I have already met a few edge lords in my time whom preach that religion is the prime cause for war and violence.
Now I may not be a religious man but I can still defend religion in saying that this statement is bullshit as it has been proven false ever since the 20th century and even before that.
Clearly it's not god or gods that cause men to commit violence but it's men whom do so.
I would say it's not religion per say that causes the violence but the act of fanaticism cause about any belief be it god or ideal.
How many died for their country in WW1 ? How many died for the Nazi regime's lust for war and power ? How many died for the ideal of a perfect godless utopia which was known as communism ?
It's hardly the prime motive behind all war and violence, but it's a big one. >Islamic conquests throughout the centuries >Crusades (against Muslims, Cathars, Pagans) >European Wars of Religion >Mass human sacrifice in many cultures >Modern Islamism >Etc. Of course all of these involved other political motives, but to divorce them from their religious causes is just dishonest. It would be like saying World War II was caused purely by Hitler and Stalin's political ambitions while ignoring the ideologies which supported them.
Kevin Evans
People dont like to differentiate belief and faith, with organized religions. Religion is often used as a justification for war that does not mean the religion itself was the cause of the war.
Lucas Ross
>whom preach
Jack Sullivan
youtu.be/N_PZ6xtdfgc
Easton Barnes
You're friends are criticising only a subset of the problem. All ideological systems act as unifiers that bind a populace together to inflict organized violence of others. It's just your friends focus on religious belief based ideologies, while ignoring the secular political based ideologies of the 20th Century. Read Zizek or The Righteous Mind by Johnathan Haidt or even Clash of Civilizations for a geopolitical analysis.
Adam Martin
Or he could read the person who was, you know, the first one in the West to recognize the problem
Xavier Hughes
Steiner is also a spook
Ryder Gonzalez
>Read Zizek how about no
Jacob Cox
>whom preach nice
Nathaniel Green
lol
Dylan Walker
Is this some sort of new retarded meme ?
Carter Hill
...
Jack Bennett
No, "whom" is the accusative, the the direct object. "Who" in the nominative, the object of a sentence.
Here is a grammatically correct sentence:
"Who gave the ball to whom?"
Learn to speak English or go away. inb4 "le reddit spacing"
Jaxson Lopez
It was not curiosity that killed the goose who laid the golden egg, but an insatiable greed that devoured common sense. E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly
David Smith
"Curiosity killed the cat" is a proverb used to warn of the dangers of unnecessary investigation or experimentation. A less frequently-seen rejoinder to "curiosity killed the cat" is "but satisfaction brought it back".[1]
The original form of the proverb, now little used, was "Care killed the cat". In this instance, "care" was defined as "worry" or "sorrow."
Joseph Wright
you see I'm trying to understand you but all I read is retarded memes
I know you're trying to make a point about proper English but you still don't understand that my question was if the actual sentence of "whom preach" has any background to it.
You honestly can't expect me to take you seriously if you use: >inb4 "le reddit spacing" at the end of your post.
Hudson Jackson
really makes you think........
Connor Harris
>per say Stopped reading there
Chase Barnes
Leading cause of war has always been Conquest, whether religiously based or no.
Tyler Collins
>but it's men whom do so
It's not always whom.
Jonathan Lewis
What's the problem with violence and religion, you pussy?
Somebody must destroy dem interdimensional jewish zombies and a chainsaw is proven to be the best method
Nicholas Adams
It is the other way around.
>Horsey This explains alot.
Mason Kelly
>forgetting about interest and falling for the "religion did it heh nothing personnel" meme
Thucydides would frown upon us.
Aaron Anderson
Religion is not a sentient object so it cannot actively cause anything.
It's like saying a bullet killed JFC. Yeah it technically was the cause of death or something, but it was the assassin who killed him, and whoever he worked for (no he didn't just decide to be a high-profile assassin, that's ridiculous) can be arguably blamed for the death ultimately.
Colton Moore
>good people Seculars cannot be 'good'
James Reyes
...
Jaxon Watson
To extend: Giving blame to 'religious people' requires that their belief actually be true and thus have a sentient object be the source. 'greedy people' can be blamed for murder, say a robbery that went south, because money has value to other sentient objects. Even then, it is more difficult to blame 'religiousness' as the cause than it is 'greed'.