The idea that religion depends on belief comes from Christianity. Many religions don't focus on belief.
Wars are actually a positive force. Wars are what allows good cultures to replace bad cultures. Without war, humanity would have never progressed.
14 comments
We likely wouldn't be as far along as we are, sure, but saying that war is a good thing because it accelerates our development is like saying that smallpox is a good thing because it forced us to develop vaccines. And good cultures don't replace bad cultures in war; stronger powers replace weaker powers. You really should have outgrown that 10-year-old's concept of war a very, very long time ago.
Stopped clock in the first paragraph. Actually, some time ago, I read an article about this leading to the size of religious minorities appearing far larger than the part that actually follows or believes in the religion, making it easier to invoke hysteria about "islamisation" in the Occident.
The second sentence, on the other hand, is complete insanity.
PS:
>Wars are actually a positive force.
Tell that to the people of Europe during and after the 30 years war.
Or World War I, or II
Remind me how the Vietnam War went.
Speaking of which, did you serve in 'Nam? I was born after it ended, so there's my excuse.
I'm not so sure that war is such a positive force, even in terms of technological progress.
The rapid bursts of technology which happen during prolonged wars or prolonged threats of wars are mostly about death and destruction. Yeah, there are usually side benefits which have nothing to do with that... but without war, people would focus only on the "good stuff" rather than stumbling on them as a side benefit most of the time. And if people weren't prone to thinking of other cultures as enemies, then there would be much more sharing of technological advances in pre-internet civilizations... resulting in much fewer reinventions of the wheel, and much fewer delays measured in centuries in regards to long-distance information transmission. This would give *every* non-isolated culture a broader information base to work with.
It's entirely possible that without war, we'd end up close to the same place, minus all the only-good-for-killing stuff and nothing else. That would be a much better world. Or possibly the war-promoters are right and we wouldn't. But we'll never know for sure, since the psychology of humans in that reality would be different.
How darwinistic.While I do agree with Janna that wars allow "strong" cultures to replace "weak" ones, I woulda say this would've been good in the past, as a stronger culture would most likely pass down traits needed for innovation and advancement. Of course this is no excuse for genocide, just something I realised when Kanna put in perspective like that.
You seem to be confusing the strength of a culture with the effectiveness of their military. A military dictatorship rarely has a culture to speak of but can overrun several countries before breaking down.
What's more is that you have given indications that you identify with a culture that *lost* a fairly destructive war and are dead set against the ones that won it.
Sweden hasn't been at war for some 200 years. (Yes, due to us letting the Nazis just walk through our country to Norway. Not something we're proud of, but it happened.)
Some parts of the Middle East and Africa have been at constant war for decades.
I guess Yemen and Somalia are much more progressed and progressive than Sweden, then...
@Swede
Sweden hasn't been at war for some 200 years. (Yes, due to us letting the Nazis just walk through our country to Norway. Not something we're proud of, but it happened.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
