Does Religion Cause Violence?

[GeistFaust]

I think a lot of people with knowledge misuse their power its usually because they miscalculate something about their environment or misunderstand it. The best of leaders do at times, but the thing about them is they have a way of quickly rebounding from their mistakes. We can not always be in control of the mistakes and misapplications we make because everything is not predictable under the conditions in which we come to predict an event so as to apply our knowledge to it properly.

There is usually a certain set of options involved in either advancing or declining as a culture or civilization. The thing is a lot of the options are predisposed by the information and resources we have built up from a certain timeframe within the context of a certain culture. Great individuals have been able to do a lot with a little and to make large gains by being economical with the little resources they have to apply to a certain expansion of resources and territory.

In a sense the potentiality for the application of knowledge is different then the actual capacity for knowledge which a certain leader or group of leaders might possess. Its the reason why leaders should try to maximize all their assets, resources, and information databases in order to create more productive options which they can then choose in regards to what they see as best given their knowledge.

Decision making inclines towards a certain choice, but its much more dynamic then that and the mark of a great individual or culture is the capacity for flexibility which is something which depends on the potentiality for knowlege and the potential which resources and information possess.


Usually the task is to mitigate damage and to choose the best option from inductive and logical methods. This means that there should be a comparison between a choice potentially allowing for the greatest probability of advantage and the least probability of disadvantage. Its not always as clear cut as this, a lot of civilizations and cultures collapse for other issues which are beyond their control.


Its always a game of bets but hopefully you will be going in with a good resource and information foundation, which allows for more flexibility and possibilities, and a relatively good technique and application of knowledge through strategic and tactical means.

This allows for the their to be a greater potential of success given the risks involved. The greatest profits usually are gained through risk, but there should also be a careful analysis and application of knowledge when it comes to attempting to achieve a certain objective, which includes a risk.


I don't think its as consistent or clear cut as this. I find it to be much more dynamical and variant in regards to the cyclical nature of history. There are always going to be hiatuses and lapses but there are always going to be resurrections in cultures and civilizations.

This is just the nature of the organism of a culture which is always attempting to reach even higher levels of power. There might be sometimes when a culture or civilization catches a virus, but it always finds a way of repairing itself and trying to replicate the nature of its past greatness.

Even when civilizations and cultures supposedly collapse its not as drastic as many people like to make it out to be all the time, but there is a steady and gradual transition of power and knowledge to other cultures and civilizations. Conflict is a necessity within the annals of history and it has always made many cultures and civilizations attempt to prepare to the maximum for a potential power and knowledge transference. This would happen on the grounds that they were able to achieve a substantial gain in the territory, resources, and information of another culture and civilization.

[Der Steinadler]

I think a lot of people with knowledge misuse their power its usually because they miscalculate something about their environment or misunderstand it.

so, they're lacking in knowledge ?

I don't think its as consistent or clear cut as this. I find it to be much more dynamical and variant in regards to the cyclical nature of history. There are always going to be hiatuses and lapses but there are always going to be resurrections in cultures and civilizations.

This is just the nature of the organism of a culture which is always attempting to reach even higher levels of power. There might be sometimes when a culture or civilization catches a virus, but it always finds a way of repairing itself and trying to replicate the nature of its past greatness.

Even when civilizations and cultures supposedly collapse its not as drastic as many people like to make it out to be all the time, but there is a steady and gradual transition of power and knowledge to other cultures and civilizations. Conflict is a necessity within the annals of history and it has always made many cultures and civilizations attempt to prepare to the maximum for a potential power and knowledge transference. This would happen on the grounds that they were able to achieve a substantial gain in the territory, resources, and information of another culture and civilization.

organisms have a lifespan.

they are born, they live, and then die.

[GeistFaust]

No, their are just somethings even the greatest minds and intellects can not take into account. I explained they try to mitigate and minimize their mistakes and misapplications because they are inevitable. There are certain "gaps" in knowledge which can not be filled regardless of how much the premises line up appropriately with a certain conclusion(Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).


Yes but when I am speaking about the organism of cultures and civilizations, I am speaking from a macro-historical perspective. This means I am trying to take into account the variation, inconsistency, and dynamical changes and shifts in power and knowledge a certain culture or civilization had "relative" to a certain timeframe.

[Der Steinadler]

No, their are just somethings even the greatest minds and intellects can not take into account. I explained they try to mitigate and minimize their mistakes and misapplications because they are inevitable. There are certain "gaps" in knowledge which can not be filled regardless of how much the premises line up appropriately with a certain conclusion(Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

I respectively disagree.

I think there is complete knowledge. The problem i see, in today's society, is a situation where society 'thinks' it has knowledge, and hence the reason why I believe it ignorant and subequentely violent.

its a dangerous situation to assume 'we know something'.

Yes but when I am speaking about the organism of cultures and civilizations, I am speaking from a macro-historical perspective. This means I am trying to take into account the variation, inconsistency, and dynamical changes and shifts in power and knowledge a certain culture or civilization had "relative" to a certain timeframe.

This is just the nature of the organism of a culture which is always attempting to reach even higher levels of power. There might be sometimes when a culture or civilization catches a virus, but it always finds a way of repairing itself and trying to replicate the nature of its past greatness.

but this implies a culture is linear.....

[GeistFaust]

Yes, there has been a lot of instances where a society thinks it has knowledge or comes under this illusion. The thing is knowledge has many aspects and angles which it assumes in different cultures in order to survive and for self-preservation. I don't think there is a complete knowledge only the illusion of such when a certain civilization reaches its peak or climax.


There is going to be a substratum of ignorance and violence in every culture regardless of how advanced it is. The duty of a more advanced culture or civilization is to minimize the ignorance and violence and to increase its potential to accumulate and produce things in conjunction with our knowledge.


Knowledge generally is "relative" to that which is most practical to a culture and civilization, and this involves the integration of theoretical and practical elements which are constantly diverging from each other during the application of a certain "set" or class of options which a civilization has before it in accordance with the environment and the dynamics of other cultures and civilizations surrounding it.



I think I can agree with this but sometimes we need to take risks to attempting to acquire some information or resources which will expand our knowledge. That is on the basis that according to certain calculations and the methods involved in calculating that it will allow us to the maximum profit and production for the maximum amount of people in a certain culture. A lot of times we can not be certain of knowing things even when we have reached a practical conclusion(Theorem) on the basis of a certain hypothesis or group of hypotheses.


This is because the situation in which a culture or civilization finds itself is dynamical and "linear" at the core. This means either the situation is of a culture is changing due to external and quantiative factors, such as the environment or the nature of other cultures and civilizations or in regards to how we interpret these changes.


Our interpretations can in part affect the way in which the dyanamic and linear substratum of a culture and civilization generates itself. In essence a culture is determined in proportion to the disjunctive conjunction of the quantiative and qualitative components which arise in the various aspects of itself as a diverse and variant organism. The good of the many Is is the good of the organism as the whole. Usually the best we can do is assume certain things, which then become accepted facts, only to be replaced by new and greater accepted facts.



Yes, it does imply that it is linear, but in essence at the foundation of civilization and culture the organism which it assumes in its totality is determined by other organisms that are in conjunction with the totality of a culture.

A culture is linear in its declining and inclining process, this is just the fundamental nature of the cycle of history. This does not mean that there is no cyclical nature of history because we can not find some sort of consistency and constancy in it.


It just means that understanding things from a macro-historical perspective usually means that we will be trapped by certain illusions, which we can only escape through assumptions that are directed towards the evaluation of history in accordance with induction and analogy.

[AmeriCanadian]

Idiots use it as a scapegoat to commit violence. I mean, I think it's literally written in the book a few times that killing is wrong but what do I know?