Monday, August 13, 2012

Atheists abandon "religion causes war" argument

Scott Atran is the first atheist to publicly come out and admit the historical nonexistence of the oft-claimed connection between religion and war in Foreign Policy:
Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored "God and War" audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history's most lethal century of international bloodshed.
Not only does Atran accept the argument I originally presented in a WND article before refining it in The Irrational Atheist, but his article is actually much less of a Fighting Withdrawal than the misleading subtitle - What we don't understand about religion just might kill us - would lead the casual reader to believe.

Atran doesn't mention either me or TIA, but TIA is clearly the source as not only is the argument the same as the one I first presented in 2004, but the war count of 123 also happens to be uniquely mine. The actual count from The Encylopedia of Wars index is not 123, but 121 - they made some errors, in my opinion, counting some non-religious wars such as the Fourth Crusade as religious and vice-versa - but the authors of the encylopedia actually failed to fully recognize the implications of their historical catalog concerning the historical irrelevance of religion to war. This can be seen in their Introduction:

"Wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity, and strivings for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on, and depend on today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, competitiveness, and a sense of injustice. But for much of the world before the 17 century, these "reasons" for war were explained and justified, at least for the participants, by religion. Then around the middle of the 17th century, Europeans began to conceive of war as a legitimate means of furthering the interests of individual sovereigns....

The [French] revolution increased the size of the armed forces for European states from small professional outfits to huge conscript armies, whose citizen-soldiers needed more than reasons of state to risk their lives and fortunes for their rulers. The objectives of warfare were broadened from the conquest of this or that sliver of a kingdom to the spread of revolutionary ideals, and through this ideological backdoor something like the fervor of religion slipped back into war along with the mass of conscripts. Once again wars needed to be in some sense "holy" or, in the more secular lexicon of the times, "just"."

Now, it doesn't bother me terribly when people actively seek to avoid giving me credit for my more original ideas. I've learned to expect it, which is why you'll never find this argument on Wikipedia even when everyone eventually comes to accept it as the historical fact that it truly is. I only find it genuinely irksome when others subsequently try to take credit for them or to claim they were always part of the status quo. The important thing is that the ideas are getting out there and the memes are spreading, and removing that specific arrow from the atheist's rhetorical arsenal was always my main polemical object in presenting the argument.

That being said, I do find it amusing that The Irrational Atheist appears to be one of the more influential books that no one of substance will publicly admit to reading. In addition to the Atran admission - to say nothing of the informatively abrupt silence of Dawkins and Harris on the subject of religion and war - let's not forget the Boston University study that offers initial confirmation of my hypothesis of a link between atheism and Asperger's Syndrome.

Labels: ,


«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256
Blogger Spacebunny August 13, 2012 5:57 PM  

Spacebunny, I'm just running with your rhetoric,

No you're not, dear, you are simply demonstrably not smart enough to do so. You have already demonstrated you don't even understand the rhetoric.

So, I'm still in awe over your assertion that the entire Bible is "not true". Pretty bold assertion there considering the fact that it's one of the most historically accurate pieces of literature out there.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that religion has hijacked the idea of charity.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Suomynona August 13, 2012 6:03 PM  

Unknown August 13, 2012 5:47 PM

Hahaha @Su, so typical that you think I'm trying to squash your freedom of speech. You idiot, you have the freedom to speak, it's when you declare yourself to be a bigot that we know who you really are!

Still being conveniently ignorant. You have heard of government officials denying Chic-fil-A a license to operate specifically because they're against fag marriage, right? I'm quite sure you not only support, but cheer, this kind of fascism, trampling on their rights to their opinions.

You're an intolerant fascist, a liar, and a hypocrite. You're human garbage that imagines because it sits on a growing mountain of garbage that you're superior to those who don't. You're seriously delusional. Call me whatever you like. The opinion of human garbage is meaningless. I only reply to you because it pleases me to put garbage in its place.

Also: I need proof that "being as perverted as one desires is NOT a human right" to follow @Spacebunny's style of argument.

I need proof that not accepting perverted behavior is being a bigot.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:04 PM  

No you're not, dear, you are simply demonstrably not smart enough to do so. You have already demonstrated you don't even understand the rhetoric.

Both assumptions, nice try though.

Historically accurate? I think not. Historically argues to be accurate? Definitely. When you call it "faith", don't be surprised when others ask for proof. While historians can verify the authors of the Bible, the content is unverifiable.

After all, god apparently cast people to the four corners when they built a flimsy tower. Where was s/he when we got to outerspace? Ohhhh that's right,r:2,s:0,i:82&tx=102&ty=57

Anonymous Not Unkown August 13, 2012 6:06 PM  

diluted - past participle, past tense of di·lute (Verb)
Make (something) weaker in force, content, or value by modifying it or adding other elements to it. (religion goes here)

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.


Try this other word instead:

deluded past participle, past tense of de·lude


Impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool.

Anonymous Rantor August 13, 2012 6:07 PM  

@unknown, I think you sound or meant deluded... but to the point I wish to address, you likened religion to a virus earlier. That is the first step in dehumanizing your opponent. The Atheist dictators, Stalin, Mao, the French Revolution, etc. used the same process. Dehumanize the opponent, make them a disease, then you make them worthy of eradication by the noble Atheist cadres.

By refering to religion as a virus, you have taken the first step on the Atheist path to murder.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:07 PM  

@Su: That's because your idea of "perverted behavior" is just that: _your_ idea. Others, like people who are gay, anti-sex, or celibate, have a different worldview. I love all these names you keep throwing at me, when really it all boils down to 2 guys kissing each other just being "creepy" to you. Hope you have a gay son!

Define "perverted" please. And if you cite the Bible, you're really an idiot.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:10 PM  

Nice @Rantor! Seriously, I'm not being fecetious. (I know I spelled that wrong, but I don't care to correct a misspell, as you pointed out, you got my meaning).

Seriously, excellent point, and I'll remember that in the future when debating humans!

However, I wasn't casting people as a virus, I was casting the idea, religion, as a virus. As, well, it is. Note the built in code that says, "share me or you're not really me", just like a virus. You could claim it's just good news, but when I come to find out I've been DELUDED my entire life, I don't find anything good about it at all.

Blogger Spacebunny August 13, 2012 6:13 PM  

Historically accurate? I think not.

Further demonstrating not only your inability to think, but you complete ignorance. So, just to be clear, you are stating that nothing in the Bible is historically accurate, right?

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:14 PM  

Also, just like your god, POOF! I'm gone!

Thank you all for the arguments. I'll be back to laugh at you, and you can laugh at me too. I've learned some cool stuff today (well not cool, but cool argument-wise), and I really appreciate all of your input, even if it's just name-calling.

I'm not trying to gain any moral high ground here, but hey at least I've been nice!
Your god doesn't exist anymore than his,

Blogger Spacebunny August 13, 2012 6:15 PM  

Both assumptions, nice try though.

No, dear, statements of fact based on your comments here. I eagerly await your attempts to prove me incorrect, but all evidence thus far shows otherwise.

Anonymous Not Unknown August 13, 2012 6:16 PM  

I know I spelled that wrong, but I don't care to correct a misspell, as you pointed out, you got my meaning

You are a lazy thinker. Why should anyone - anyone at all - take you seriously?

Anonymous Suomynona August 13, 2012 6:18 PM  

Unknown August 13, 2012 6:07 PM

Define "perverted" please. And if you cite the Bible, you're really an idiot.

You're a snake. I've proven you're an intolerant fascist who supports denying Christians their rights. I don't define "perverted", nature does, just as it defines life, death, black, white, red, liquid, solid, gas, etc. One isn't required to cite any book to define what common sense already tells us. One does require brainwashing to accept the unnatural, illogical, disgusting and vile as normal.

My work here is done. I've exposed you for being an intolerant fascist and idiot. It was fun. Buh bye now.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:19 PM  

@Spacebunny, 1 last one for you sweetums nipnips lovebunny:

No, I never claimed to say nothing in the bible's true. Of course there are a lot of true parts. However, the whole book of Genesis, the miracles, the virgin birth, the resurrection...all bullshit. And if you could prove it, we wouldn't be here!

Anonymous Rantor August 13, 2012 6:21 PM  

@ Unknown, glad you can seperate people from their perceived disorders, many can't. This summer's SUnday School serious was on Man as an Image-Bearer of God. It was quite interesting. In Genesis we learn that among all the created beings, only man was created to bear God's image. Of course we know that man fell and has been misbehavin' ever since. When people got real bad, God wiped them out. His game, his rules. It's not murder when God does it, cause he is in charge and may terminate any player at will. It is murder when we, without very good reason (defending life for example), kill another. Why? Because God said so.

Which leads us to the next question. If you are an Atheist, and Atheists don't believe in God, then, why is murder wrong? Obviously Stalin, Mao, and other Atheist rulers thought it was just fine to wipe people out if they got in your way. Why were they wrong?

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:21 PM  

Nice Su, keep crying persecution and let me know how that works out for you!
And why not go ahead with your argument and tell me that black people aren't natural, as you're white and that confirms your basis for what "normal" is.

I'll also assume you've sucked at least 1 cock, and you kind of liked it.

Blogger Unknown August 13, 2012 6:25 PM  

@Rantor: You're literally the first to actually turn the other cheek. Others here should take note.

However, I really do have to go, but the CS Lewis style of "there's an absolute right and wrong", like say, murder, has been defeated by men greater than me. Simply put: if I were born to a cannibalistic tribe, I wouldn't think cannibalism is wrong, inherently. You do, only because of where you were born.

You'd still be religious if you were born in India, you'd just be a hindu!

Anonymous Suomynona August 13, 2012 6:33 PM  

Unknown August 13, 2012 6:21 PM

Nice Su, keep crying persecution and let me know how that works out for you!And why not go ahead with your argument and tell me that black people aren't natural, as you're white and that confirms your basis for what "normal" is.

I'll also assume you've sucked at least 1 cock, and you kind of liked it.

Heh. It's highly amusing to see how easily you've been reduced to a pathetic grasping of straws.

Unknown, you're making a fool of yourself, and I'm quite sure this isn't anything new for you, but that hole you're digging for yourself is too deep for me to take any further notice of you.

Blogger wrf3 August 13, 2012 6:52 PM  

Unknown wrote: Also, whether or not your arguments are correct, that doesn't make them any less awful.

Feelings are more important than correctness? <facepalm>

Anonymous Rantor August 13, 2012 6:56 PM  

@ Unknown,

Your answer is relativistic utilitarianism. Your cannibal answer is the equivalent of saying if born to a NAZI family, then killing Jews would be OK. It is indicative of an immature outlook. Previously in this thread you condemned murder, but now it is a question of society and what the group thinks. You really need to think on that. And I would further add that no, greater Atheist minds have not provided anything better for a moral code than some form of utilitarianism.

Anonymous Rantor August 13, 2012 7:00 PM  

@unknown, relativistic utilitarianism? Bad answer. You even express the inherit weakness in the argument with your cannibal example. And no, greater Atheist minds have not responded with anything better.

Anonymous ReasonableDoubt August 13, 2012 7:01 PM  

Sorry Unknown, declarative statements don't constitute evidence or a valid argument, but that isn't why you're here is it?

You're here to provoke, and since you've conceded that individuals promoting atheism have killed people, and that sort of thing and the motivating idea(s) behind it constitute "vile ignorance", I'll accept that you admit you've come to promote and defend a "vile ignorance" of your own. Cheer-leading atheism doesn't make you rational or clever or more moral than anyone else, it doesn't qualify as progress, it does make you a fucking hypocrite and a snake oil salesman. Return to your New Atheist circle-jerk and peddle your garbage to the soft heads you find there.

Blogger wrf3 August 13, 2012 7:02 PM  

Unknown wrote: More information to why Santa doesn't exist makes more people not believe in Santa (unless you're a child at brain)

Actually, it isn't about the evidence, Unknown, at least according to your worldview. See here, here, and here.

Blogger Spacebunny August 13, 2012 7:03 PM  

No, I never claimed to say nothing in the bible's true.

Yes, you did. You made a definitive statement "The Bible's not true". This is a direct quote. Then you tried the two logical fallacies I mentioned earlier, goal post moving and cherry picking. Which you continue in this comment about Genesis. Like I said, you are not capable of my level of rhetoric. You have nothing but logical fallacies and now blatant lying.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that religion stole the idea of charity.

Blogger IM2L844 August 13, 2012 7:40 PM  

I see that one of the poster children for Asperger's Syndrome showed up demanding to be compensated for his maladroit ability to comprehend. Drawing pictures for obstinate mentally handicapped trolls who are unlikely to retain anything they might accidentally learn is a monumental waste of time. As for me, forget it.

Blogger Lovekraft August 13, 2012 8:37 PM  

I guess now is the time to mention abortion.

Perhaps Unknown can explain this away.

And don't give me the old 'my body my choice' argument. One's actions, however private, should still be subject to moral evaluation.

And considering pro-choice has been rammed down our (society's) throats, I would say that this decision is a public one. As such, it isn't private and free of scrutiny.

Blogger Lovekraft August 13, 2012 8:38 PM  

Unknown may have his/her heart in the right place - that of striving for a more peaceful world. But most of us here don't want to relive the 60s.

Blogger James Dixon August 13, 2012 8:51 PM  

> You must live in some awful place where this happens all the time,

It's called the real world. You should try investigating it some time.

> You must live in some awful place where this happens all the time,

Little boy, we've been taunted and insulted by experts. You're not one.

> Charity isn't a religious virtue, it's humanity's.

Ah, a statement of fact. Evidence, please.

> ... but my religion hasn't killed THAT many people!"
again, how is this argument supposed to be a good one?? No one has explained that yet.

And you haven't explained how atheism, which has killed far more is as good. Perhaps you should start there.

> Gotta pick a fight with the big guys to learn how to take a punch, know what I'm saying?

Sure, we've all been there. Most of us have matured since, of course.

> I'm asking you to open your "critically thinking" brain parts..

My critically thinking brain parts were open before you were even born.

> I'd love to talk to any historian that claims the flood, _any_ miracle performed by jesus, or the immaculate conception to be "Truth". It's called Occam's Razor,

Occam's Razor is apparently something which you apparently know nothing about, or you wouldn't even bother bringing it up in this context.

> The burden of proof is on you!

We're not the ones making claims here, idiot.

> Also, an insult is an admission of defeat in a debate. Thanks for trying!

Not hardly.

And I see the fun continues further on, so there's probably more to come.

Anonymous Kriston August 13, 2012 10:04 PM  


It's like watching an aggressive hamster at a cat convention!

Blogger Joshua_D August 13, 2012 11:44 PM  

The only thing Unknown didn't type, which I thought she would surely type was "methinks." Of course, I didn't read all her posts, so I can't be sure she didn't. From what I read, I imagine she's talking to herself as she types raising her finger shouting, "Ha Ha! I have you trapped, methinks! HA HA! Argh!"

Blogger Spacebunny August 14, 2012 2:29 AM  

I guess now is the time to mention abortion.

No, it wouldn't, it isn't remotely on topic and all comments regarding it will be nuked.

Anonymous physphilmusic August 14, 2012 6:20 AM  

I've come to the conclusion that Unknown must be a Vox sockpuppet made for the purpose of amusing himself by deliberately trolling typical Gnu Atheist talking points. Either that, or this guy's IQ is sub-90.


Anonymous PTR August 14, 2012 7:26 AM  

Perhaps Unknown is being underestimated. Somebody who knows millions of proofs for the non-existence of God is clearly the true super intelligence in the room. It would be unseemly to ask for all several million but perhaps we could be given one proof, lets say the strongest one.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 14, 2012 9:36 AM  

It is just another typical atheist idiot who, when shown how immensely ignorant it is, uses the "I'm just trying to get attention" to be able to run away.

So how about the debate with Dominic? It can't remain unfinished.

Anonymous Wendy August 14, 2012 9:37 AM  

That wasn't entertaining. It's rather painful to see that there are people that obtuse, lazy with language, and grossly overestimating their ability to think. I have far more respect to those with less than average intelligence yet still want to learn.

He/she didn't come here to learn anything and he/she accomplished just that.

And how does one have their name as Unknown and not know how it got there when Anonymous is the default?

Anonymous MendoScot August 14, 2012 11:17 AM  

Well, that was fun!

Haven't had one of those around for ages.

Anonymous Anonymous August 14, 2012 11:56 AM  

It's actually repressed childhood memories that cause adult humans to do "evil".

Both sides are wrong. It's not a "devil" that makes humans do evil, nor is it "religion" (although it can sometimes exacerbate or limit, depending on the religion).

Most people can't read this type of information, but if you can, give it a go:

Anonymous Richardthughes August 14, 2012 12:14 PM  

Commence picking of nits!

"initial confirmation of my hypothesis"

If we want to get *really* technical, hypothesis survive disconfirmation, they don't get confirmed.

Anonymous Suomynona August 14, 2012 12:15 PM  

It's actually repressed childhood memories that cause adult humans to do "evil".

And what causes children to do evil? Wait. I know. It's those repressed fetal memories.

Anonymous Richardthughes August 14, 2012 12:18 PM  

And of course, Wikipedia diagrees with me ;-)

"A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it."

Anonymous HH August 14, 2012 12:29 PM  

TLM wrote:

"HH ..If your initials stand for Hugh Hewitt ... then I can understand your failure to comprehend ..... Bible verse debate then have at it;...
....Zeal matters, and sometimes that means not being "nice". Of course if you're one those Love Wins bumper sticker Rob Bell types, you pay no heed to the OT anyway."

I am always glad to hear the words of the Lord. Many times here there has been debate regarding OT vs NT , old covenant vs new covenant, sewing old cloth on new jackets... our debate here would not likely cover any new ground... You will have to be content in your faith.. I am in mine ....Peace

I do not want to hijack the current debate.

Anonymous Kriston August 14, 2012 12:30 PM  

It's actually repressed childhood memories that cause adult humans to do "evil".

Wow! I thought that Dianetics had died years ago (except in Scientology).

Hubbard lives again!

Blogger Unknown August 14, 2012 4:43 PM  

(let me guess, every post from here out will be: "irrelevent!", the stupidity! it burns!!!!!!!

Blogger Spacebunny August 14, 2012 6:16 PM  

No dear, you still have unanswered questions you need to attend to - see the rules on the side bar for details.

Anonymous MendoScot August 14, 2012 6:37 PM  

Here's the challenge idiots: The Easter Challenge:

Sweet Saint Charles on a pogo stick, that's a challenge? Ah, I see, it's a challenge for idiots. It's been done so often, the theme is quite hackneyed, Wellknown. Here's my favourite but don't tell my Dad since he published his just a couple of years ago.

And if you want to blether about the historicity of the Bible, why not take it over to Armarium Magnum, where the atheist historians will not be as kind to you as we were here. They get quite short with embarrassingly ignorant atheists.

And for the trifecta - religion has never stopped a war? Oh, really?

But please, don't go and stew in your irrelevance. This thread has been quite a light of laughter in a rather trying day. Do, however, learn html. It shouldn't be a challenge for one as undiluted as yourself.

Anonymous Bobo August 14, 2012 8:29 PM  

"2: Ah, I see, so letting people die, not feeding them, and not teaching them to read and write, etc is much better than comforting, healing, feeding and teaching them. So if the various religious sects that started these things never had started them"

Do you think what happened to Terri Schiavo was fair then?

Secondly, I think it's very possible and in fact probable that those things would not have started. Perhaps they would exist within families or where self interest prevailed - but not in general and with regard to strangers and those who were weaker (and would remain weaker). It's difficult to speculate but rewinding the clock is not possible. What happened happened and like it or not, religion brought a lot of good things into the world, with some bad of course, but the latter is just part and parcel of the human nature or the human condition.

What is better or not in the case above depends on your metaphysics and ideology. Definitely, in the Soviet Union, pariahs were kicked out of their homes and jobs and were left to starve. Stalin had to kill homeless children in the 1920s/30s instead of taking care of them. In the Holomor Massacre in Ukraine in 1934/5 it was better to have 6 million people starve to death and some even turn to cannibalism then show compassion.

Anonymous Bobo August 14, 2012 8:33 PM  

Unknown said: "@Su: That's because your idea of "perverted behavior" is just that: _your_ idea. Others, like people who are gay, anti-sex, or celibate, have a different worldview. I love all these names you keep throwing at me, when really it all boils down to 2 guys kissing each other just being "creepy" to you. Hope you have a gay son!"

You may reject natural law but I can argue that's just an appeal to your incredulity. Under that view, erotic kissing between two individuals which will not lead to procreation is disordered. Heck even in evolutionary terms this can be argued. It serves no purpose. These people could forge strong bonds in other ways - for example "brothers in arms" or through having a common goal or a common enemy.

However, be charitable and don't project your own assumptions on others and don't take your nominalist position for granted.

Anonymous Vic August 15, 2012 12:50 PM  

Boy, some folks seem totally blind to their own hypocrisy on matters such as condescending attitudes and arguments without citation.

I also enjoy seeing advise on how to be a good Christian from the admitted godless.

Give it a rest dude,(or dudette). You have lost the argument on the topic of this post. I see nowhere in this post anything pertaining to the differences in the gospel accounts or the sexual expression of animals. The topic of discussion was on the abandonment of the "religion causes war" argument ignorantly portrayed by those of your ilk.

Anonymous Kriston August 15, 2012 1:49 PM  

I notice how Unknown seems to be unable to understand, or maybe just ignores the rules of the blog.

You have been called out to answer a question, you must answer before being allowed to post on other topics.

You have made an assertion and been called to back it up. Same rules apply.

If you are really as smart as you seem to think it should not be a problem. Otherwise, it's been fun.

Anonymous Darth Toolpodicus August 15, 2012 3:51 PM  

Unknown sez:

"The Bible's contents however are ridiculous"

You mean like in Job 26:7, where it says"

[b]He suspends the earth over nothing[/b]

(written 2000-1500BC... long before the Greeks ever dreamed of Atlas, or the Indians dreamed of elephants standing on turtles)

Incidentally, the word translated as "nothing" is the Hebrew word Baliymah, which literally means "nothingness".

Anonymous Suomynona August 16, 2012 12:17 AM  

Here's is reality on planet Earth for those of use who don't wear leftist-colored-glasses - an example of the observations I was referring to in my earlier comment regarding leftists/atheists being more likely to use violence: Family Research Council Shooter Worked with LGBT Group.

I realize that hard evidence will make not one iota of difference to the brainwashed, but it does demonstrate why there's absolutely no reason to engage them in discourse.

Blogger Lovekraft August 16, 2012 9:26 PM  

Unknown, perhaps you could save us all the trouble and outline exactly what it is you stand FOR in terms of how religion should fit in with a free society?

Anonymous daisy August 21, 2012 2:27 AM  

I just read through the entire article of yours and it was quite good. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post.

Anonymous Anonymous September 01, 2013 2:19 PM  

"but the war count of 123 also happens to be uniquely mine. The actual count from The Encylopedia of Wars index is not 123, but 121"

I am interested in the study of religious warfare and I found your book TIA recently. Interesting reading. Personally I'm not interested in "religion is the cause of all wars" argument, but your 121-123 religious wars, however, should probably be changed. The list of wars in The Irrational Atheist (pp 104-105) seems incomplete. I found after a quick review more wars to the list:

Almoravid Conquest of West Africa (1054–1076) (p 36) “They were united in their militant adherence to Islam and a desire for stringent religious reform”. (p. 36)

Charlemagne’s War against the Saxons (772–804) MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Charlemagne sought to subdue the Saxons, convert them to Christianity, acquire new territory, and put an end to Saxon raiding against his empire. (p. 307)

Charlemagne’s Invasion of Northern Spain (777–801) MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Charlemagne wanted to extend his empire and conquer Moorish Spain for the Christian church. (p. 307)

Iconoclastic War, First (726–731) MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Leo III wanted to end icon worship in the Byzantine Empire. (p. 594)

Iconoclastic War, Second (741–743) MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Artavasdos led a rebellion against the Iconoclast emperor Constantine V with the aim of installing himself on the Byzantine throne and restoring icon worship throughout the realm. (p. 595)

Kharijite Rebellion (934–947) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Political and religious rebellion against the prevailing dynasty” (p. 658)

Khazar-Muslim Caucasus War (727–733) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Muslim religious expansion and conquest” (p. 659)
King Philip’s War (Second Puritan Conquest) (1675–1676) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Colonial demands for Indian sale of lands and submission in social, religious, and political matters” (p. 664)

Knights’ War (1522–1523) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: A bid to secularize ecclesiastical lands and to enhance the Lutheran Reformation” (p. 671)

Mahmud of Ghazna, Conquests of (c. 1000–1030) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Mahmud desired imperial conquest, in part to acquire treasure, in part to disseminate Islam and suppress Hinduism”. (p. 710)

Mamluk-Persian-Ottoman War (1514–1517) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Ottoman sultan Selim I sought to conquer Mamluk Syria and Egypt, and to put down Shi’ite Persians” (p. 713)

Maratha-Mogul War (1647–1665) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Hindu Marathas sought to create an empire at the expense of the Muslim Moguls”. (p. 724)

Mogul-Sikh War (1675–1708) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Sikhs wanted freedom from religious persecution”. (p. 761)

Moriscos, Revolt of the (1568–1571) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: The Crown wanted to suppress all Muslim practice within Spain”. (p. 776)
Moro Wars (1901–1913) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Moros resisted U.S. occupation and administration, largely on religious and cultural grounds”. (p. 778)

Muhammad of Ghur, Conquests of (1175–1206) “OUTCOME: Muhammad built a vast Ghurid empire in India, established Islam in India” (p. 781) “[Muhammad] was determined to suppress the Hindu majority by whatever means were necessary” . (p. 782)

Muqanna, Revolt of (775–778) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: Religious dispute over the basis of power of the caliphate” (p. 782)

Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1230–1248) “Ferdinand III (1199–1252)… led a military crusade aimed at stamping out Moorish hegemony in southern Spain” (p. 1073)

Spanish-Algerine War (1775) “MAJOR ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES: After unsuccessfully attempting to maintain peace between Spain and Muslim North Africa, Charles III sought to suppress the Muslim threat once and for all”. (. P. 1063)

Anonymous Anonymous September 01, 2013 2:22 PM  

Problably Should the following wars also be added to the religious wars list:

Muslim Conquest of Persia (634–651), Muslim Conquest of Sind (708–712), Muslim Conquest of Spain (711–718), Muslim Invasion of Egypt (639–642),Muslim Invasion of India (661–663), Muslim Invasion of Morocco (681–683), Muslim Invasion of Transcaspia (716), Muslim Invasion of Transoxiana (674–676)Spanish Christian-Muslim War (912–928), Spanish Christian-Muslim War (977–997) ,Spanish Christian-Muslim War (1172–1212)

Blogger tonyon August 10, 2015 1:40 PM  

"The religious are the firsts that not belief in God, thus the Inquisition, thus they abuse of the innocents, thus they mislead to the foolish and thus they buy to the folks (Galileo Galilei)"... IT´S TRUTH THAT RELIGION IS LIE

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts