Debate: All wars are religiously motivated
Side: false

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,I am aware of different usage definitions of faith. To avoid this sidetrack perhaps I could have typed sects. while religion is specifically faith in a "higher power".In your conceptualization of religion, do you really think " higher power" is specific enough?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.If my defining religion as "Group classification according to shared sacred values" and further that sacred means " of the highest value" is circular, as far as I can tell, it is only in the sense that all definitions are circular.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.I misread a portion of your response containing the phrase "which I think is fair". I thought it referred to my opening post. I now see that you thought it was fair of YOU to abandon my proposed reasoning and revert to using the term in an orthodox (but IMO deeply flawed) manner. I am wanting to challenge this common view with a less common view that I think is superior. I think if you were being fair, you would say..."If that is what religion is taken to mean then yes all wars are religiously motivated"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?Of all those I have argued with who admit their own religiosity, you would be the first that doesn't recognize religion as a human universal. Conversely, I have never met an atheist (thougb I am such an atheist) who agrees. Since you consider yourself religious I am very surprised you hold that some people are not religious.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 meaningsThe most popular interpretations are not always the most optimal. I think if you take me up on my challenge to seperate socratic interviews you will at least see the untenability of your view, even if I can't convince you of the superiority of mine.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 meI am challenging you to a special kind of engagement. I was clarifying my expectations.That's a fair assessmentNeat. I will base the challenge discussion on this.Assuming your use of the term "religion" to subscribe to meanings universally agreed upon, I'd have to disagree;Why you won't say something like..."according to that unorthodox definition..sure" I only have my strong suspicion.given the doctrine of Universalism's (a wishful attempt to meld all facets of theism, and therefore inherently all-inclusive) existence.You really don't think that group has its own "brand of intolerance"?