Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

"The "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."Faith and religion are two separate concepts: the latter implies the former, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Faith can be directed at any concept, be it physical or otherwise, while religion is specifically faith in a "higher power"."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. "Your original definitions of "religion" and "sacred values" were circular (the former being expressed in terms of the latter, and vice versa), and therefore ambiguous in the extreme. Further, until recently, you had in no way defined the term "religion" to include non-supernatural concepts."Interesting to note that you considered the first explanation reasonable."I never once claimed your reasoning to be sound. In every post I've made in this debate, whether explicitly or otherwise, I've condemned your claim as fundamentally flawed."Also interesting to note is that people who are admittedly religious don't take issue with this view of religion,"Based on what study, carried out by whom and with what sample size? I consider myself a religious person, and I take issue with your "unique" definition of the term, so what do you base this claim on?"I think refusal to admit this simple point is a barrier to what could be fruitful comparative dialogs."I've thus far failed to "admit" to your claim due to the fact that your definition of the term "religion" encompasses concepts wholly irrelevant to those expressed by the term's objectively recognized meanings."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."Having read through Plato's "Gorgias", I wholeheartedly agree. Why you appear to feel it necessary to bring up this point, however, when you have yet to make any such accusation is a matter of great mystery to me."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?"That's a fair assessment."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..:)"Assuming your use of the term "religion" to subscribe to meanings universally agreed upon, I'd have to disagree; given the doctrine of Universalism's (a wishful attempt to meld all facets of theism, and therefore inherently all-inclusive) existence.