I have already met a few edge lords in my time whom preach that religion is the prime cause for war and violence

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 ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=x3aEGrmsZ5c
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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.

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.

>whom preach

youtu.be/N_PZ6xtdfgc

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.

Or he could read the person who was, you know, the first one in the West to recognize the problem

Steiner is also a spook

>Read Zizek
how about no

>whom preach
nice

lol

Is this some sort of new retarded meme ?

...

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"

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

"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."

you see I'm trying to understand you but all I read is retarded memes

youtube.com/watch?v=x3aEGrmsZ5c

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.

really makes you think........

>per say
Stopped reading there

Leading cause of war has always been Conquest, whether religiously based or no.

>but it's men whom do so

It's not always whom.

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

It is the other way around.

>Horsey
This explains alot.

>forgetting about interest and falling for the "religion did it heh nothing personnel" meme

Thucydides would frown upon us.

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.

>good people
Seculars cannot be 'good'

...

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'.

>chrisfags still exist
SAD!