How have atheists managed to push the lie that all wars were caused by religion for so long with virtually no pushback?
That massive oversimplification only works if you ignore the 20th century, the single bloodiest in history.Were Stalin, Mao, and Hitler devout men of faith, or were they motivated by secular ideologies like totalitarianism and nationalism?Blaming religion for all war is an intellectually lazy trope used to score cheap points.
>>17988834repetition and media, endless shitting on the crusades in the education system, while turks in constantinople is somehow being legit etc. brainwashing essentially, an avergae normie is subconsciously hostile to christianity. when they say religion they really mean christianity, just as God is always the christian god
Most wars were simply for resources or the honor of the lord, I concede that. I do want to add that religion was the foremost excuse in getting regular people to fight bloody wars in the first place, that and "I'll kill you for treason if you don't fight".
>>17988834Atheists don't say that unless they're 13 and have never studied history lol
>>17988884Ever heard of Family Guy?
>>17988887You know that's a joke, right? From the comedy show, right? It is if maybe just maybe it isn't supposed to be taken seriously? Like... at all? Because it's literally a joke from a sketch show.
>>17988902Why are you acting retarded
>>17988913I'm not. I'm defending the most influencial cartoon of our times. Show some respect to cult pop icon.
Most wars are caused by territorial disputes.
It makes people feel too many peps safe being dumb
>>17988834I was pondering about that earlier on, I think that's why I opened /his/.Honestly, I think it's a matter of how normalized being fucking dumb is?I live in a pretty low IQ country, we have Supreme Court ministers committing the most insane of typos, judging a coup without even reading what they're signing. And this shit is normal. Nobody actually points out how fucking insane this is.I've had a college professor proclaim that the British Monarchy should be abolished, fair enough, I don't have any legit thoughts about it, but I can see why someone that deeply belives in the concept of Republic would hold such views. He gave this huge rant about the monarchy being outdated, awful, how monarchs are parasites, agree. I then asked in all seriousness, out of legit curiosity "How do you propose for this new United Republic to deal with the fact that they just seized and court martialed the head of state of 15 different countries for something that isn't a crime there?" He had no answer. I don't mean as in he needed time to think, no, he genuinely had no fucking idea what I was talking about. I tried mentioning the Statute of Westminster and how they evolved into their modern constitutions, and the fact that Australia is an example of a monarchy being picked over a republic in public referendums. He changed subjects but I could see how livid he was. I wasn't even disagreeing with him, I just wanted to know how he reached that thought.Turns out that's it: There's no thinking.The reason people accept something that's factually wrong is because they're not thinking at all. Not the intellectuals, not the academics, not the writers.This is the default. It's a dumb world. If you actually think about things then you're the problem.
>>17988834The real question is: were there any historical warmongers who were actually earnestly religious, or was it just all cynical power grabs?
>>17989818Maybe this guy?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Xiuquan
>>17989818Depends on what you consider a warmonger, since the definition itself imples war a power grab, not as war itself. That would be a no. However, if you mean warmonger as in someone that does a lot of wars, then yeah, most of them probably. Charlemagne seemed pretty genuine when Alcuin of York criticized the forced conversion of pagans through death/torture, he even went back on it in 792. Most of them probably had very different takes on religion, but I doubt they were atheists.
