I think the whole world could not understand World War I. I have some clues; for instance, that search for a national identity on the part of the European peoples became a grab for power. The feeling was "If we don't have power, they will overcome us."
The nature of new types of armaments and chemicals intensified the tragedy of the war, and I think this was completely unforeseen by the leaders. Also, the very character of the Kaiser (Wilhelm II) was a major factor in its onset.

It is not only not to be ignored, it is not to be feared. There is much in the world that needs resolving, and together the two countries can do much to help. Not "carve up" as some have said on another forum, but resolve.

I have too. Trump is the only Republican who could have been elected. Cruz and Rubio, though admirable, could never have collected the blue-collar workers.

Mankind's evolution, of any sort, involved his nature. Many wars were fought under the banner of God, sure, but it was man's nature that was the actual cause. Unless you see that, you will never be able to understand history.

You need to undertake a study of human nature. And I am NOT referring to any kind of religious nature.
I didn't say your argument was anti-religious. I said you attempt to give every historical event a religious context.
I don't care one way or the other whether you're religious or anti-religious. Just trying to tell you that mankind's development and history involved more than religion.

Perhaps you are saying I am defending religion. That is an absurdity and not based rationally on any statement I made. On the contrary, it is you who are getting defensive. I mention that I don't consider the barbarian invasions as a Medieval phenomenon and you think I am referring to religion, or...something besides just an historical event. I wonder if you feel you have your back against a wall.
I said I don't have, and never have had, any intention of trying to convert any atheist to a belief in God. That is your choice. My study of history involved more than religion; apparently yours hasn't.

That statement is incomprehensible to me. Said about what? Maybe the comments and replies aren't in sync.

Well, you had a chance to teach me, but deferred.

It isn't me, thor. You see every historical event as if it resulted from religious motivation alone. Difficult for me to discuss with you the intellectual (I won't say spiritual anymore, as you jump to the conclusion that I am referring to some kind of supernatural phenomenon) evolution of man in its only real context, that of anthropological developments. Or even man's evolution in an historical sense.
I guess what I am trying to say is, whether you think religion is a good thing or a bad thing, it has been a large part of man's intellectual and moral evolution, as well as his history.
One example from our discussions: when you say "tolerance" you are referring to religious tolerance alone. I see tolerance in a much broader sense, just as I view the pre-history and the history of mankind.

Have you ever heard the expression: "The long childhood of man and the long childhood of mankind are mutually recapitulative"? It is my thesis, one that I came up with after studying both child psychology and anthropology and history.

Don't have the time. So sorry.

I'm only talking about history. Again, you're reading more into my post than was intended.
To clarify, these invasions occurred prior to, and slightly following, the fall of the Roman Empire. Medieval European civilization came after that. It seems to me that maybe because you know I am a God-believer, and I'm not sure how you determined that, everything I say or post must have a religious basis. Either that, or you're more hung up about religion than I thought.

I have no idea what vindictive capitalism, I mean capitalization is. Anymore than I know what AGW is. All I'm trying to say is I never try to convert atheists. Seems you read more meaning into that post than I wanted to put.