19 dead, 50 injured, after terror attack

[Aroura]

[brewer]

Yep, let's keep talking about Catholics and Catholic priests in a thread about a suicide bombing done by a radical Islamist who killed dozens of people. Because the handful of threads already dedicated to that aren't enough, and because somehow... all people of faith (especially Christians) hold some blame over what some nut job Islamist does.

I'm outta here.

Yeah, it's always funny how certain people manage to turn a thread about Islamic terrorism into a discussion about Christianity. A Muslim blew up a concert full of teenagers and children? Christians are to blame, obviously!  

Referring back to my post which I believe got this started (let me know if I'm wrong) it was to point out that all religions have this flaw. If it's done by the religious or in religions/gods name then religion is to blame (at least in part, there may be other motives), I don't care what religion. And if christians think they occupy some moral higher ground just because atrocities done in their name are not current, they are incorrect.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Apologists? Bloody hell.

People bring up other religions because Abrahamic religions are violent. Only the Jews have managed to stay non-violent (to some degree), and they have been horrible victims of it. People are simply tired of religious folks killing other people because we don't bow down to their gods. That's all. It's perfectly relevant.

That said, I don't adhere to that philosophy. I was merely making a pseudo-joke based on someone else bringing up the Crusades. I think people will always find reasons to hurt each other, with or without religion.

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

[Shell B]

Apologists? Bloody hell.

People bring up other religions because Abrahamic religions are violent. Only the Jews have managed to stay non-violent (to some degree), and they have been horrible victims of it. People are simply tired of religious folks killing other people because we don't bow down to their gods. That's all. It's perfectly relevant.

That said, I don't adhere to that philosophy. I was merely making a pseudo-joke based on someone else bringing up the Crusades. I think people will always find reasons to hurt each other, with or without religion.

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

That's an extraordinarily deep question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I think it's probably a combination of human nature and choice. We know for certain that there are primal parts of our brain that tend to be more impusive/violent. Therefore, it is in our nature. This is controlled to some degree by other parts of our brain that curb our impulsivity. They don't always work or are overridden by extreme emotions/situations. Then, of course, there are those of us who choose, quite calculatingly, to be violent. It is always a means to end, be it to satisfy a homicidal urge or to gain the economic/social high ground. I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? In this way, we are special, just not in the way the religions that believe in the Biblical god think we are.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? 

They do.  Though, due to their population and population density, their conflicts look more like the sorts of conflicts we might expect (and do see) from our own early ancestors.  More an issue of capability than temperament, the difference between us.

If i had to pick hairs, I;d say that we're the more peaceful species. Chimps get systematically violent at a far.....far lower pop density than human beings seem to.

[WinterHold]

Do you think that the basis for humans finding reasons for hurting one another lies in the way people choose to think and act; or can such behavior be attributed to human nature or a combination of nature and choice?

That's an extraordinarily deep question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. I think it's probably a combination of human nature and choice. We know for certain that there are primal parts of our brain that tend to be more impusive/violent. Therefore, it is in our nature. This is controlled to some degree by other parts of our brain that curb our impulsivity. They don't always work or are overridden by extreme emotions/situations. Then, of course, there are those of us who choose, quite calculatingly, to be violent. It is always a means to end, be it to satisfy a homicidal urge or to gain the economic/social high ground. I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? In this way, we are special, just not in the way the religions that believe in the Biblical god think we are.

Animals like tigers are known to kill systematically; even if a need like hunger didn't exist.

For humans; vengeance is another reason not present in your analysis. Payback; satisfaction through inflicting damage on others just like the actor got their share of pain. 

Bullied children tend to be bullies themselves when they grow. A molested child might be more likely to develop pedophilia during puberty and later on.

Even in science; it's as simple as "every action has an equal reaction". A law that I think is pretty applicant to humanity.

[Shell B]

I'd even go as far as to say humans are exceptionally prone to this behavior compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Sure, a monkey might beat another monkey to death in a fight (not sure on this, but you know where I'm going), but do they stage global wars? 

They do.  Though, due to their population and population density, their conflicts look more like the sorts of conflicts we might expect (and do see) from our own early ancestors.  More an issue of capability than temperament, the difference between us.

If i had to pick hairs, I;d say that we're the more peaceful species.  Chimps get systematically violent at a far.....far lower pop density than human beings seem to.

I didn't say it was temperament. I didn't even venture to name a cause for it. I'm just observing.

Chimps need to compete more for resources than humans do. They also have a class structure that's on a smaller level, so yeah, there is more violence in a small group than you might see with humans. As far as systematic violence with chimps, that's so rare that it's only recently been documented, and it is *usually* for hunting purposes. For example, they'll hunt a monkey in a pack to eat it. They'll also bicker over territories, but they don't march to war with swords in hand. Whether it is because of capability or temperament is irrelevant.

I don't think we are any better or worse than animals. I think we are animals.

---

Animals like tigers are known to kill systematically; even if a need like hunger didn't exist.

I'm not sure about tigers, but I believe you. Dolphins do it, and I'm sure lots of other animals do too. I never said other animals are peaceful. Quite the opposite.

For humans; vengeance is another reason not present in your analysis. Payback; satisfaction through inflicting damage on others just like the actor got their share of pain.

Well, it wasn't a dissertation.  

Bullied children tend to be bullies themselves when they grow. A molested child might be more likely to develop pedophilia during puberty and later on.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I only have my own experience to go off of, but I think I'd need to see good studies before I'd believe that. Both of those things happened to me and I commit neither act.

[CapnAwesome]

Nope 60% chance along with a 20% chance it might radical nationalist pissed they have lost every election so far in Europe

People say that same nonsense in this forum after every attack. It's never true. One, it's not their MO to suicide bomb, so don't be stupid.

---

Yeah, it's always funny how certain people manage to turn a thread about Islamic terrorism into a discussion about Christianity. A Muslim blew up a concert full of teenagers and children? Christians are to blame, obviously!  

Referring back to my post which I believe got this started (let me know if I'm wrong) it was to point out that all religions have this flaw. If it's done by the religious or in religions/gods name then religion is to blame (at least in part, there may be other motives), I don't care what religion. And if christians think they occupy some moral higher ground just because atrocities done in their name are not current, they are incorrect.

 

The morality of the whole world was totally different 1000 years ago. The most fundamentalist Christian alive today would be burned alive as a too liberal heretic back then. The Phelps clan would be the most liberal Christians alive in the middle ages. The Crusades were ended by the Mongol invasions of the middle east, which didn't have anything to do with Christianity or Islam and were way more brutal. A thousand times the death toll of the Crusades. So of course it's different. Christian terrorism basically doesn't exist in the western world. Complaining about problems within western Christianity (there are Christian terrorists in Africa that are terrible, but nobody knows because it's Africa) when Islam is right there, is like complaining that your neighbor has a super annoying dog while your house is burning down.

[Amarok]

People say that same nonsense in this forum after every attack. It's never true. One, it's not their MO to suicide bomb, so don't be stupid.

It's not stupid it's totally possible . Hell it's already happened . And as I already explained in the very comment stealing other groups tactics is a terrorists MO . Isis and Al-Qaida stole there idea's from previous groups . So why not?

[CapnAwesome]