Just to add my 0.2¥:

A lot of the stuff in this thread is a non-issue. In Shadowrun, the major denominations of Christianity (incl. Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Reform Protestantism) agree that there is a distinction between magic and miracle. According to SR Christian doctrine (described as far back as the Grimoire), Magic (including the conjuration of spirits) is not divine in nature (hence not absolute, omnipresent, omniscent and all-powerful). It is simply the manipulation of a natural force, just like any other, that God has placed on the Earth. Church magicians practicing Theurgy are bound by this doctrine.

This means that when a Sylvestrine, a New Templar or an Exarch calls forth an "angel", he is fully aware that he is not calling forth a divine messenger or representative of the Host. He is conjuring an archetypical representation of the elemental forces associated with a particular choir/dominion. The true nature of that archetypical incarnate is what makes conjuration such an issue to Christian doctrine.

Regardless, Catholic history is full of examples of Saints getting the shaft when following the commands of God (Joan of Arc comes to mind) and it does not reflect any less on the omnipotence and omniscence of God in the eyes of Catholics. There's no reason why even the defeat of a (percieved) envoy of God would be seen any differently. In essence it is no different from a priest today evoking the aid of a Saint and not getting it (the Saint is no less saintly or touched by the divine if nothing happens).

When someone dies a martyr, it is their decision to die and they have accepted the fact that they are willing to die for their faith. They are not going to curse God, when they decided to die for Him.

This thread has been remarkably tame. When I started it I expected to get 4 good ideas, 8 meiocre ones, and a 14 page flame war. Instead it's gone 9 pages with only a few minor flareups that were quickly doused and usually arose from misunderstandings.

One thing religion has over the other factors you mentioned is it's ability to remove the fear from dying on the battlefield. Properly handled you can make your troops ready and willing to die. Without religion death on the field would be a permanent part of the battle. It's kinda like "go out there and fight. If you die you get to go to heaven and have 77 virgins, none of which are 40 years old." vs. "go out there and fight. If you die you're gone forever, but at least you'll have managed to die an American."

What really works best is when you have multiple factors working together, such as Islamic Fundamentalism ("come get your virgins for killing" + Ethnicity ("The Man wants our sulture stomped out") + social dispariites ("they worship the dollar"). Then you have a cause people want to fight for, and soldiers unafraid of death.

I think if religion went away, and took with it the promise of an afterlife, there would be a lot less people fighting wars. Wars wouldn't go away altogether of course, as people will still die for causes they believe in.

no, it was going to be 5 good ideas, 6 mediocre ones, 15 pages of flames, and you're a stupid-head.

the thing about there being fewer wars if there were no religion... see, that's complicated. are you talking about just removing religion from the picture, but leaving in the human tendency to worship things (gods, ethnic groups, celebrities, politicians)? because if so, i don't see wars declining at all; humans are inventive enough to make up reasons to kill each other without religion's help. but if you're talking about changing humans such that they no longer worship things... well, jeez. i can't even imagine what humans would be like, after that.

but just removing the afterlife... hm. i dunno, maybe. i'm not sure you'd see fewer wars, but you might see fewer soldiers.

yeah, that'd do it. on the other hand, nobody would ever accomplish anything, and the whole human race would probably die out in less than a century.

well, given the number of religious people in the world who aren't committing atrocities...

To be honest, there might be a few, but I think most of the religious attrocities have more human ambition and motivations to them. I don't think the crusades were "holy spirit" inspired.

yeah. at most, religion tends to be a handy excuse for things that you wanted to do anyway.

i think it applies to soldiers as well. most of them--the ones who fight for religion, at any rate--are young people who want a cause to fight for. zealotry is like a drug; it takes away all responsibility and concern. religion is a better supplier than most.

Oooh, well said.

yeah, but--wait, what is this? agreement!? you're screwing with the rhythm, man!

Some people just refuse to play ball.

Oops, sorry.
Um, dirty girls are better than virgins! Who wants to argue with me?
(just kidding, please don't, I like this thread and wouldn't want to see it closed)

If I've learned anything from modern music it's that Catholic school girls rule.

How many Islamic Fundamentalists feel that blowing themselves up on a bus will get them into paradise? Because something is not true for one group does not make it untrue for all. Even now, with the draft gone, Americans are still lining up to fight in the Middle East. Most of them want to avenge wrongs, but there are also a lot that just "wanna kill Hadji."

if you take the fundamentalist islam out of a suicide bomber, i don't believe you'll end up with a peaceful guy. i think you'll probably end up with a guy who plants bombs on busses and leaves, rather than strapping a bomb onto himself.

I'd be willing to bet big money that there are thousands more fundamentalist bombers than not. I know there are more misguided fundamentalist bombers than logical and educated ones, because Islam plainly teaches that any kind of murder is wrong, but the fundamentalists read that as "killing a Mulim is wrong."

Terrorists certainly wouldn't go away, but one of the reasons for being a bomber ("he's an infidel and you'll go to heaven with free nookie forever") goes away when you remove heaven from the equation.

Of course, if you remove religion and don't replace it with another method of teaching morality you'll probably end up with a worse world. The problem in my opinion is that many religions teach that hate is an acceptable part of morality. And I don't just mean the fundamentalists whose "explosive outbursts" put them on the front page. You can still find idiots who will tell you that the Bible says that Blacks are not human, or that the Koran says that women are lesser beings.

Suicide bombing campaigns are the brainchild of nationalist terrorists/irregulars/freedom fighters, only that was (and very much is) far, far away from anything our media and viewing public deems interesting, so we only really hear about the suicide bombing carried out by religious fundamentalists.

I always figured suicide bombings were the brainchild of someone who was either a) retarded, b) hated the people who believed in his cause, or c) all of the above.

there may very well currently be more fundamentalist bombers than other types. bombers--terrorism in general--is only a small part of the larger picture, though. for instance, the longest, bloodiest, most horriffic wars tend to be based on ethnicity rather than religion.

True, which is one of the many reasons I said wars would not go away. Religious wars would go away. Whether they'd be replaced or not is anybody's guess.

i have faith in the ability of humanity to come up with a variety of excuses to take the place of religion.

I think it's an oversimplification to think that islamic fundamentalists blow themselves up just to gain a free pass to paradise. From my perspective, this kind of mentality has to be fueled by large quantities of percieved persecution, impotent rage, and hopelessness more than anything else.

Trying to draw parallels to a [vaguely] SR-type scenario:

I don't think anyone has said they blow themselves up just because of religion, but I think a lot of them would find other things to do if blowing yourself up didn't come with perks.

You mean like their family getting a check from a Saudi-government sponsored charity?

Not all the perks are intangible.

well, yeah--they'd blow other things up, rather than themselves.

SL James: You can buy bombers with money with or without religion. Religion gives you free ones too.

mfb: Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't bet money against it, but it's not a given.

i personally view it as a given.

Different strokes for different folks.

Also true.

How's that for "kinder, gentler James?" Agreeing with mfb and SL James in the same day, and even in the same thread!