Violence is au natural

[Wootah]

If evolution is true doesn't that explain all violence?

Why do evolutionists worry about a natural subset of violence which may be called relgious violence?

Is this a survival mechanism of evolutionists or a reproductive advantage to worry about such things?

[bluethread]

Are you surprised that this would cause worry amongst those deemed to be different and lesser by those known to use violence to push their agenda of claimed superiority?

Well, that is not inherent in theism. That is violent elitism, if indeed that is the only reason for the violence. What makes you think that theistic violent elitism is any different than secular progressive violent elitism, or any other ideological violent elitism? Isn't than a justification for abortion on demand, that the mother is inherently superior to the baby?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 9 by Wootah]

Christianity and Islam are the two most relevant in my society. Need I go into detail on how they are divisive, given the current climate?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 9 by Wootah]

Christianity and Islam are the two most relevant in my society. Need I go into detail on how they are divisive, given the current climate?

Of course you need to go on. They are inclusive. Anyone can choose to become a Muslim or a Christian.

What does divisiveness matter in terms of this discussion? And further to that, beware unity, that's the mask worn by fascists.

How is secularism inclusive?

wiki: 'Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity).'

Its chief goal is the separation of church and state. That's the opposite of inclusive.

[Tcg]

And further to that, beware unity, that's the mask worn by fascists.

Psalm 133:1

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!"

In light of this Psalm written by David, your method to identify fascists is quite fascinating. Of course I'm not sure if you are accusing King David or the God who inspired these words of being a fascist. Perhaps your warning applies to both.

[Wootah]

And further to that, beware unity, that's the mask worn by fascists.

Psalm 133:1

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!"

In light of this Psalm written by David, your method to identify fascists is quite fascinating. Of course I'm not sure if you are accusing King David or the God who inspired these words of being a fascist. Perhaps your warning applies to both.

It's interesting because when any group are united we do see how strong those bonds appear. It doesnt mean that their beliefs are correct. You could listen to psalm 133:1 and my advice. The worst of Christianity is often rooted in trying to impose unity.

[Bust Nak]

Of course you need to go on. They are inclusive. Anyone can choose to become a Muslim or a Christian.

Right, but that just leaves out those who don't choose to become a Muslim or a Christian. Same sex marriage/homosexuality is a big thing. Start there. Islamic sharia law is another big one, along with the (granted, easier to swallow) Christian counterpart.

What does divisiveness matter in terms of this discussion? And further to that, beware unity, that's the mask worn by fascists.

Divisiveness means increased violence in the context of this discussion. Sure fascists calls for unity, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

How is secularism inclusive?

Its chief goal is the separation of church and state. That's the opposite of inclusive.

Meh, that's just the linguistic paradox of "being intolerant to intolerance," or in this case "excluding those who are exclusive."

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I am sure the rationalisations are just as easy for Muslims to make. Aren't you meant to face the problems in your arguments front on?

[Bust Nak]

I am sure the rationalisations are just as easy for Muslims to make.

Rationalisations as opposed to rational explanation?

Aren't you meant to face the problems in your arguments front on?

Of course. I take it you have further objections against what I said in my last post?

[William]

The nature of this universe is violent, no doubt about that. It might be argued that to exist within it and resist the urge to express violence is a mark of achievement - a sign that one is willing to be unnatural about things.

Violence comes in a variety of expression. Even in giving false witness against another, and the harm such causes, or being a victim of abuse and make victims of others because of that.

It would be unnatural for humans to create gods which were not violent, or to think that any GOD which created this universe did not have a violent streak.

A Christian asked me recently - we were talking about enemies and justice - he asked "If someone got into your home while you were at work and raped and murdered your wife, would you not consider him an enemy and want justice done?"

My short answer was "no". Does that mean I am unnatural? Some would say 'yes' and others 'no', and certainly the Christian was taken aback by my answer.

He wanted to know 'why' of course, so I explained to him what I had learned in the dynamics of human behavior, that ultimately what keeps the domino falling is that the initial victimizer hurts and the victim who doesn't learn how to heal will inevitably make a victim of someone else, so until someone steps out of that pattern, the dominoes naturally enough keep falling.

The Christian continued arguing that justice needed to happen, and I said to him that my reaction had nothing to do with whether justice was done or not.

I then pretended that Jesus was standing there with us and asked the invisible entity in the room "What should I do if my wife is raped and murdered Jesus?" and then pretended to answer for Jesus "You should turn the other cheek William. You should forgive your enemies."

I explained to the Christian that I could not change what had happened, but I could choose how I reacted to it and the rapist wanted to make me and everyone close to my wife, a victim of his actions. My choice was to refuse him that.

Is that acting against the natural tendency toward violence? Probably. We know nowadays that there are better ways to express our individual energy into the world, if we so choose.

Violence is violence and I see no point in labeling it as 'okay' in atheistic expression, but 'not okay' in theistic expression. Essentially it is 'not okay'...