that's when the conflict stated.

On another quote, but someone from his era had a great one: Man will not be free until the last priest is killed by the last brick falling from the last church.

It goes more like this:

"Man will not be free until the last tyrant is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Your original is better than my mangled translation.

Including a reference work published in 2000, which means it's not too contaminated by internet misattributions:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GfC0TDkJJNgC&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=the+first+rascal+who+met+the+first+fool&source=bl&ots=uNElyFBwFG&sig=89N7Lkzc9s_wmDlNle82rHYw9J0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinhfKowvLJAhVIaxQKHXa2CPoQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=the%20first%20rascal%20who%20met%20the%20first%20fool&f=false

Plenty of sayings were attributed to famous people without foundation before the internet, of course, but there is a chance it's true.

While he was a great intellect and wit, it seems that he is given credit for a lot of statements that were not from him.

Some of my favorite quotes:

They attributed it to the emperor, who was very anti religion, and was trying to unite the galaxy under an enlightened rule. Fast forward 10,000 years and he's now the god-emperor who everyone worships after his demise.

artist is.

[IMG][/IMG]

It's at least 3300. Probably more, but Akhenaten is the earliest that rings an immediate bell. The Akkadian/Sumerian thing was more territorial.

I am over 3' tall, but that says little useful about my height, or very very little about my lack thereof

The discovery is the oldest evidence of some form of organized religion, though Neanderthal's in Europe have also left evidence of religious practices.

it's the wicked smile, because "worship the python" has a sexual connotation.

As in, as the Donald would say, schlong.

Particularly when we go full monty.

Looks like people were the gods. Something tells me that they exploited their position.

Seems to have lead to a huge state of Mayans and Aztecs that would be a larger state compared to Europe's many states into which Europe devolved into anyway.

Perhaps its the fault of the summary, but I don't see anything justifying the headline.

Religious conflict occurs where religion is present, obviously. This doesn't mean religion causes religious conflict.

Scientific study would also show that automobile accidents are caused by automobiles. Those damn cars! Get them off the road, they are killing people!

or do you dismiss mechanical failure.

It is also the very nature of automobiles that there will be accidents.

Just as it is the nature of religion that there will be conflict.

for collisions, we understand that poor driving is the culprit. We can't "blame" an inanimate object, this is the blind spot. Religion isn't inherently dangerous, it must be directed. It is often abused by those who wield it for power, which is not the same thing at all.

While some cars fail mechanically, we generally don't stop using all cars. We repair them or we discard them individually. Hell, we break them down into usable parts or recycle them, they all have value.

You seem to be arguing that religion cannot ever be the cause of a problem, and is never to blame for conflict. Is that an incorrect observation on my part?

religion as a whole is based on a faulty premise enabled by a blind spot.

I parse the difference between behavior of some religious people and Religion itself. The distinction there is often overlooked. As it happens, I do the same for science.

I do not hold science accountable for the unethical behavior demonstrated by some scientists, such as eugenics, testing on humans, medical research on the bodies enslaved people (women in particular), and other atrocities done in the name of "the advancement of humankind." The exploitation of indigenous cultures and dominion over the planet itself also comes to mind. Not to mention crackpot "scientists" who are not practicing true scientific standards at all. They don't represent science itself.

Therefore, science is neither ethical nor unethical. Religion is no different in this regard.

Science does not dictate or mandate the murder of those who oppose, reject or ridicule it. Religion, in some cases, does. Many people do many terrible things precisely because their religion tells them to. Science does not claim ultimate authority from the creator of the universe. Religion does.

understand how belief works. Religious dogma tells one to do a lot of things, it's up to each individual to determine which ones to do. Not to mention that so much is open to interpretation.

A cruel person will find cruelty in it, a kind person will find kindness in it.

Well certainly some believers in these parts are certainly fond of doing that. You however are the first one I've seen to endorse the prcess. Congratulations.

what's right to do and what's wrong to do, why would anyone need religion or the dictates of some supreme being as a moral guide in the first place? The way you paint it, religion just offers you a mishmash of good and bad things to choose from, but only human reason and decency can decide properly which ones to actually do.

When it's put that way, wouldn't you agree that basing any kind of morality on religious dogma is foolish and unnecessary?

and *ta da* leads to conflict when different people pick different parts of the holy book to "cherry pick."

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion <emphasis added>.

that are found in the foundational documents of religions like the bible or koran, are those the people? Or the religion?

The conquest of the new world was very much religious orientated, and where we get Papal Bull from (Aside from every day straight outta Rome) As for ethics, religion is often used as a foil, that science doesn't deal with ethics, religion does (Which is another load of bull, papal or otherwise) There is ethics in science, and religions almost always promote murdering your neighbor, or informing them of their future in a pit of fire.

Religion comes in a poor third at best.

And they literally just made Sera a saint, and he was all about genocide in the lord's name.

The Conquistadors, Cortes, de Soto, Pizarro and others, were all about power and wealth. The men like Magellan and others were all about trade routes and empire. The Papal bull dividing the world among Spain and Portugal was a political document at its core. Conversion played its role but didn't drive the Conquest even if it used the opportunity to expand.

are more Corvairs and Edsels than they are Hondas.

And perhaps, now that we see what the individual, gas powered car is doing to the planet, we should stop using all cars.

I see no value in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

From the responses in this thread, you'd think the first thought of the supernatural led to homicide, as opposed to the violence over resources. It's as if they'd never read Marx.

US vs THEM.

It's also a vehicle to promote the exact opposite.

They found it divided people and promoted conflict.

and humility encourages one to live quietly. You don't often see humanitarians bragging and making public displays of their greatness. There's no possible way to get an accurate measure when so much happens under the surface. You cannot measure what goes on in a person's heart and mind, conscience is invisible, no matter how great the technology or clean the methodolgy.

Besides, you find what you seek. I could probably find a study that counters that finding if I were inclined to do so. Neither study would be reliable as "fact" anyway because people are simply too complex.

Lastly, humans are not rational machines and never have been. Humanity cannot be fully nor effectively studied in rational terms, no scope is large enough or can go deep enough.

Finally, because I have other things to do so I'm wrapping this up - if you don't like religion, don't be religious.

I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. Perhaps you could contact the researchers for more information.

Regarding your final line, I'd be happy to leave it at that... if the religious would stop trying to ruin things for the rest of us.

Meh, you probably would.

In an other thread that seeks to refute that. The writer even knows G.Khan's motives.

This is the headline put out by the university:

Wait a minute, that's right, THEY DIDN'T.

Nice attempt at a straw man though. Happy Solstice, Leontius, however you choose to celebrate it!

So, trotsky, what are the other predominant forces at work when it comes to social violence?

I thought it was perhaps some kind of weird salt fetish.