If this were the case why all the attacks in France, England, Germany, Russia, and Belgium? It's also been stated before. Why are there no Latin American terrorists?

Also, you condone the enslavement of the female half of the population in many Muslim countries? You can condemn US policy, but lets not pretend that Islam does not have problems on its own.

How many drone strikes and wars have we launched in the Middle East compared to Latin America and Vietnam in the last three decades?

Oh, the Communists tried.

History is your friend, not your enemy.

Islam does have problems. Their problems are not for America to solve however.

Since 1941 the United States has taken it upon itself to protect the world from large scale evil, be it Soviet communism or Nazi's. To leave the rest of the civilized world out to dry against the Islamic threat would be a crime against the continued progress of mankind.

Im not saying France, UK, Russia, India (definitely been doing their part) and even China shouldn't be helping too, but it's our job to eradicate Islam for the betterment of humanity.

Yeah don't know where he got his facts on that one from. It was one of the basic tenets of Soviet doctrine.

Since 1941 the United States has taken it upon itself to protect the world from large scale evil, be it Soviet communism or Nazi's. To leave the rest of the civilized world out to dry against the Islamic threat would be a crime against the continued progress of mankind.

Im not saying France, UK, Russia, India (definitely been doing their part) and even China shouldn't be helping too, but it's our job to eradicate Islam for the betterment of humanity.

Let's say the leaders of all the major religions came forward and said it was all a sham, and religions were effectively ended.

Given human nature, would that lead to more or less violence and unrest? On one hand, you wouldn't have people thinking their suicide killings would be rewarded in an afterlife. But on the other hand, how would millions here and billions around the world cope with the realization that this is all they have and there isn't a heaven to dream about? I'd imagine they would demand more from their current life and wouldn't be satisfied being told to suffer now and God will take care of you later.

Is the question colonialism or radicalism? If the former, Islam is hardly any more guilty than any Christian nation. And if the latter, then again I'd suggest the salience of radical thought can be just as attributed to the actions of the West as anything else. The current regime in Iran can be directly traced back to the US installing the Shah against a democratically elected leader who didn't want to provide oil at the US's asking price.

Islam does have problems. Their problems are not for America to solve however.

We live in one of the least violent times in history with religion being much less important than it was even 50 years ago.

I think we'd be fine.

That's fine, but Islam is creating a lot of problems in the West.

Yup

NO that is very one sided. Islam wasn't concerned about the West until the West started meddling in the Middle East. For all the talk about attacking the West all of the wars sure do seem to be taking place on Middle Eastern soil for some not so strange reason.

Contrary to American propaganda tensions didn't begin with the 9/11 attacks. Revisionists and American apologists ignore the FACTS too often. American meddling began well before that.

That's a lie.

They are not going to say that though. It's going to be up to science to find answers- and the answers to the questions raised by religion might provide far more meaning and peace than stories of human sacrifice for our benefit.

Islam has been at odds with the west for over a thousand years.

I see what Ogie is a saying about the absence of religion leaving a void.

I am an atheist, but in a perverted way, the existence of religion makes my life easier and safer. It's like taxes: I hate paying them, but on some level they provide people with enough welfare to keep from robbing or killing me (hopefully).

Let's say the leaders of all the major religions came forward and said it was all a sham, and religions were effectively ended.

Given human nature, would that lead to more or less violence and unrest? On one hand, you wouldn't have people thinking their suicide killings would be rewarded in an afterlife. But on the other hand, how would millions here and billions around the world cope with the realization that this is all they have and there isn't a heaven to dream about? I'd imagine they would demand more from their current life and wouldn't be satisfied being told to suffer now and God will take care of you later.

This just isn't supportable though unless I misunderstand you.

Given how many people are distancing themselves from religion we should expect modern society to be more violent but instead the opposite is happening.

Now, people may behave differently but they wouldn't necessarily be more violent. We certainly wouldn't see the need to hurt or kill based on religious principles and we would still have our same social order and expectations of behavior.

There is a lot of truth here, and you honestly don't need religion to convince people to go suicide bombing. I'm pretty sure the Japanese kamikaze pilots did not believe in an afterlife with virgins. They were driven by nationalism and if you eliminate religion, well then nationalism is still a thing and many people will gladly die for it.

Heck, by the time they turned to kamikaze's they had effectively lost the war yet they still sent thousands on such missions.

Remove religion and something else will fill that void, whether it is the state or some charismatic leader, and yes when you have those followers you can weaponize them for your cause. We as a species are drawn to follow a leader and instead of clergymen, it will be something else.

I was replying to the other post. We are in a agreement on this.

The Japanese believed the Emperor was a god. That was a state sponsored religion. And there are many people that do fine without anything to "fill the void" without religion.

To say we can't live without some system of lies to keep us content is pure speculation. Technology is transforming how we communicate, and what we place meaning in. Who knows what we will come-up with to make us all more interconnected - without all the myths, legends, contradictions and lies necessary for religion.

That is exactly my point, remove religion and something else will fill the void for the people who would otherwise be religious. As for technology spreading knowledge, you have way too much faith in humanity if you think it's only going to enlighten people. I give you Alex Jones on the right and the rise of the anti-vaxxers on the left. face it, technology will spread myths and misinformation plenty. People will be weaponized for causes by charismatic leaders just as easily.

We are a species of followers and religion's demise would not change that.

I'm not saying that if religion were gone, something wouldn't fill its void. But - as WFR said - isn't that just speculation at this point? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

The two worlds being at each other's throats for over a century theory is simplistic. Several scholars have thoroughly dismantled the Huntington thesis and it's really not quite difficult to do. As just one example you can take a look at the transmission of philosophical works on logic and other works like in medicine that are indebted to all the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim fingers that laid hands on them. This all happened in parallel with the wars that are typical of the middle ages. Of course different groups of different religions warred with each other, but they also warred amongst themselves. That has more to do with the decentralized nature of political organization before the rise of centralized nation-states in the 1900s than it has anything to do with uniform religious bodies warring against others of a different religious persuasion. You can take the African slave trade as an example where Africans sold fellow Africans, including Muslims and Christians, into slavery to Western traders. If you subscribe to the Huntington thesis then this is an impossibility because the nature of relationships between different polities is clear-cut: the Africans would never help the "enemy," especially by selling their own into slavery to make a profit. That did obviously happen, as did several thousand other events that complicate this false dichotomy. The us vs them thesis is a more simplified take on events that is easy to understand but ultimately wrong when forwarded as a general explanation of the last 1000 plus years.

That is exactly my point, remove religion and something else will fill the void for the people who would otherwise be religious. As for technology spreading knowledge, you have way too much faith in humanity if you think it's only going to enlighten people. I give you Alex Jones on the right and the rise of the anti-vaxxers on the left. face it, technology will spread myths and misinformation plenty. People will be weaponized for causes by charismatic leaders just as easily.

We are a species of followers and religion's demise would not change that.

I'd point to civilizations where religion was done away with, the state has always come and filled that void. Instead of being religious fanatics the people become nationalistic fanatics.