Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: true

Perhaps including your unique definition (which has absolutely no relevance to the actual definition of the term, which loosely refers to the belief in a supernatural power) in your original post would have been helpfulThe "actual" definition of religion is IMO misleading in that it is not broad enough to be inclusive of all the various faiths, in particular non-theistic faith groups. Frankly this "actual" definition seems more appropriate for theism than for religion. As to the charge that I wasnt forthright with my (supposedly wildly unorthodox view) if you look more carefully you will see that my later explanation was but a rephrasing of my first. Interesting to note that you considered the first explanation reasonable. Also interesting to note is that people who are admittedly religious don't take issue with this view of religion, only those who can't see that rather than not being religious, they are differently religious. This isnt me just playing with words. I think refusal to admit this simple point is a barrier to what could be fruitful comparative dialogs.By "Socratic questioning" are you referring to Socrates' unique style of argumentation via asking questions which lead his opponent to agree with him, or some other, more esoteric function?Yes except I am too familiar with how stubbornly people will hold illogical positions to have much hope reaching agreement. What I hope for is that someone will be willing (as I am) to answer questions directly and candidly concerning positions they hold. In my experience it doesn't take very long to expose underlying contradictions so long as questions are answered without obvious attempts to obfuscate. Its very likely that once exposed the person being interviewed will refuse to acknowledge the revealed logical contradiction, but I am ok with that. I actually want to find out about any logical contradictions underlying positions I hold, and am soliciting your help. I hope that anyone who agrees to allow me to scrutinize their position(s) would do so with the same hope.Your logic (excepting a particular statement) does not, in this context, contradict itself, it just falls apart; your original argument (using the common usage of the term "religion", which I think is fair) falls under the fallacy of hasty generalization as previously clarified, and altering the term "religion" to something it has never meant and using it as a qualifier to make your argument sound falls under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which is fallaciously misdefining a term and then abusing said term to apply it to (or, more commonly, exclude it from) another term to validate a false claim.You see my view of religion as too broad or inclusive..and I see your view as too narrow or exclusive. Possible fallacies aside, would you agree that this sums up our disagreement fairly?Who's to say that all other religions aren't a "serious threat"? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?Each group sets its own standards for what will be tolerated.That's not a religious basis, that's a dictatorial onePeople's choice of whether or not to submit to an authority (dictatorial or otherwise) is based on what they hold sacred. I remember once reading religion described as being one's "particular brand of intolerance". Surely you must admit we all have religion of one sort or another on THAT view..:)