of Academia.

The Church, thankfully, preserved a lot of knowledge which went on to allow technological advents during the Early Middle Ages an on into the Renaissance.

If there had been no Church than humankind would have taken another 400-500 years to reach the ponti we're at now, you dolt. (At least in Europe)

>> No.1396604

>>1396594
oh yes, and vatican = religion, vatican = bad thus religion = bad right?

>> No.1396605

>>1396538
>>1396547

Forgot to add: If it hasn't done anything useful.

>> No.1396616

all of them

>> No.1396623

>>1396598
>>Let's say the Catholic Church hadn't existed after the fall of Rome. Who would have been the learned men, preserving books, ancient texts, and literacy?

Maybe the exact same men,exept instead of wasting time with religion they would have been scientists ??

>> No.1396624

>>1396282

WWII was all about religion rofl...

>> No.1396621

>>1396598
Actually, if the Catholic Church didn't keep literacy going in Europe, people probably would have just learned to read Arabic in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That was about the time when people started to realize that Roman numerals sucked shit for doing math, and adopted the Arabic numerals. If they didn't also have a functional writing system, they probably would have adopted the Arabic writing system as well.

But your point about being hundreds of years behind still stands. For a good long time, Monasteries were the only places in Europe where anything even remotely close to science was being done.

>> No.1396629

Directly? not a whole lot, Indirectly? it factors someway into most if not all of them

>> No.1396630

according to many religious leaders beleifs god made AIDS... that's why religion is bad.. it gives you AIDS

>> No.1396636

>>1396624
If i'm wrong someone correct me, but Hitler wasn't pissy about the Jews because of their religion. He used them as a scapegoat to blame Germany's failing economy, NOT because they were jews.

>> No.1396644

>>1396598
The Byzantine Empire had extensive academic institutions and libraries, along with the Islamic Persians who were inventing Algebra at the time. The Eastern Mediterranean continued to thrive long after Rome had fell.

And the Catholic Church didn't do shit besides whitewash classical history and suppress political sovereignty until the Treaty of Westphalia. They were a corrupt, dictatorial institution that siphoned as much wealth as possible from their European underlings.

>> No.1396645

>>1396307
>goal was to kill indians or convert them (the puritans)
No. Just no.

/sci/ Trolls and distorted historical knowledge

>> No.1396643

>>1396630
its funny, cause god didnt give aids, scientists created it to eliminate all poor niggers
score one for god

>> No.1396659

lets face it, only 3 religions which are shit are roman-catolics, muslims and jews. others are fine