some use religion as an excuse to hurt/kill other people. And when they don't have that excuse they just hurt/kill other people.

Christians do it, Muslims do it, Buddhist do it, Sikhs do it, agnostics do it, atheists do it and then there are those believe in nothing but their own perverted enjoyment at causing mayhem and destruction.

It's HUMAN NATURE, GET IT?

but you leave out some important points. Lets take an example of something that still happens throughout the world approximately 5000 times annually if the reports are accurate.

A father kills his daughter.

In one of the secular societies this father is imprisoned and sometimes even executed for this. Now lets jump to Africa and the Middle East. The father claims his daughter disobeyed him or his daughter was raped by another man. Everybody shrugs their shoulders and life goes on for everybody but the daughter. The murderer isn't treated any differently by society, if the circumstance involved rape the rapist isn't punished or looked down upon either.

Why the difference? Religion. In this case the laws made by religious authority made the killing (and likely rape) of a young girl not only acceptable but expected. That is the problem with religion. Yes evil people will do evil things. But evil people with religion do evil things and society lets them, often applauds them for it.

it has nothing to do with religion.

Sometimes it seems there are more reasons to hurt someone than to care for someone.

But that's the worldview many religions portray us as having, no doubt. It helps with the whole 'man is fallen/sinful and needs redemption' meme, without which many religions wouldn't exist.

It's just another wool pulled over people's eyes, that does not square with the actual data at hand.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010/ref=cm_cr_dp_asin_lnk

It is not complete but it will do. The common factor in all of these horrendous acts is that the perpetrators viewed the victims as OTHER. It doesn't matter how they are other just so they are. Perhaps the exception is Stalin's forced famine of the Ukraine. But Ukrainians are probably expendable to the Russians and their plans.

Now religion played a part in some of these. It was used to differentiate who was alien and who was not.But some of these homicidal maniacs did not care as long as they could kill-and I'm sure they weren't just, "following orders." They liked it.

Hebrew destruction of the Amalekites and Midianites
The destruction of Carthage 149–146 BC
Genghis Khan 1200s
Tamerlane late 1300s
The various genocides of native Americans by other natives and Europeans.
Haitian massacre of nearly all whites 1804
The Black War-Tasmania-early 1800s all natives exterminated
The Great Hunger (Irish potato famine) 1845-1852 >1million (the potato crop failed but food was being exported out of Ireland during the famine.
Armenian genocide 1915-1918 1.5 million
Stalin's Forced famine of the Ukraine 1932-1933 7 million
Rape of Nanking 1937-1938 .3 million
NAZI holocaust 1938-1945 >6 million
Pol Pot Cambodia 1975-1979 2 million
Rwanda 1994 .8 million
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995 .2 million

time. At the same time religiosity worldwide and even in the US, is declining.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html?embed=true

atheist?

Maybe, but I doubt there is evidence to prove that one way or the other. It may be the decrease is because it can't be hiddened as in the past.

The thing is- people are still capable of committing heinous acts against each other. I know for a fact that I am capable of committing murder. No, I have not killed anyone but there was a time in the distant past that I would've cheerfully (well maybe not cheerfully) squeezed the trigger on someone. It was only the restricting hand of my wife that stopped me. And I am not unique. If the right circumstances present themselves most if not all people could commit acts of violence against another person, and once that line is crossed it becomes easier.

And then there's the newly wed couple who thought it would be fun to kill someone together.

Then again, neither are Mormons, our next door neighbors at 0.03% of the prison population.


Saying that violence is human nature doesn't appear to be correct, looking at the statistics.
I agree that humans are CAPABLE of violence. I am capable of more than a little, at least in self-defense.

But I object to 'violence is human nature' as an over-broad claim that does not reflect humanity as a whole.

I still think I am right on this issue. I wish it wasn't so but, there you go.

to do with the low crime statistics.

Believers or not, white, educated, employed, upper/middle class people generally do not make up much of the prison population. Even if they commit crimes, they are much more likely to get easier sentencing.

Have you had the opportunity to read "Chimpanzee Politics"? I think you might really enjoy it. It has a great deal to say about the propensity for aggressive and violent behavior among primates and the behavioral similarities between chimpanzees and humans is quite striking.

Can't say as I've seen great strides in the last 13 years.

Never rely on a psychologist to recite history.

The fact is more humans were murdered in a deliberate fashion in the last century that at any other time in human history. Worse, it was done in a calm, premeditated manner by governments of all stripes.

I'm really not going to respond to an article that appeared in an undergraduate newspaper about Pinker's work, but I hope there's more to it than anecdotes about homicides by cavemen.