<p>“Death solves all problems — no man, no problem”
-Joseph Stalin</p>
<p>^^ As I said, I do not know or care whether it was the root or the excuse. The fact is- it is used quite often as a justification. It is also proven that countries with less religion have a higher quality of life, less violence, etc.</p>
<p>
Aye, the Soviet Union and North Korea are prime examples.</p>
<p>Highest quality of life = mostly Catholic Ireland.</p>
<p>
The problem is that you are confounding correlation with causation. You are assuming that religion is the cause of these things, so removing it will decrease violence, increase quality of life, etc. when all you have is a correlation (if there is an actual correlation…do you have any sources?).</p>
<p>
What about a whole lot of European countries?</p>
<p>^You are totally right, mental lapse. Amended.</p>
<p>Lol at people trying to positively correlate religiousness with quality of life. Stupid. Norway- Highest quality of life, arguably the least religious country in the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to wikipedia.</p>
<p>According to various other sources, Norway and Sweden are way above Ireland.</p>
<p>@Sit- All I am doing is saying that less religious countries tend to have higher violence. I am not anti-religion, I am anti-violence and oppression in the name of God. War should not be waged in God’s name, people should not be denied rights because of war, etc. IMO there is a LOT of oppression and violence in the name of religion. Therefore, I am all for reducing religion as a way to peace.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with this statement, but only because it needs a slight modification: Political manipulation of latent sources of religious tension have caused violence to occur at shocking levels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…there will still be plenty of wars. The Bedouins were engaged in warfare long before Mohammed’s arrival. Again, it is political manipulation of such, not the religion itself, though I am sure there are more than a few questionable ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, what you are saying is entirely true. However, more people does not necessarily generate a situation of famine and the like; we have enough food to feed the world many times over. Rather, it is an unequal allocation of food that results in humanitarian disasters like the one found in the DPRK. Some would contend that we don’t need to lower the population - we need to lower our consumption. That is also true.</p>
<p>I doubt that many would be willing to “lower” their so-called standard of living, though, especially Americans, who use more water to shower daily -as individuals! - than some have to drink semi-annually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two things inextricably bound up are not easily rend apart. Your statement is, to some degree, an oversimplification.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone’s head is in the clouds. The thin air must be interfering with your cognitive processes. Your statement is laudable, but utopian. That’ll never happen.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>^ K… </p>
<p>When did I EVER say these things WOULD happen?</p>
<p>Besides, things do happen. I guarantee you most people 2000 years ago thought that Christianity would nothing be more than a cult. I bet very few people thought that a few rebelious colonies would be bigger and more of a force than the mighty British empire. You never know.</p>
<p>Okay, so let’s look at it this way. We see the most religious developed country, Ireland, as well as two countries where religion is very minor, Sweden and Norway, all three of which can each make a bid for the highest quality of life. Therefore, we can say that religion doesn’t have a lot to do with whether a country has a high quality of life.</p>
<p>Oppressive religious state = Iran
Oppressive atheist states = North Korea, USSR</p>
<p>High quality of life (mostly) religious state = Ireland
High quality of life (mostly) atheist states = Sweden, Norway</p>
<p>
Yeah and you know who unified them? The f-ing pope. No religious figure, no unity. Unbelievable how some people are trying to completely discount religion as a factor in the Crusades. It certainly wasn’t the whole reason, but it wouldn’t have happened on such a huge scale without it. Besides, without religion, nobody would give a ***** about Jerusalem. It’s not by the coast, didn’t lie on any major trade routes, but happens to have key religious sites. You tell me why else they’d care so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I concur. Are there any objective sources proving your point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, you’re absolutely right! It has nothing to do with the fact that they were inhabiting vast tracts of rich land the Europeans were practically dying to get their hands on!</p>
<p>Again, more oversimplification. Don’t flatten the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, I don’t. I have never claimed to have the gift of prescience. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The pope at that particular time was nearly entirely a political figure; his religious duties were reduced to mere ritual. Please don’t use this silly kind of argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, that is not a good method of arguing at all. Religion was entirely manipulated by politicians for the purposes of the Crusades; they were so closely intertwined that one did not proceed without the other.</p>
<p>Jesus was a pretty nice guy, eh?</p>
<p>^^^ You are oversimplifying as much as I am. </p>
<p>I gave my opinion and my observations. This was not meant to be a take-my-word-as-gold thread. </p>
<p>I did not intend to argue anything, I merely gave my own opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe so; my opinion may be in a sense flattened by the fact that I am conveying my opinions through relatively terse online posts, but I have endeavored not to oversimplify.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply because something is an opinion does not mean that one can abjure the responsibility of providing objective support.</p>
<p>Exactly, religion was an easy medium to be manipulated by politicians. The pope only gained that much political levity because of how much power religion gave him over the masses.</p>
<p>@ApatheticLove- I love that guy. I have a t-shirt of him.</p>
<p>^^ I never said they WERE arguments. </p>
<p>I stated my OPINIONS. I did not, as I said before, intend to argue anything.</p>
<p>^I’m just a little overzealous today. Yours was the first post I saw, therefore…</p>