War a part of human nature?

[Okeefenokee]

If you consider influence and strength to be resources, then yes.

You can have conflict without shortages of typical resources like food, water, and energy, simply due to competition for other things like influence, dominance, etc.

[BjornP]

I'm willing to believe that every major conflict can be boiled down to a lack of access to resources. In other words, this is the most fundamental cause for violence. But perhaps the case could be made that religion is the fundamental cause.

Religion? Not really. Religion is the cause of the least amount of wars in the world. The Crusades, the jihads, Inquisition, Thirty Years War and the Northern Ireland conflict, that some atheists use as their argument for a "most wars/violence is caused by religion" position, is only a tiny fraction of the number of total wars, and mass murders in history. Most wars have been fought over secular territorial claims, usually some noble or king declaring that his great-great-greatfathers cousin-thrice-removed owned this or that port city, mines, rich farmland, etc.

As for modern day cause of violence in regards to religion:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/d ... Report.pdf

[Hwen Hoshino]

I'm willing to believe that every major conflict can be boiled down to a lack of access to resources. In other words, this is the most fundamental cause for violence. But perhaps the case could be made that religion is the fundamental cause.

Religion? Not really. Religion is the cause of the least amount of wars in the world. The Crusades, the jihads, Inquisition, Thirty Years War and the Northern Ireland conflict, that some atheists use as their argument for a "most wars/violence is caused by religion" position, is only a tiny fraction of the number of total wars, and mass murders in history. Most wars have been fought over secular territorial claims, usually some noble or king declaring that his great-great-greatfathers cousin-thrice-removed owned this or that port city, mines, rich farmland, etc.

As for modern day cause of violence in regards to religion:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/d ... Report.pdf

And didn't said rulers say their rule is their Divine right?

[nickle7]

I'm willing to believe that every major conflict can be boiled down to a lack of access to resources. In other words, this is the most fundamental cause for violence. But perhaps the case could be made that religion is the fundamental cause.

Religion? Not really. Religion is the cause of the least amount of wars in the world. The Crusades, the jihads, Inquisition, Thirty Years War and the Northern Ireland conflict, that some atheists use as their argument for a "most wars/violence is caused by religion" position, is only a tiny fraction of the number of total wars, and mass murders in history. Most wars have been fought over secular territorial claims, usually some noble or king declaring that his great-great-greatfathers cousin-thrice-removed owned this or that port city, mines, rich farmland, etc.

As for modern day cause of violence in regards to religion:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/d ... Report.pdf

I may have to get a paper copy of this, looks interesting. I've never been fully sold on the idea that religion itself is a single fundamental cause of conflict but it's certainly been used as a vehicle and justification for conflict. I'm not opposed to religion, though obviously the dangerous role of justifier is ever present. I think relogion has played a bigger role in conflict than you're giving it credit for but I'll conceed it's not a fundamental cause, most of the time. Usually people have to be brought too the point of violence by some other reason to then use religion to justify violence.

I just spoke in a lot of circles, sorry... too hard to edit on a smart phone.

[DrYouth]

If you consider influence and strength to be resources, then yes.

+1
Influence and power can be considered a resource. And religion a vehicle to that power. When groups struggle for resources religion is often a proxy. Religious groups struggle for influence in a region or state... threatening minorities can be crushed... heresy threatens the establishment.

[BjornP]

I'm willing to believe that every major conflict can be boiled down to a lack of access to resources. In other words, this is the most fundamental cause for violence. But perhaps the case could be made that religion is the fundamental cause.

Religion? Not really. Religion is the cause of the least amount of wars in the world. The Crusades, the jihads, Inquisition, Thirty Years War and the Northern Ireland conflict, that some atheists use as their argument for a "most wars/violence is caused by religion" position, is only a tiny fraction of the number of total wars, and mass murders in history. Most wars have been fought over secular territorial claims, usually some noble or king declaring that his great-great-greatfathers cousin-thrice-removed owned this or that port city, mines, rich farmland, etc.

As for modern day cause of violence in regards to religion:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/d ... Report.pdf

And didn't said rulers say their rule is their Divine right?

The divine right of kings is an internal justification of royal power over one's subjects, one's own subjects. It's a justification of a political system.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Religion? Not really. Religion is the cause of the least amount of wars in the world. The Crusades, the jihads, Inquisition, Thirty Years War and the Northern Ireland conflict, that some atheists use as their argument for a "most wars/violence is caused by religion" position, is only a tiny fraction of the number of total wars, and mass murders in history. Most wars have been fought over secular territorial claims, usually some noble or king declaring that his great-great-greatfathers cousin-thrice-removed owned this or that port city, mines, rich farmland, etc.

As for modern day cause of violence in regards to religion:

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/d ... Report.pdf

And didn't said rulers say their rule is their Divine right?

The divine right of kings is an internal justification of royal power over one's subjects, one's own subjects. It's a justification of a political system.

No doubt even more strenghtened by the support of religion.

[Okeefenokee]

And didn't said rulers say their rule is their Divine right?

The divine right of kings is an internal justification of royal power over one's subjects, one's own subjects. It's a justification of a political system.

No doubt even more strenghtened by the support of religion.

I think you're being loose with your parameters. Two kings fighting over land, treasure or resources are not fighting because of religion just because religion is somehow involved in their rule. They're fighting over land, treasure, or resources.

[Hwen Hoshino]

The divine right of kings is an internal justification of royal power over one's subjects, one's own subjects. It's a justification of a political system.

No doubt even more strenghtened by the support of religion.

I think you're being loose with your parameters. Two kings fighting over land, treasure or resources are not fighting because of religion just because religion is somehow involved in their rule. They're fighting over land, treasure, or resources.

It's about why people follow them besides life being miserable and short.

[Okeefenokee]

No doubt even more strenghtened by the support of religion.

I think you're being loose with your parameters. Two kings fighting over land, treasure or resources are not fighting because of religion just because religion is somehow involved in their rule. They're fighting over land, treasure, or resources.

It's about why people follow them besides life being miserable and short.

Even in ancient Egypt, where the Pharaoh was supposed to be a god, people broke into their tombs and stole their shit, clearly not buying into the claims of divinity.

I'd reckon the fear of the whip has done more to motivate people to obey their rulers than tales claims of divine right. I think a lot of the function of the divine right was simply to put some clothes on violent totalitarianism.