On Human Nature: Why Religion is NOT the Cause of All War

[Phoenix Rising]

On Human Nature:

Why Religion is Not the Cause of all War

by Tom Bulpit
(A.K.A 'Phoenix')

Preface to TWC Readers:

Honourable Sirs and Madams of the TWC Intelligentsia, may I first express my thanks for you taking the time to stumble upon this article. Alas I am somewhat green to the erudite world, but I happened to be in a philosophical mood the other day, and wrote the following short essay.

It discusses in brief the causes for human conflict; and explores one area of the juggernaut of human nature. It also builds a case to rebutt the increasingly common opinion that war is caused by religion, a sentiment held en masse since the infamous attack on the Pentagon and US Citizens on 9/11, even though I could be described as an Atheist activist.

I consider myself a mere amateur in the academic world, but this is one of my first serious works and I would be honoured to hear your thoughts, opinions, and especially criticisims of the below piece. Enjoy!

------------------------

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you walked up to people in the street, and asked them what was the cause of all human conflict, I can guarantee you that the most prevalent response would be "religion".

Whilst religion is a major entity in the critical factors required for a war, I strongly do not believe that it is the primary cause. And yet I remain an outspoken Atheist.

It is easy to imagine why so many people blame religion for the world's travesties, especially given the fact that our media do so love to replay images of the burning skyscrapers in New York on September 11, 2001. Yet it is ironic that the only reason why terrorism is so effective is because our politicians and our news anchors constantly grandstand it. If 9/11 had never been televised, does one think that the last 10 years would have played out the same way? Would we shudder and look twice every time we seem an Arab in an airport? Absolutely not. Why? Because the true irony is that it is not Religious Fundamentalism that is bringing down the "free" Capitalist West - because it's destroying itself.

Which brings me to the next most commonly-proposed response to one's street survey, which to quote the great Roman statesman and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero; "The sinews of war; is infinite money".
Despite this, I contend to disagree once more, although I believe the true reason is closely inter-related. But in order to delve further down to the - possible - abject truth, we must explore the very foundations of Capitalism - the very cornerstone of modern Western society today which so controls our every action, purpose and thought.

Capitalism as an ideology was developed by Ayn Rand during the mid-20th Century, and the Russian migrant's harsh features are still well within living memory. The primary principle of the philosophy is that we must unleash our own selfish needs. It appeals directly to the most debauched levels of human nature; our greed, our lust and our ever encompassing desire to have the best - the epitome of materialistic consumerism at it's most feral state. As a result, it is far from surprising to envision how the philosophy became so highly sought-after; the perfect moral and academic excuse to become a corrupt, self-serving scumbag, and indeed many of Rand's acolytes today sit in Silicon Valley and on the Board at the US Federal Reserve - a seat considered by many to be perhaps the most powerful in the world.

But Rand's philosophy did have some good points, at least in theory. It was that whilst the economic desires of the individual would be unleashed, it would be controlled like a dog on a lead by the Government and thus Society. Everyone goes out with the desire to make as much money as they can, and that income is then taxed by the State, who in turn use this revenue to build infrastructure, emergency services and employment schemes, et cetera. Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? And indeed it works. At least on paper.

The fundamental flaw with Capitalism is that the dog-owner, i.e. the Government official pulling the lead, was an individual himself, and just as ambitious, self-serving and Capitalistic as the people he was supposed to be guiding and controlling. And so political factions formed. Mega-rich business magnates in Oil and Construction industries ally themselves with the political elite, and together use their immense wealth and political influence to bribe, extort and threaten each other into creating policies that served their best interests, and not that of the greater good of society.

And so, once again, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Bankers become greedy and incompetent, and the entire world is hit by a global recession. Politicians create foreign policy designed at securing wealth for the Oil Barons who control their election campaign funds, and so blindly storm the third world with an unquenchable thirst for natural resources, creating seismic cultural rifts and resulting with crazed young men flying planes into buildings. All the while, the working classes back home are hypnotised by a media-fuelled portrayal of their supposedly blissful, consumerist lives. Who cares when global thermonuclear war is imminent, when Lady Ga-Ga has just released her new, impossibly crass album? And so we live in a world of total ignorance and utter selfishness.
So how does such a supposedly brilliant philosophy turn from inspirational theory into global travesty? And so I arrive at my final point; the true and most abject cause of our horrific and most devastating irony:

The human thirst for power.

Despite our soaring skyscrapers, social networks, cultures and creations, we have to remember that the homosapien is an animal. We are at the top of the food chain, and yet still just as feral as any lion, shark or bird of prey. We are built to survive. Built to fight. Built to be the best of the best; the Alpha, the Supreme, the God. Everything about us, every detail written into our DNA, tells us that we must be superior at whatever cost. We want to have the most friends, to drive the fastest car, to have the highest-paying job, to have the most sex. All of this stems the control that can or cannot allow us to achieve this, and the essence of control is to have power.

Of course there are many forms of power, be it great wealth, influence, connections, academic ability or by being the most attractive. But these things all allow us to get what we want, if we indeed have them. These can range from personal scales to global proportions, and indeed an Atheist might well argue that the essence of organised, theocratic religion is for the priest to have spiritual control over his or her congregation; and as we all know - power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe that power and money are synonymous, as by great wealth you can purchase whatever you want, get into the best universities, bribe government officials or even have someone killed.

And so when someone says that Religion is the cause of all war, is it because the person who believes in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" wanted to commit such a deadly sin, or because he was manipulated by the man who promised him eternal paradise? And if that believer refused, he would be told that he would go to his most-dreaded hell for not following the will of 'God'? No, the cause of that man flying a plane into a building was not his peace-loving religious creed, but the spiritual strings that were callously pulled by the priest who had the chance for absolute power over him, and so it is that evil officialand not the creed that I contend with, and I think that both Theists and Atheists often fail to understand that.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I think very few people who aren't idiots would claim religion causes all wars. It has caused some, for example the 30 years war, but most were caused by other things. So I agree with you that it hasn't.

However, a lot of your article is completely untrue. Ayn Rand has nothing to do with capitalism apart from being an obscure libertarian extremist few people outside the USA have heard about. Capitalism has existed for centuries as an ideology, and for millenia as a system.

I also disagree completely that humans thirst for power. We do, but it's not the power you're talking about. We thirst for Nietzschean power, which is something completely different. It's the ability to get what we want, not the ability to get anything at all because we can. It's a means, not an end like you claim. If what you were saying was true nobody would be sexually pleased by being submissive or masochistic. I've heard a lot of people claim crap like this, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of Nietzsche.

And absolute power does not "corrupt absolutely". What do you mean by corrupt? Do you mean political leaders start to become dishonest and self serving? There are countless historical examples that prove you wrong.

And a social market economy is the fairest system humans can live under. It's not the kind ofslavery of the rich by the poor you are describing. That's not capitalism, that's a collective oligarchy.

[Jack04]

I suspect that religion has never truly caused any wars. Rather, it has often been used as an excuse.

Edit: Though its use as an excuse could be considered fairly bad in itself.

[Ancient Aliens]

I suspect that religion has never truly caused any wars. Rather, it has often been used as an excuse.

Edit: Though its use as an excuse could be considered fairly bad in itself.

Religion is just a pretext for war; war is part of the human instinct to fraction and compete for resources.

[Count of Montesano]

Good intro post iPhoenix. I have to agree with you. For example, the Israelis and Palestinians would still be fighting even if Islam and the Jewish religion didn't exist. The underlying causes (fight for land, resources, and ethnic differences) would simply be closer to the surface. I'd also argue that in the 20th Century, fascists and communists killed as many people in the name of secular ideologies as those killed in wars between Christians and Muslims.

On the other hand, religion does make it easier for someone to kill without compulsion, or be willing to commit suicide. One could argue that we would still have wars without religion, but perhaps those wars would be less brutal. Nobody would become a suicide bomber if they weren't convinced that as soon as they pressed the detonate button that 72 virgins would be waiting on the other side.

[Phoenix Rising]

I think very few people who aren't idiots would claim religion causes all wars. It has caused some, for example the 30 years war, but most were caused by other things. So I agree with you that it hasn't.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that the 30 years war had nothing to do with the political factioning and the expansionist and ultimately imperialistic foreign policies of the European powers at the time, the exact same contributing factors that started every single conflict within medieval, renaisance and imperial Europe? Sir, with all due respect, I disagree entirely.

However, a lot of your article is completely untrue. Ayn Rand has nothing to do with capitalism apart from being an obscure libertarian extremist few people outside the USA have heard about. Capitalism has existed for centuries as an ideology, and for millenia as a system.

Unnescacerilly blunt, and also misinformed. My evidence for the contrary;

"In 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent's life was. Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.[144]"
- From Wikipedia.org, citation is given by Brian Doherty, an extremely popular and influential journalist renowned for covering Capitalism and Libertarianism, as well as other key subjects.

I also disagree completely that humans thirst for power. We do, but it's not the power you're talking about. We thirst for Nietzschean power, which is something completely different. It's the ability to get what we want, not the ability to get anything at all because we can. It's a means, not an end like you claim. If what you were saying was true nobody would be sexually pleased by being submissive or masochistic. I've heard a lot of people claim crap like this, and it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of Nietzsche.

Sir, I respectfully demand you adjust your tone. I respect your impassioned beliefs, but there is no need to articulate them in such a tactless and obnoxious manner.

Anyway, whilst I have not read a great deal into Nietzschean theory, I must respectfully contend to disagree. The entire purpose of power, any power, is that you a superior to your peers. For example, virtually all men like fast, performance cars. Why? Because they are louder, faster and sexier than those of other people. If everyone owned performance cars, what would the appeal be? A further example would be this in the case of the noveau riche who do all own sports cars, and constantly attempt to show off over their competition. They will repeatedly buy the latest models from Lamorghini, Aston Martin or Ferrari not because they are significantly better, but because they have a subconcious need for the best of the best so that have the respect of their peers, and will often behave irrationally once out-classed.

And absolute power does not "corrupt absolutely". What do you mean by corrupt? Do you mean political leaders start to become dishonest and self serving? There are countless historical examples that prove you wrong.

I am in utter disbelief you have not grasped this legendary expression. Nonetheless, here is the original quote:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
- John Baron-Acton, 1st Baron of Acton

And a social market economy is the fairest system humans can live under. It's not the kind ofslavery of the rich by the poor you are describing. That's not capitalism, that's a collective oligarchy.

I agree with you in theory, Sir, but not in practice. Exactly as with Marx's Communist Manifesto, such notations are without rival in drawring-room philosophy, but sadly incompatable with reality, as history shows. For this, I must cite my own country's stagnant attempt at Representative Democracy. It is designed so that the House of Commons is controlled by the Plebian classes, and moderated by the House of Lords - the parlimenatary seat of the Aristocracy. A perfect balance of legislative power between the common and the elite. In theory. The stark reality is that both Houses are entirely controlled by the Bourgeois, and the reason is exactly as Marx ironically stated; Capital. The elite use their supreme connections and financial influence over the media to utterly blind the people, and so we live not in a fair social market economy as you describe, but in a two-faced autocracy.

Please do respond if you wish, I am very interested in hearing your ideas and your counters. However I must stress that your initial response was far from pleasurable to read, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could adjust your tone please

I suspect that religion has never truly caused any wars. Rather, it has often been used as an excuse.

Edit: Though its use as an excuse could be considered fairly bad in itself.

I agree absoloutley, all of the Abrahamic religions are self-declared messianic in nature, and so have total theocratic mind-control over the people. The mind forg'd manacles, as William Blake would put it

Good intro post iPhoenix. I have to agree with you. For example, the Israelis and Palestinians would still be fighting even if Islam and the Jewish religion didn't exist. The underlying causes (fight for land, resources, and ethnic differences) would simply be closer to the surface. I'd also argue that in the 20th Century, fascists and communists killed as many people in the name of secular ideologies as those killed in wars between Christians and Muslims.

On the other hand, religion does make it easier for someone to kill without compulsion, or be willing to commit suicide. One could argue that we would still have wars without religion, but perhaps those wars would be less brutal. Nobody would become a suicide bomber if they weren't convinced that as soon as they pressed the detonate button that 72 virgins would be waiting on the other side.

My thanks, Sir And yes I would very much be inclined to agree with you concerning the secular extremes in the last century. Correct me if I am wrong, but did Stalin not persecute and slaughter thousands of Christians? Surely he must have envisioned them as a threat, as only the extreme paranoia of the tyrant can induce.

I agree also with your second paragraph, Count. How far would you agree with the argument that messianic-based religion is brainwashing anyway?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I'm betting that none of you three read his post fully?

[Time Commander Bob]

I'm betting that none of you three read his post fully?

Indeed, the initial premise is one that almost all would agree with, but the essay is unfortunately a misguided attack on capitalism and lamenting the ills modern culture that lacks substance. Instead it uses quotes as evidence (note: a famous person saying it does not make it right, Machiavelli said that "Contrary to popular belief, money is not the sinews of war" he and Cicero can't be right simultaneously and nor should we use either quote as a means of evidence for an argument) and an unnecessary amount of bold type. Furthermore, it uses a few select observations to make grand sweeping statements about human nature which is in itself a bad habit to get into, as well as drawing causality between unrelated correlations.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but that really was a deeply flawed piece of writing on many counts.

[Tankbuster]

I will have to echo the sentiments of others in this thread and point out that few people would be as ignorant to claim that religion is the cause of all war. So when an essay starts off campaigning against a strawman, that's usually a bad sign.

However the main flaw of your essay is this (and when I say 'main flaw', I'm glossing over the many paragraphs that are either semi-conspiracist, simplistic, ideologically driven or even just plain wrong):

No, the cause of that man flying a plane into a building was not his peace-loving religious creed, but the spiritual strings that were callously pulled by the priest who had the chance for absolute power over him, and so it is that evil official and not the creed that I contend with, and I think that both Theists and Atheists often fail to understand that.

You flatly assert that Islam (because that is the religion you're talking about here) is a "peace-loving religious creed" without any basis whatsoever. How exactly do you know this? What if the peace-loving religious creed is actually a war-loving religious creed, and the "evil official" is actually "the priest giving a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of this war-loving creed"?

The devil's advocate would say (I do not agree completely, but I do think the objection is justified) that you are wrong in blaming the "evil official" for everything here: they would contend that Islam is actually conducive to war as it is, and that the interpretation of fundamentalists is actually fairly defensible.

As Sam Harris would say:
"The only problem with muslim fundamentalism, are the fundamentals of Islam."

[(s)AINT]

Religion acts as a catalyst in wars. So it makes normal human disputes much more violent and worse off than without.

[Phoenix Rising]

Indeed, the initial premise is one that almost all would agree with, but the essay is unfortunately a misguided attack on capitalism and lamenting the ills modern culture that lacks substance. Instead it uses quotes as evidence (note: a famous person saying it does not make it right, Machiavelli said that "Contrary to popular belief, money is not the sinews of war" he and Cicero can't be right simultaneously and nor should we use either quote as a means of evidence for an argument) and an unnecessary amount of bold type. Furthermore, it uses a few select observations to make grand sweeping statements about human nature which is in itself a bad habit to get into, as well as drawing causality between unrelated correlations.
Sorry if I sound harsh, but that really was a deeply flawed piece of writing on many counts.

A harsh critique indeed Sir, but an interesting one at that and so I thank you As I said, I have limited experience in these things, and so cannot hope to be completley right.

However, whilst I must accept some of your points, there are some that I feel deserve a brief rebuttal. Firstly, you depiction that the essay is misguided; I must disagree with you, as the injuries sustained by capitalism are very visible in modern Western society, if only one can adopt an 'outside the box' perspective. Moral degeneracy that is fulled by a media industry with an unquenchable thirst for money, as any true music lover can tell you. I am in no way a grandstanding anti-capitalist, but I am citing a need for rational, progressive change. Forgive me if the essay was misleading, but I am in fact a Centrist, and not a Leftist in any form.

But I must digress, the second point I must respond to is your observation on the use of quotes as evidence. I agree in abstract, as between quotations and statistics as evidence there is no contest. Quotes are only opinions. However, they are usually quotes held by highly renowned and experienced people, such as Cicero - a Consul of Rome and a key political figure, or Rand and Marx, upon whom's writings the most upheaving and catastrophic events of the 20th century were formed; Corporate America and Soviet Russia, respectively. We, as simple members of an online board, are only students and fairly normal citizens from qwithin the multitude, and as we have no real life experience that contend with Cicero or Marx, I think we must defer to the fact that their insights are worth more than our own.

I will have to echo the sentiments of others in this thread and point out that few people would be as ignorant to claim that religion is the cause of all war. So when an essay starts off campaigning against a strawman, that's usually a bad sign.

Agreed, although unfortunatley I have the displeasure to know a lot of ignorant people.

However the main flaw of your essay is this (and when I say 'main flaw', I'm glossing over the many paragraphs that are either semi-conspiracist, simplistic, ideologically driven or even just plain wrong):

Somewhat blunt, but I would agree to 'simplistic', like I said, I am merely an amateur. As to conspiracist, I think that there is a rational grey area between the hypies living in bunkers wearing tin-foil hats, and the suburban middle class sitting at home who believe everything they see on TV, and that general public opinion is truth (Citation; Legality and Legitimacy of Iraq War).

You flatly assert that Islam (because that is the religion you're talking about here) is a "peace-loving religious creed" without any basis whatsoever. How exactly do you know this? What if the peace-loving religious creed is actually a war-loving religious creed, and the "evil official" is actually "the priest giving a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of this war-loving creed"?

The devil's advocate would say (I do not agree completely, but I do think the objection is justified) that you are wrong in blaming the "evil official" for everything here: they would contend that Islam is actually conducive to war as it is, and that the interpretation of fundamentalists is actually fairly defensible.

I taste Islamaphobia here. With respect, I can fairly safely assume that you are an American, or Western at the very least.

I happen to know three devout Muslims, and in my debates with them I have learned a lot about the ideology of their creed. The idea that Islam is a 'war-loving creed' is utterly false, and an opinion entirely based upon the events of post-9/11 and fuelled by a corrupt media churning out blatant propoganda, again I cite the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, as well as the embedding of western Journalists and the Russo-Georgian conflict in '08. Islam as an ideology is actually incredibly simple and incredibly peaceful. Only in practice is it sometimes manipulated for the purposes of extreme evil, and no more so than Christianity, a far worse cult that has been responsible for a far greater number of murders and genocides and has produced more terrorist groups and wars than any other religion in the world.

I am far, far from holding an apologist stance for Islam. Much of their culture strikes me personally as being highly primitive and discriminative, especially on it's treatment of women in some sects. There are far worse cults out there, such as Scientology, and yet the only reason why they are given less press attention is because of 9/11, and because Muslims are academically defenceless by Western perspectives (in part due to their education, and because of the bias hypocrisy of Christian and Jewish audiences). And so I fall back on my primary point; that Human Nature is mobilized by power and wealth more than religion.

Religion acts as a catalyst in wars. So it makes normal human disputes much more violent and worse off than without.

I agree, although as I have said previously, Messianic Religion is brainwashing anyway. You brainwash an individual and you can strip away everything from his conscience, his ability to reason and even his self-preservation. It's why religion is so dangerous, and why as a consequence I am an Atheist.

[The Dude]

I agree, although as I have said previously, Messianic Religion is brainwashing anyway. You brainwash an individual and you can strip away everything from his conscience, his ability to reason and even his self-preservation. It's why religion is so dangerous, and why as a consequence I am an Atheist.

What of raw theism then?

[Tankbuster]

I taste Islamaphobia here.

What? As I said, those views are not my own. I gave you the standard run-off-the-mill version of what you'd hear from people who would disagree with your assertions.

With respect, I can fairly safely assume that you are an American, or Western at the very least.

You could've safely assumed that just by me posting on this forum.

I happen to know three devout Muslims, and in my debates with them I have learned a lot about the ideology of their creed. The idea that Islam is a 'war-loving creed' is utterly false, and an opinion entirely based upon the events of post-9/11 and fuelled by a corrupt media churning out blatant propoganda, again I cite the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, as well as the embedding of western Journalists and the Russo-Georgian conflict in '08. Islam as an ideology is actually incredibly simple and incredibly peaceful. Only in practice is it sometimes manipulated for the purposes of extreme evil, and no more so than Christianity, a far worse cult that has been responsible for a far greater number of murders and genocides and has produced more terrorist groups and wars than any other religion in the world.

I'm well aware that identifying Islam as a war-loving creed is false and simplistic, but to identify it simply as a peace-loving creed is equally simplistic.
What we actually have with Islam (much like any other religion) is a set of holy texts (Qu'ran, Hadith, as well as authoritative texts from the various schools) that can easily be interpreted any different number of ways. A peaceful interpretation exists, but so does a violent one, and it's very hard to actually say that one is more valid than the other just like this is true for Christianity.
Islam in particular lends itself to this kind of warlike misinterpretations precisely because its prophet did engage in war and many of its holy texts can be readily identified as warlike.

Does this make Islam bad or warlike? Perhaps not. But to say that these warlike interpretations do not exist and that it cannot be argued that a muslim should fight the infidels, is too simplistic in the other direction.

I am far, far from holding an apologist stance for Islam. Much of their culture strikes me personally as being highly primitive and discriminative, especially on it's treatment of women in some sects. There are far worse cults out there, such as Scientology, and yet the only reason why they are given less press attention is because of 9/11, and because Muslims are academically defenceless by Western perspectives (in part due to their education, and because of the bias hypocrisy of Christian and Jewish audiences). And so I fall back on my primary point; that Human Nature is mobilized by power and wealth more than religion.

And I don't really disagree with any of that.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Yes, religion doesn't cause wars, but causing murder is another thing altogether.

[DaniCatBurger]

1. Religious ideologies can cause immoral and criminal behaviors.
2. War is immoral and sometimes criminal.
3. Ergo, war can be an immoral and criminal behavior that is caused by a religious ideology.
4. It is preferable when we avoid immoral and criminal behavior patterns.
5. Ergo, it is preferable to avoid religious ideologies when they cause immoral and criminal behavior patterns.
6. Bad things start to happen in a misguided mind and a corrupt heart.
7. Ergo, we should start to ask what can be good guidance for the mind and the heart.
8. A good guidance is when we start to emancipate us from religious ideologies.
9. Emancipation means that we learn to think as free, independent and responsible beings.
10. We do not need politicized religious ideologies for this activity but the courage to think by our own.
11. Peace requires emancipation.
12. Emancipation can turn religions into peaceful, no criminal and moral activities (for those who feel a subjective need for a religion).

[NEPTUNO]

I think, and do not get use to it, that religion by it self was never the cause not democracy, civilzation, peace, nation, and so, they were just excuses of the real interest behind the wars.

[MathiasOfAthens]

On Human Nature: Why Religion is NOT the Cause of All War

Did you mean to assume that people or some people consider religion to be the cause of ALL WARS, plural with an s? Obviously no one here will even argue religion is the cause of every single war that has ever taken place.

[(s)AINT]

The Title is very ignorant and misleading. There has been wars undoubtedly caused by religion. However, there have been wars caused by everything else other than religion.

[Phoenix Rising]

What of raw theism then?

An interesting question, one that I do not think I can can suitably answer. Whilst to have belief in something without reason or rational thinking seems utterly insane to the fundamental atheist, without dogma, collection or organisation into a group, and therefore political faction through force of numbers, I personally cannot see how it could be manipulated to the scale that it's organised counterpart is.

Did you mean to assume that people or some people consider religion to be the cause of ALL WARS, plural with an s? Obviously no one here will even argue religion is the cause of every single war that has ever taken place.

By the somewhat obvious nature of the title, yes. I apologise if the fact that the article was outlines the existence of lesser beings is so offensive to you.

The Title is very ignorant and misleading. There has been wars undoubtedly caused by religion. However, there have been wars caused by everything else other than religion.

You claim the title is ignorant, yet your response is even more so, not to mention insulting without giving due cause, let alone common courtesy. Now if I can still breathe through all the arrogance here, might I respectfully suggest you back up your claims with evidence, and actually read through all the previous posts and opinions on this thread, which outline a point to the contrary of your post.

[The Dude]

An interesting question, one that I do not think I can can suitably answer. Whilst to have belief in something without reason or rational thinking seems utterly insane to the fundamental atheist, without dogma, collection or organisation into a group, and therefore political faction through force of numbers, I personally cannot see how it could be manipulated to the scale that it's organised counterpart is.

But you missed the point of the question, which I will explain first and then respond what you wrote here.

You claim that you are an atheist because of religion. To translate that to the language of philosophy, you have taken a metaphysical stance due to a certain sociocultural/psychological phenomenon. You will agree with me, I expect, that there's questions to be raised about how those are linked together.

Atheism, as the name reveals, runs contrary to theism. Atheism in itself is no stance to have without a counterpart to it. We wouldn't be denying the notion of God if we didn't have a notion of God in the first place, so you can only be an atheist if you deny the claim of theism. Not if you oppose yourself to religion, that would simply make you anti-religious.

The point that was implied in the asking of my question was that someone who fully believed in God could still agree with you on the evils of religion and therefore "and that is why I am an atheist" is a faulty line of reasoning. You have tried to draw a metaphysical stance from a sociocultural phenomenon and as I remarked, there are questionmarks to be placed when doing so.

So with that all in mind, and hopefully you understanding the urgency in looking for a foundation for your atheism not in religion but in your rejection of theism as a metaphysical stance instead, we can look at your post.

First you made the error that belief in god is "without reason or rational thinking", when the notion of a single god as the cause of all things is precisely the product of reason. Plato was essentially a monotheist as were many of his contemporaries, and we certainly wouldn't call him an irrational dogmaticist. The notion of theism is essentially nothing more than the rational conviction that for all things to exist, they have to have a source. And that is a position to both be respected and debated, because I as an atheist think that this is faulty reasoning and the drawing of premature conclusions, but then really in what sense does that disagreement differ at all from disagreement on any random philosophical topic? It doesn't all that much.

The problem that we have with this discussion 99% of the time is that we cannot engage in it without our own prejudices. Most theists will argue god from a religious standpoint and most atheists will argue against religion. But the true nature of that debate is then not at all about metaphysics, but about whether or not something is good or bad for people in their daily lives.

Now the second mistake you make is referring to something like the "fundamental atheist". It's a strange term that I don't get, especially because the vast majority of atheists are shallow ones who have no idea what they're talking about.

The point of theism is not that it can be manipulated to do anything. The point of it is that you either believe or do not believe that all came from one. Either stance will carry with it implications and it is from these implications that trouble emerges. It then gets worsened when people conflate the notions of theism and religion (or atheism and political ideology as happens equally often) and argue against things they have an incorrect conception of.

So keep all of this in mind and reconsider what you said. Let me know what you arrive at.