Satanic Baphomet statue unvealed in Detroit

[SoulMonster]

No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods.

That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.

It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".

[Len Cnut]

Wouldnt a simpler answer to this discussion be that you refuse to entertain the concept of faith and based on that religion is bullshit? It would encapsulate the point more clearly and save you from having to get bogged down in specifics. Whats the point in getting into the specifics if you refuse to entertain the ideas and concepts that those specifics are predicated on?

[SoulMonster]

Wouldnt a simpler answer to this discussion be that you refuse to entertain the concept of faith and based on that religion is bullshit? It would encapsulate the point more clearly and save you from having to get bogged down in specifics. Whats the point in getting into the specifics if you refuse to entertain the ideas and concepts that those specifics are predicated on?

I have entertained the concept of faith. It is the belief in something without proof. I am pointing out that one cannot explain one's belief in gods by saying "it is faith" and expect that to be a satisfactory explanation. It's like saying "I believe in unicorns because I believe in things without proof". It is redundant.

[Len Cnut]

Wouldnt a simpler answer to this discussion be that you refuse to entertain the concept of faith and based on that religion is bullshit? It would encapsulate the point more clearly and save you from having to get bogged down in specifics. Whats the point in getting into the specifics if you refuse to entertain the ideas and concepts that those specifics are predicated on?

I have entertained the concept of faith. It is the belief in something without proof. I am pointing out that one cannot explain one's belief in gods by saying "it is faith" and expect that to be a satisfactory explanation. It's like saying "I believe in unicorns because I believe in things without proof". It is redundant.

So then why bother arguing with someone about the specifics of religion? It's gonna get nowhere because you don't accept the fundamental precept, which is faith. Thats not entertaining the concept of faith, thats understanding it...but you consider it to be false right?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Lithium]

The bottom line is that having faith in something doesn't mean that it exists. It might seem very real to the person, but it does not mean that it exists like the chair he or she is sitting on exists.

[SoulMonster]

Wouldnt a simpler answer to this discussion be that you refuse to entertain the concept of faith and based on that religion is bullshit? It would encapsulate the point more clearly and save you from having to get bogged down in specifics. Whats the point in getting into the specifics if you refuse to entertain the ideas and concepts that those specifics are predicated on?

I have entertained the concept of faith. It is the belief in something without proof. I am pointing out that one cannot explain one's belief in gods by saying "it is faith" and expect that to be a satisfactory explanation. It's like saying "I believe in unicorns because I believe in things without proof". It is redundant.

So then why bother arguing with someone about the specifics of religion? It's gonna get nowhere because you don't accept the fundamental precept, which is faith. Thats not entertaining the concept of faith, thats understanding it...but you consider it to be false right?

I don't consider "faith" to be false. It is a very real belief in something without proof. What I am saying is that arguing that believers don't need proof because they have faith is circular logic. They have faith because they don't have proof.

What I am also objecting too is this notion that their particular belief in something without proof is worthy of its own term like it is special to all other kinds of unfounded beliefs. Well, if "faith" is so special, then go ahead and tell us what is so special about it and which makes it different from all other kinds of belief in things without proof. As far as I see it, the only point is to make "faith" stand out as a belief that is somehow sacred and beyond criticism. Like when they try to stop questions into why they believe by saying, "because I have faith" and leaving it at that, as if that was of any help and was not just another way of saying that they suffer from some mass delusion.

[Len Cnut]

I don't consider "faith" to be false. It is a very real belief in something without proof. What I am saying is that arguing that believers don't need proof because they have faith is circular logic. They have faith because they don't have proof.

What do you call someone that tells people what they are thinking instead of allowing their explanations regarding the workings of their own minds and beliefs stand for themselves?

What I am also objecting too is this notion that their particular belief in something without proof is worthy of its own term like it is special to all other kinds of unfounded beliefs.

Well it is to them and thats the function of it, its a personal thing. In the same way my passions and interests etc are special to me, i don't care if you understand, i don't care if you agree, thats the point, it's mine, it's personal. A person can explain and you can disagree but thats where it ends because beyond that you get into what Dies' was talking about, pushing for empirical proof for something that doesn't work on that basis.

Well, if "faith" is so special, then go ahead and tell us what is so special about it and which makes it different from all other kinds of belief in things without proof.

Because of the way it speaks to that particular person who is espousing those beliefs and makes sense to the sum of their life experience up to that point, it is literally that case-specific, it can explain and make sense of everything to them from the reason why the world is round to why they felt particularly euphoric and exhuberant at 3:37am on Friday the 22nd June 1987, do you understand what I am getting at?

How about this? Explain to me how you felt when your daughter was born? Or how you feel about the fact that shes alive? Or how she makes you feel in general? (you better not say 'i don't give a shit one way or the other!' cuz it's gonna ruin my point Play along! )

As far as I see it, the only point is to make "faith" stand out as a belief that is somehow sacred and beyond criticism.

I don't suppose it's the concept of faith in and of itself...more like their specific faith in whatever given belief it is, or religion or whatever. It's not the same thing as my faith that Tyson Fury will beat Wladmir Klitschko in October

Like when they try to stop questions into why they believe by saying, "because I have faith" and leaving it at that

Thats an awfully pompuous thing to say Soulie, you are approaching this thing with the fundamental personal belief that these are people that are coming from a place that is not pure of heart, a place that is fundamentally crooked...it's at this point that people lose respect for your argument, the presumption that they are trying to stop questions into their belief cuz the insinuation there is that, somewhere inside they think it is bullshit too. It also makes your motives in engaging in the discussion appear to be somewhat suspect too, like you're trying to beat a confession out of people or something.

as if that was of any help and was not just another way of saying that they suffer from some mass delusion.

It appears you have your mind made up soooo

[DieselDaisy]

No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods.

That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.

It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".

You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work. The Shinto deities certainly interact; they do it every time a volcano erupts. Catholicism claims to have certifiable examples of divine intervention. The point I am trying to make with Calvinistic branches of Protestantism is, this temporal world is meant to have a complete absence of god. Faith is what supplies the true Christian with the mental discipline to survive it.

[DieselDaisy]

The bottom line is that having faith in something doesn't mean that it exists. It might seem very real to the person, but it does not mean that it exists like the chair he or she is sitting on exists.

I think you need to look up the word faith here as you have created an antithetical conundrum there with that rendering,

Faith

faith (countable and uncountable, plural faiths)

1. The reasoning of beliefs hoped true by the proof of things, such asphilosophy, that are without the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

See what I mean? If it was ''with the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch'' rather than ''without..'' then ''faith'' is not the word you are looking for. Or another way to put it is, the very absence of evidence is inherent to the concept of faith. If you want to be grammatical about it then 'faith' is inherently in the subjunctive - witness ''hoped true''.

[Lithium]

Well it is to them and thats the function of it, its a personal thing. In the same way my passions and interests etc are special to me, i don't care if you understand, i don't care if you agree, thats the point, it's mine, it's personal. A person can explain and you can disagree but thats where it ends because beyond that you get into what Dies' was talking about, pushing for empirical proof for something that doesn't work on that basis.

The problem arises when religion stops being personal and becomes a collective mindset. When people force it on their kids and insist that it should shape the society they live in.

The bottom line is that having faith in something doesn't mean that it exists. It might seem very real to the person, but it does not mean that it exists like the chair he or she is sitting on exists.

I think you need to look up the word faith here as you have created an antithetical conundrum there with that rendering,

Faith

faith (countable and uncountable, plural faiths)

1. The reasoning of beliefs hoped true by the proof of things, such asphilosophy, that are without the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

See what I mean? If it was ''with the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch'' rather than ''without..'' then ''faith'' is not the word you are looking for. Or another way to put it is, the very absence of evidence is inherent to the concept of faith. If you want to be grammatical about it then 'faith' is inherently in the subjunctive - witness ''hoped true''.

I have no idea what you are on about.

[DieselDaisy]

It is very simple. You said ''having faith in something doesn't mean that it exists''. My point is, If you possessed evidence of something's existence then you are no longer dealing with the concept of 'faith': you are merely dealing with cognitive empiricism.

You have basically created a semantic straw man.

[Len Cnut]

The problem arises when religion stops being personal and becomes a collective mindset. When people force it on their kids and insist that it should shape the society they live in.

You can't realy use the word 'force' when speaking about the way people choose to raise their kids. As far as shaping the society they live in I suppose you have a point but thats something thats been massively dilluted in the 21st Century and looks set to continue on that path, even to the point of a great many religions compromising their fundamental principles to adhere more to the way the world is today. There are glaring exceptions but it's a work in progress I suppose. It's not like it's the fuckin' 16th Century and the church has some kinda governing hand in the way society works.

[Lithium]

The problem arises when religion stops being personal and becomes a collective mindset. When people force it on their kids and insist that it should shape the society they live in.

You can't realy use the word 'force' when speaking about the way people choose to raise their kids. As far as shaping the society they live in I suppose you have a point but thats something thats been massively dilluted in the 21st Century and looks set to continue on that path, even to the point of a great many religions compromising their fundamental principles to adhere more to the way the world is today. There are glaring exceptions but it's a work in progress I suppose. It's not like it's the fuckin' 16th Century and the church has some kinda governing hand in the way society works.

"Force" might be too fierce of an expression, but many religious people don't really give their kids much of a choice when they push their own beliefs onto them. You're right about religion's role in society, but we still have countries where it plays a massive part, such as Iran, not to mention recent world leaders like Bush, who supposedly claimed that "God" told him to invade Iraq.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Lithium

[Len Cnut]

Religion may frame a great many of the conflicts of the world but at the same time, on close inspection, you could just as easily argue that they are fuelled by things like imperialism as well as, and this ones a little scary, capitalism.

I mean was the Iraq war really a religious war? Quite frankly the ones that argue that, in terms of the participants, to my mind anyway, are the ones that have been had. Religion is as dysfunctional as democracy, capitalism, any number of ways of life that we accept and embrace, with our best response to criticisms being 'well it's not perfect but it's the best we've come up with so far'.

[Lithium]

Of course, other things than religion have also caused suffering. But that doesn't make all the suffering it actually has caused any less pointless.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Lithium

[Len Cnut]

The point I'm making is more explicit than that, what I'm saying is a lot of the misery laid at religions door is down to other things. Wars is the go to thing isn't it? 'look at all the wars religion has caused', not as many as money I'd say. The point I was making wasn't 'other things have caused suffering so lets absolve religions culpability', i was saying a lot of what is blamed on religion isn't really so much to do with religion.

[SoulMonster]

I don't consider "faith" to be false. It is a very real belief in something without proof. What I am saying is that arguing that believers don't need proof because they have faith is circular logic. They have faith because they don't have proof.

What do you call someone that tells people what they are thinking instead of allowing their explanations regarding the workings of their own minds and beliefs stand for themselves?

What I am also objecting too is this notion that their particular belief in something without proof is worthy of its own term like it is special to all other kinds of unfounded beliefs.

Well it is to them and thats the function of it, its a personal thing. In the same way my passions and interests etc are special to me, i don't care if you understand, i don't care if you agree, thats the point, it's mine, it's personal. A person can explain and you can disagree but thats where it ends because beyond that you get into what Dies' was talking about, pushing for empirical proof for something that doesn't work on that basis.

Well, if "faith" is so special, then go ahead and tell us what is so special about it and which makes it different from all other kinds of belief in things without proof.

Because of the way it speaks to that particular person who is espousing those beliefs and makes sense to the sum of their life experience up to that point, it is literally that case-specific, it can explain and make sense of everything to them from the reason why the world is round to why they felt particularly euphoric and exhuberant at 3:37am on Friday the 22nd June 1987, do you understand what I am getting at?

How about this? Explain to me how you felt when your daughter was born? Or how you feel about the fact that shes alive? Or how she makes you feel in general? (you better not say 'i don't give a shit one way or the other!' cuz it's gonna ruin my point Play along! )

As far as I see it, the only point is to make "faith" stand out as a belief that is somehow sacred and beyond criticism.

I don't suppose it's the concept of faith in and of itself...more like their specific faith in whatever given belief it is, or religion or whatever. It's not the same thing as my faith that Tyson Fury will beat Wladmir Klitschko in October

Like when they try to stop questions into why they believe by saying, "because I have faith" and leaving it at that

Thats an awfully pompuous thing to say Soulie, you are approaching this thing with the fundamental personal belief that these are people that are coming from a place that is not pure of heart, a place that is fundamentally crooked...it's at this point that people lose respect for your argument, the presumption that they are trying to stop questions into their belief cuz the insinuation there is that, somewhere inside they think it is bullshit too. It also makes your motives in engaging in the discussion appear to be somewhat suspect too, like you're trying to beat a confession out of people or something.

as if that was of any help and was not just another way of saying that they suffer from some mass delusion.

It appears you have your mind made up soooo

Thanks for letting me know that faith is a personal thing All belief is personal. On the other hand, I wish theists would keep their beliefs a bit more personal, though

I think you are misunderstanding completely what I am writing. In fact, it doesn't seem like you have even read what I am saying. You are arguing about faith being personal and then that we can't ask for empirical proof. I have never said that anyone should proove their faith What I am saying is that a god that interacts with the material world must per definition leave traces that can be observed, measured, detected, quantified, etc. The fact that no such observations have ever been made, strongly suggest no such gods exist (reducing the types of potential gods to the deism type). And if you still believe in such gods, then that belief exists despite a lack of evidence. And per definition is another word for such unfounded beliefs "faith".

I have made my mind up? About what exactly? That Faith is belief in the absence of evidence? Well, that is sort of the definition . That there is no evidence for gods interacting with the world? Yeah, that is also pretty well established. Do you disagree with anything of this?

[SoulMonster]

No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods.

That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.

It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".

You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.

No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.

Religion may frame a great many of the conflicts of the world but at the same time, on close inspection, you could just as easily argue that they are fuelled by things like imperialism as well as, and this ones a little scary, capitalism.

The fact that most conflicts and wars tend to have a multitude of reasons is a trivial as the fact that one particularly frequent cause is religion. For some conflicts and wars religion is the predominant cause, and these we refer to as "religious wars/conflicts".

[Len Cnut]

Thanks for letting me know that faith is a personal thing All belief is personal.

You're most welcome my dear What i was trying to explain is that the fact they are personal is why you can't expect broad justifications for them that fit all because reasons for believing are different from person to person.

I have never said that anyone should proove their faith What I am saying is that a god that interacts with the material world must per definition leave traces that can be observed, measured, detected, quantified, etc. The fact that no such observations have ever been made, strongly suggest no such gods exist (reducing the types of potential gods to the deism type). And if you still believe in such gods, then that belief exists despite a lack of evidence. And per definition is another word for such unfounded beliefs "faith".

Well explain their faith then. And yes it exists without evidence because if they had evidence then it wouldn't be faith, would it? I'm regurgitating what Dies' said here

I have made my mind up? About what exactly?

That you think people who believe in religions are cunts and you seek to cunt them off You don't approach these things with a kind of open mindedness to where you seek to understand the other party but rather just to give em one up the arse with your particular world-view, i think you understand full well the nature of the counter-argument you're being presented with, it's just what you want is for the other party to go 'yes Soulie, you're absolutely right!' When you refer to these things as 'mass delusion' and or with the assumption that people claim faith just so's they don't have to provide evidence, thats basically accusing all people of faith as being charlatans, to a person of faith i imagine thats quite insulting. It's you telling people what they are thinking and refusing to accept their explanations regarding their faith.

This is why people fear your sort of worldview, because of their fascist tendency you have trying to tell people what they think and why they think that way. Now i know you to be a wonderful blunderful cuddley bunny underneath it all but I can see how you might be mite bit unnerved by your particular brand of reasoning

[Lithium]

The point I'm making is more explicit than that, what I'm saying is a lot of the misery laid at religions door is down to other things. Wars is the go to thing isn't it? 'look at all the wars religion has caused', not as many as money I'd say. The point I was making wasn't 'other things have caused suffering so lets absolve religions culpability', i was saying a lot of what is blamed on religion isn't really so much to do with religion.

And my point is that despite of this, religion has caused a lot of pointless suffering throughout history.

[ZoSoRose]

We also have this statue of a guy boning another guy in Birmingham, MI which is about 20 minutes from Detroit

[Len Cnut]

We also have this statue of a guy boning another guy in Birmingham, MI which is about 20 minutes from Detroit

Maybe it's a statue about falling change, one guys reaching in his pocket to see if it's his and the other guys bending over to pick it up? You're just mucky minded ZoSo

Are there a lot of bandits in Detroit then?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Val22]

Very freaky looking.

[DieselDaisy]

No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods.

That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.

It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".

You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.

No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.

Because you never have given an example of what god you implied! Your description of constant human-theistic interaction best suits the various gods and goddesses of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, whereby the God's come and fight alongside the humans over Troy and conduct love affairs and father various heroic humans.

The fact that most conflicts and wars tend to have a multitude of reasons is a trivial as the fact that one particularly frequent cause is religion. For some conflicts and wars religion is the predominant cause, and these we refer to as "religious wars/conflicts".

If we are discussing modern history, religion's influence on warfare is overrated. A few exceptions aside (e.g. Ireland), there has not been a major religious conflict in western history since the late 17th century. You can count off the last major wars - The Seven Years' War, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil, German Unification Wars, the First and Second - and none of them have anything to do with history really. You really have to turn the clock back quite far to find evidence of religion being a cause for endemic warfare in western Europe whereas far eastern history religion has for a large part always proceeded in a spirit of benevolence - witness the proliferation of Buddhism into China and Japan, sitting aside but not replacing the indigenous beliefs. The one place you have to look is the powder keg of the middle east and even then, tribal politics and racial hatred and statist reasons (e.g. Israel's existence) are just as much a motive for warfare as religion.

And my point is that despite of this, religion has caused a lot of pointless suffering throughout history.

...and removed a lot of suffering. Black chattel slavery would not have been abolished as soon as it did without the protestant zealotry; protestant denominations such as those connected with the American evangelical 'Great Awakening' and Wesley's Methodist movement. They provided the abolition movement on both sides of the Atlantic with most of its rank and file - in fact it was the Quakers who were the first to condemn slavery in the 17th century. Evangelical philanthropy also had a lasting impact in other ways, ameliorating social conditions in factories and crowded tenement houses, helping establish foundling hospitals and institutes for 'fallen women'' as well as providing armies with their first modern field hospitals, etc. (more painful to my eyes, they also fueled the temperance movements!).

[Dazey]

No, I am not asking the wrong questions of religion. I am pointing out that a god that supposedly interacts with the material world must leave some traces of its existence (because, if not there wouldn't be any interaction), and if it doesn't then what we have is indistinguishable from a world without any such gods.

That is not necessarily true though and numerous deistic and pantheistic beliefs render it more untrue.

It is precisely true that a god that interacts with the material world would leave some traces of its existence, because interaction per definition means that this contact influences the material world and causes some kind of change. I am not saying that all kinds of interactions are measurable, today, nor that they would be necesarrily blatantly supernatural in characte, but the kind of interactions that is expected from a deity, would mostly, surely be both measurable and supernatural (like answering prayers, making miracles, flauting the laws of nature as we know them, distorting outcome probabilities, etc). A deistic god, on the other hand, does not interact with the world, per definition, and a pantheistic god is the world itself, so these two god types do not fit into what I refer to as a "interacting god".

You seem to be changing the concept of religion to make your argument work.

No, I am not talking about religion, never have, I am talking about a sub-set of deities that followers claim to interact with the world, and that no such interactions have never been objectivelly observed. Just look at the quote from my first post, it clearly says "a god that supposedly interacts with the material world". That is the premise for the rest I am saying. I can't make it much clearer than that, can I? Yet you continously try to bring in other types of gods.

Because you never have given an example of what god you implied! Your description of constant human-theistic interaction best suits the various gods and goddesses of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, whereby the God's come and fight alongside the humans over Troy and conduct love affairs and father various heroic humans.

The fact that most conflicts and wars tend to have a multitude of reasons is a trivial as the fact that one particularly frequent cause is religion. For some conflicts and wars religion is the predominant cause, and these we refer to as "religious wars/conflicts".

If we are discussing modern history, religion's influence on warfare is overrated. A few exceptions aside (e.g. Ireland), there has not been a major religious conflict in western history since the late 17th century. You can count off the last major wars - The Seven Years' War, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil, German Unification Wars, the First and Second - and none of them have anything to do with history really. You really have to turn the clock back quite far to find evidence of religion being a cause for endemic warfare in western Europe whereas far eastern history religion has for a large part always proceeded in a spirit of benevolence - witness the proliferation of Buddhism into China and Japan, sitting aside but not replacing the indigenous beliefs. The one place you have to look is the powder keg of the middle east and even then, tribal politics and racial hatred and statist reasons (e.g. Israel's existence) are just as much a motive for warfare as religion.

And my point is that despite of this, religion has caused a lot of pointless suffering throughout history.

...and removed a lot of suffering. Black chattel slavery would not have been abolished as soon as it did without the protestant zealotry; protestant denominations such as those connected with the American evangelical 'Great Awakening' and Wesley's Methodist movement. They provided the abolition movement on both sides of the Atlantic with most of its rank and file - in fact it was the Quakers who were the first to condemn slavery in the 17th century. Evangelical philanthropy also had a lasting impact in other ways, ameliorating social conditions in factories and crowded tenement houses, helping establish foundling hospitals and institutes for 'fallen women'' as well as providing armies with their first modern field hospitals, etc. (more painful to my eyes, they also fueled the temperance movements!).

But it's NOT REAL!!!!!!