Debate: Does religion cause war?
Side: No

I am looking to be provocative and maybe spark up a discussion.And I was trying to be provocative enough to get you to respond to one of my disputes. It worked!Suppose religion was defined as "our idea of what we ought to be paying attention to" and everyone was arguing that (by that definition) all these huge problems were due to religion and that religion ought to therefore be done away with. ie we ought to (as if it were possible) stop participating in such mental exercises. Could you get my point then?If I were to "suppose" that religion was what you defined it as I could get your point, yes. But once again you've whittled down a whole slew of aspects and concepts that are intrinsic parts of the definition of religion. Religion is not just something we out to be paying attention to, that could better be described as a "life focus" or something. I feel like any stereotyping I might do is still closer to the truth than the over-simplifications we hear from you. And you are clearly demonizing it (anthropomorphism and all) , as if religion was itself the problem and the problems with religion aren't simply in how it's practiced.If practicing a brutal, barbaric ideology exactly how it was intended to be practiced/has been practiced in the past has a negative impact on humanity, I would say the ideology itself is the problem, not the way it is being practiced. If you remove the things I dislike about religion from religion, you no longer have a religion. It's an awful lot like saying "government is bad" as opposed to comparing and critiquing it's varying expressions.I think that humanity would be seriously worse off without governments because we need government to function well. No person needs religion to function well. However, anarchism is still a perfectly valid philosophy to hold. If you are opposed to certain types of religions, and you get specific, and don't get caught up in the retarded mindset of blanket stereotyping, I'd say you might be on to something.I am opposed to all types of religion that have clergy, deal with magic, the supernatural, or god, promote faith without reason, demand submission, encourage prayer, derive wisdom from dogma, and practice according traditions. Correct me if I'm wrong but any religion lacking those elements could better be described as a philosophy. Once again your habit of retarded over-simplification will hinder your understand in this regard; "systems of belief" is a definition for both "religion" and "philosophy," but it does not describe the entirety of either. When you admit that you practice your own somewhat individualized form of religion, you do so because you've started looking at religion in a more logical and progressive manner.Do I have systems of belief and morals and some general persuasion on the meaning of life, sure. Does this make me religious? Of course not. I am not religious because my philosophy on life, my opinions, and by beliefs do not coincide with the generally accepted (as opposed to your personal) definition of religion. They agree with parts of it, sure, and if you want to be deliberately vague and not attempt to define me properly you might even call me religious, but that would be inaccurate and incorrect. When atheists can concede that religion is ubiquitous they can set about improving how it's practiced as opposed to entertaining the idiotic notion that it can be done away with.I don't see that as very likely, as atheists themselves are each a living, breathing testament to the ignorance of the statement "religion is ubiquitous." And can be done away with? I doubt it. The cancer of religion is too thoroughly ingrained in our society to ever fully be cured, but if trends continue I think we'll work it down to the last few hardcore pockets of religious zealots in the world. No, I don't think we'll ever do away with religion, but it's a lovely dream.