Why Doesn't God Communicate With Us Anymore?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I see you’re still at the top of your game posting nothing of substance. You’re queens with me Zeb :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hey if I didn’t thank you it just wouldn’t be right. I also fully expect you to have the final word in this thread as well, OCD does that to a person. But no one will be foolish enough to bet me this time. So…I fear you’ve out posted your usefulness to me.

Oh and as to being substantive; the scary part is you THINK you’re writing with substance. You are actually trying But hey it’s about entertainment right? And you are entertaiing for sure.
[/quote]

Last word? Kinda like you’re doing? And I know, anything that doesn’t agree with you is not substantive. We know. [/quote]

I’m simply debating right now, not trying to get the last word. The last word MUST be had by you and we all understand that OCD thing you have going. As to what you call your substantive arguments, well, they just aren’t.
[/quote]

like you missed your own comment in that other thread that is now the basis for this OP.[/quote]

I missed nothing fool. I will engage you when I want and on the terms that I want. If you were not so dense you would realize that. But then again if you were not so dense this wouldn’t be nearly as fun as it is.

:slight_smile:

202

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?

203

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You didn’t answer my question. You confused it. Eternity is not necessarily “time” anyway. See what you did there? You brought your hard wiring to the discussion :slight_smile: We do not yet understand time. Our best understanding is that time is movement, and that is probably inadequate. That said, I do not believe “eternity” is time. [/quote]

Its a confusing question. But I did answer it with the last sentence.

But how do you go about defining eternity without time?[/quote]

You just demonstrated that you (all of us really) are trapped inside your hard wiring. “Time” is one of the thorns in the side of many a physicist. Many equations purposefully ignore it (and then the equation works) and when ignored, some theories that prior would not “fit” suddenly marry together beautifully. Who said “eternity” is a measure of time? Eternity is just existence. Time is how we measure movement or our experience and observations. It’s the concept of and your experience of “time” that makes you wonder what occurred in the “past”. It makes you think in terms of “cause” or “first cause”.

By the way, an eternal cosmos and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

204

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I see you’re still at the top of your game posting nothing of substance. You’re queens with me Zeb :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hey if I didn’t thank you it just wouldn’t be right. I also fully expect you to have the final word in this thread as well, OCD does that to a person. But no one will be foolish enough to bet me this time. So…I fear you’ve out posted your usefulness to me.

Oh and as to being substantive; the scary part is you THINK you’re writing with substance. You are actually trying But hey it’s about entertainment right? And you are entertaiing for sure.
[/quote]

Last word? Kinda like you’re doing? And I know, anything that doesn’t agree with you is not substantive. We know. [/quote]

I’m simply debating right now, not trying to get the last word. The last word MUST be had by you and we all understand that OCD thing you have going. As to what you call your substantive arguments, well, they just aren’t.
[/quote]

like you missed your own comment in that other thread that is now the basis for this OP.[/quote]

I missed nothing fool. I will engage you when I want and on the terms that I want. If you were not so dense you would realize that. But then again if you were not so dense this wouldn’t be nearly as fun as it is.

:)[/quote]

Because ZEB puts the yard in Schoolyard. What’s next ZEB, you’re going to keep the kickball to yourself?

205

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God.[/quote]

There you go again committing the same old logical fallacies on yet another thread. One more time genius; far more wars were begun by non-Christians than Christians. Therefore, do you now want to become a Christian because they’ve caused less pain in the world?

All people are sinners try to get that through that granite block you call a head.

206

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.

207

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I see you’re still at the top of your game posting nothing of substance. You’re queens with me Zeb :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hey if I didn’t thank you it just wouldn’t be right. I also fully expect you to have the final word in this thread as well, OCD does that to a person. But no one will be foolish enough to bet me this time. So…I fear you’ve out posted your usefulness to me.

Oh and as to being substantive; the scary part is you THINK you’re writing with substance. You are actually trying But hey it’s about entertainment right? And you are entertaiing for sure.
[/quote]

Last word? Kinda like you’re doing? And I know, anything that doesn’t agree with you is not substantive. We know. [/quote]

I’m simply debating right now, not trying to get the last word. The last word MUST be had by you and we all understand that OCD thing you have going. As to what you call your substantive arguments, well, they just aren’t.
[/quote]

like you missed your own comment in that other thread that is now the basis for this OP.[/quote]

I missed nothing fool. I will engage you when I want and on the terms that I want. If you were not so dense you would realize that. But then again if you were not so dense this wouldn’t be nearly as fun as it is.

:)[/quote]

Because ZEB puts the yard in Schoolyard. What’s next ZEB, you’re going to keep the kickball to yourself? [/quote]

Wow, just…wow.

And this comes from a man who thinks he has the universe figured out.

Only on the Internet boys, only on the Internet.

:slight_smile:

208

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You didn’t answer my question. You confused it. Eternity is not necessarily “time” anyway. See what you did there? You brought your hard wiring to the discussion :slight_smile: We do not yet understand time. Our best understanding is that time is movement, and that is probably inadequate. That said, I do not believe “eternity” is time. [/quote]

Its a confusing question. But I did answer it with the last sentence.

But how do you go about defining eternity without time?[/quote]

You just demonstrated that you (all of us really) are trapped inside your hard wiring. “Time” is one of the thorns in the side of many a physicist. Many equations purposefully ignore it (and then the equation works) and when ignored, some theories that prior would not “fit” suddenly marry together beautifully. Who said “eternity” is a measure of time? Eternity is just existence. Time is how we measure movement or our experience and observations. It’s the concept of and your experience of “time” that makes you wonder what occurred in the “past”. It makes you think in terms of “cause” or “first cause”.

By the way, an eternal cosmos and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

This is what I’ve been trying to get at. I pretty much wrote that exact sentence to you.

Like I commented early to another poster, couldn’t god have created a universe where things had already happened?

209

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I see you’re still at the top of your game posting nothing of substance. You’re queens with me Zeb :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hey if I didn’t thank you it just wouldn’t be right. I also fully expect you to have the final word in this thread as well, OCD does that to a person. But no one will be foolish enough to bet me this time. So…I fear you’ve out posted your usefulness to me.

Oh and as to being substantive; the scary part is you THINK you’re writing with substance. You are actually trying But hey it’s about entertainment right? And you are entertaiing for sure.
[/quote]

Last word? Kinda like you’re doing? And I know, anything that doesn’t agree with you is not substantive. We know. [/quote]

I’m simply debating right now, not trying to get the last word. The last word MUST be had by you and we all understand that OCD thing you have going. As to what you call your substantive arguments, well, they just aren’t.
[/quote]

like you missed your own comment in that other thread that is now the basis for this OP.[/quote]

I missed nothing fool. I will engage you when I want and on the terms that I want. If you were not so dense you would realize that. But then again if you were not so dense this wouldn’t be nearly as fun as it is.

:)[/quote]

Because ZEB puts the yard in Schoolyard. What’s next ZEB, you’re going to keep the kickball to yourself? [/quote]

Wow, just…wow.

And this comes from a man who thinks he has the universe figured out.

Only on the Internet boys, only on the Internet.

:)[/quote]

ZEB, do you realize you’re talking to yourself? From the cheap seats? Boys? LOL you’re a chorus of one. A heckler on the internet. WWJD?

210

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

If people would just take a moment, as you have done DD they will see that TheBodyGuards posts rarely make sense. On a separate thread all I did was correct his errors as he committed one logical fallacy after another. But as I’ve said repeatedly he’s always entertaining.

211

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

You didn’t answer my question. You confused it. Eternity is not necessarily “time” anyway. See what you did there? You brought your hard wiring to the discussion :slight_smile: We do not yet understand time. Our best understanding is that time is movement, and that is probably inadequate. That said, I do not believe “eternity” is time. [/quote]

Its a confusing question. But I did answer it with the last sentence.

But how do you go about defining eternity without time?[/quote]

You just demonstrated that you (all of us really) are trapped inside your hard wiring. “Time” is one of the thorns in the side of many a physicist. Many equations purposefully ignore it (and then the equation works) and when ignored, some theories that prior would not “fit” suddenly marry together beautifully. Who said “eternity” is a measure of time? Eternity is just existence. Time is how we measure movement or our experience and observations. It’s the concept of and your experience of “time” that makes you wonder what occurred in the “past”. It makes you think in terms of “cause” or “first cause”.

By the way, an eternal cosmos and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

This is what I’ve been trying to get at. I pretty much wrote that exact sentence to you.

Like I commented early to another poster, couldn’t god have created a universe where things had already happened?[/quote]

I don’t know that the universe was ever created. I can allow that maybe intelligent design is behind the physical laws of our universe that allowed life to spring forth. I’m not sure the universe was ever created. Creation would seem to be exclusive of eternal.

212

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

If people would just take a moment, as you have done DD they will see that TheBodyGuards posts rarely make sense. On a separate thread all I did was correct his errors as he committed one logical fallacy after another. But as I’ve said repeatedly he’s always entertaining.
[/quote]

A “me too” post. Brilliant ZEB!

213

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God.[/quote]

There you go again committing the same old logical fallacies on yet another thread. One more time genius; far more wars were begun by non-Christians than Christians. Therefore, do you now want to become a Christian because they’ve far caused less pain in the world?

All people are sinners try to get that through that granite block you call a head.

[/quote]

I’m sorry the point seems to fly about your head. We don’t care about “all wars” of man in this context ya lil screwball. We are examining the fruit of religion, we already know man’s nature. Can’t we judge a tree by its fruit? I posed this question to you in another thread…and all you could manage was heckles from the cheap seats.

214

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

You’ve ignored every question I posed to you and you’re talking in circles still. Address my questions to you. In response to you, other wars are irrelevant. We are talking about wars waged in the name of God. Again, please review AC’s long list of atrocities and answer your own questions.

Name the religions that war and aggression is not inherent to. I asked you before and I’m asking again. Name them.

Which are the peaceful religions? I’ve heard it said that Islam is a religion of peace.

I made no such claim that there would be fewer wars without religion. Strawman.

I’m not saying that “religion is bad”. I’m merely examining the fruit from any given tree.

I don’t have to define why a war is unjust. Do you see any justice in AC’s list of atrocities. Do you not think the opposition in any war feels their cause is “just”. “Just” is a matter of perspective. I asked you before, and I shall ask again, when is war “just”? And give me an example of such a war.

215

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

You’ve ignored every question I posed to you and you’re talking in circles still. Address my questions to you. In response to you, other wars are irrelevant. We are talking about wars waged in the name of God. Again, please review AC’s long list of atrocities and answer your own questions.

Name the religions that war and aggression is not inherent to. I asked you before and I’m asking again. Name them.

Which are the peaceful religions? I’ve heard it said that Islam is a religion of peace.

I made no such claim that there would be fewer wars without religion. Strawman.

I’m not saying that “religion is bad”. I’m merely examining the fruit from any given tree.

I don’t have to define why a war is unjust. Do you see any justice in AC’s list of atrocities. Do you not think the opposition in any war feels their cause is “just”. “Just” is a matter of perspective. I asked you before, and I shall ask again, when is war “just”? And give me an example of such a war.[/quote]

Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?

How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?

And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.

216

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?

How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?

And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]

You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.

I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.

Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.

You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.

Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point?

217

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
“The only way to not have “stupid faith” is to have no beliefs at all about the nature of existence”

So, if I believe I exist, is that “stupid faith”?[/quote]

“nature of existence”

You must have missed the qualifier before existence.[/quote]

Clarify, then.[/quote]

Why/how you exist. Meaning. metaphysical origin. First cause (or belief in no first cause). perpetual existence. Existence in and of itself. Infinite regress. est.[/quote]

Ok, now take all those blurbs and make them into sentences.[/quote]

I was attempting an expanded definition of the “nature of origin” they don’t need to be sentences.

Still avoiding the argument, apparently resorting to semantics at this point.[/quote]

No, I’m asking you to clarify what you’re fucking saying.

Are you saying me believing I exist is the same as someone believing in god?
Are you saying me believing I exist is stupid?
Are you questioning how I can believe anything, if its questionable if I even exist?

Your sentence made very little sense and left your meaning vague. Instead of “expanding the definition” of one phrase, please e-lab-or-ate.[/quote]

I was expanding the definition of a term I used. “nature of existence”. I defined it.

So, looking at what I wrote, the answers to your questions are no, no and no. I never said any of that.

If I asked you about the nature of a sport, I am not asking you to question whether that sport ever took place or not. That is dumb.[/quote]

You’re saying any belief regarding the “nature of existence” is built on stupid faith? Really?

You’re going to have to argue that position please.

218

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Uh, the Lord still does communicate both “nationally” and “personally” the last time was around Vatican II (I’m not aware of any apparitions, or prophets since then) and personally it happens all the time.[/quote]

Gtfo

I hope I’ll never meet you IRL.
[/quote]

I’m curious, why are the hatred for that post?

Anyone who would threaten someone for their personal beliefs in no way affecting them has issues.[/quote]

Because the rabid far left has no patience for anything other than their politically correct agenda. Many of them, if they could get away with it, would in fact try to silence those of us who believe in God just about any way possible.

But none of this is a surprise to me as the Bible predicts that this will occur. In fact, they are acting this way right on cue.
[/quote]

Because the rabid far right has no patience for anything that does not comport lock-step with their religious agenda (you must be saved, you’re damned, etc.). Many of them, and they have gotten away with it, have silenced those that do not believe in their God in just about any way possible, including murder and the burning of books and records.

Does the above sound familiar?[/quote]

No offense but religious persecution goes both ways.

I’m more inclined to believe in the corruption and evil of human nature than the excuses people use for it.[/quote]

I don’t think I made any point that would imply that “corruption” does not go both ways. Man is corrupt. We know this. But throughout history, which have we seen? Have we seen atheists campaign against the rights of the religious, to the point of murder, war and censorship? Or have we seen those campaigns waged in the name of religion against another religion? In fact, we are now in the midst of that very dynamic with Islam. Does Christianity have clean hands? When collateral damage in the way of innocent lives occurred in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think those innocents distinguished between America and Christianity in light of our then President’s references to “his God”?

I submit there is a Holy war occurring right now, and Christianity is very much a participant. [/quote]

Eh, atheists in large quantities have done bad stuff too. I think what we see is the simple matter of statistically, most people believe in god, so most crimes are committed by people who believe in god.

I fully believe that without religion people can and will find other excuses for war.

It’s really an excuse, not a reason. The reason is man himself.[/quote]

Well, you walked right around that one didn’t ya? Okay, let’s name the wars committed in the name of atheism shall we? You start, because I cannot think of any. Having a war for other reasons (such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and other wars) is not the same as a conflict over religion. We have had those, haven’t we? Yes or no?[/quote]

We have wars over resources or power or territory or skin color or culture or politics est. The reasons for conflict are endless.

It could also be as much said people going to war over religion are doing so because of a lack of the influence of peaceful religion/churches.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if a war is motivated by religion, it doesn’t make it necessarily unjust.

Additionally, you could argue that many people are motivated to the Just side of war by a moral obligation to religion.[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are you really numb to the fact that you often talk in circles, sometimes in the same post?

First, we’re not talking about “other conflicts”. Raising that fact that “other conflicts” exist has nothing to do with the topic; religious conflict. When we examine religious conflict, we are examining the “fruit from that tree” so to speak. Isn’t there a biblical reference to such a test?

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God. Please reconcile that list with your statement concerning a “lack of peaceful religion/churches”. In fact, let me ask you a question - do you consider Christianity peaceful? Which religions are peaceful, other than perhaps Buddhism.

I’m also not ignoring any facts. Give me an example where a religious conflict was “unjust” and I’m pretty sure the other side will claim they were “just”. Who gets to claim justice in a war of ideology? Please give me an example.

And lastly, when is war “just”?[/quote]

The existence of other wars is relevant in my claim that religion is unnecessary to create war. Governments create war all the time. In fact, government is probably one of the few universal components of war. But does that make you an anarchist?

Yes, religion can be used to motivate people to war just like any other component of culture or human nature. It does not however mean that war/violence is inherent to any of those things.

Peaceful religions are the ones who practice non-aggression. There are a lot of them today. And I can claim just as much that fewer wars would result from a world with more religions of peace than you can to claim there would be fewer wars without religion all together.

Lastly, you are the one that is contending religion is bad because of the wars its caused. You are the one assigning negative value to these wars. You need to first define why these wars are unjust(bad). If you aren’t assigning a moral assessment to the wars, you point doesn’t make sense.[/quote]

If people would just take a moment, as you have done DD they will see that TheBodyGuards posts rarely make sense. On a separate thread all I did was correct his errors as he committed one logical fallacy after another. But as I’ve said repeatedly he’s always entertaining.
[/quote]

A “me too” post. Brilliant ZEB![/quote]

You can’t even understand this…wow. It’s a simple courtesy that I’m paying to DD. He, like everyone else, should be made aware that you are a total fraud.

219

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Please read AC’s long list of crimes and war crimes committed in the name of God.[/quote]

There you go again committing the same old logical fallacies on yet another thread. One more time genius; far more wars were begun by non-Christians than Christians. Therefore, do you now want to become a Christian because they’ve far caused less pain in the world?

All people are sinners try to get that through that granite block you call a head.

[/quote]

I’m sorry the point seems to fly about your head.[/quote]

The only thing that’s been flying about my head are the flies that you attract by the worthless crap that you post.

And yet again you show your complete ignorance. How can man rise about what he is you buffoon. Religion does not purify a man. Even a bottom feeder like you should understand this.

I gave you the same answer that I’m giving you now. But you were too dumb then to understand. Shall I post it for what is probably the 7th time?

Man is a sinner. There really is nothing further to explain in order to help you comprehend this most basic assertion. The most uneducated and ignorant person would understand this, so you have a shot at it.

If man gets involved in religion he is still a sinner.

If man is agnostic he is a sinner.

If man is an atheist he is a sinner.

If man plays baseball he’s a sinner.

You are a dope, and a sinner. And on top of that a highly entertaining fraud.

Carry on.

220

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Oh, so your claim is that you are evaluating religion by examining the fruit of the tree, but are acknowledging that without the religion the same things could by all means have still happened?

How can war be the fruit of religion when you aren’t claiming that religion has had an impact on the occurrence of war?

And currently most of the main religions (official doctrine) are peaceful.[/quote]

You STILL didn’t answer the questions posed to you. Do that.

I am not acknowledging the “same things” could still have happened. For instance, looking at AC’s list of atrocities (have you?), they were expressly done in the name of religion, under the cloak of religion. Review them, and comment. Stop talking AROUND it.

Without religion, there would still be war. Admitted. But not the point.

You are badly misconstruing judging a tree by its fruit. Badly. It has nothing to do with any other wars. Let’s look at what was done in the name of someone’s God and judge accordingly.

Official doctrine? Well, again, just for example, using AC’s list of atrocities, which doctrine was in play at that point? [/quote]

I don’t understand how it is the fruit of religion if without religion the same things would have happened. In my mind it is clear that if adding or removing religion from the scenario doesn’t affect the result, religion is not an influence on war. If what I’m claiming is correct, then literally and scientifically, religion has no place in the evaluation of war. So, yes, other wars are entirely relevant and to the point.

What I’m talking about is literally DOE (design of experiments). Iâ??m scientifically evaluating religion as a variable in war. And scientifically religion seems to be an extraneous variable. But to do that you need things like controls where religion is known to not be part of the conflict, which is why I introduced them.

Second, you are the one making the claims about the influence of religion. You need to tell me what doctrine are causing all these bad things.