There's a fundamental flaw in this thread, and that is because you're grouping all truth claimers and truthists into just one single category for each one.

The problems come from False members of either category, who in turn take advantage of those who actually believe in what they are doing. Usually when left to their own devices, either side is perfectly fine.

Eh, I think you're making it a bit more personal grey. It sounds like you're replacing "truth claimers" with "christians" and then saying not all christians (or whatever religion) are bad. Which is true. But to say that the ones commiting atrocities are actually false truth claimers wouldn't be accurate because they are still doing so because they believe absolutely that they have the truth and anyone that disagrees needs to die.

A false one of either side would actually more than likely belong to the opposing side. A false truthist that incites violence is most likely in truth a truth claimer in disguise.

you misunderstood every single point of my post.

1) I'm not referring to Christians with Truth Claimers, I'm referring to any group who claims truth, no matter how valid. You could just as easily throw PETA and ELF and Manmade Global Warming Alarmists in here as well as any religious group besides Christianity as well.

2) I'm not referring to just Truth Claimers either. I'm also talking about the other side as well. Comparing the rates of violence is misleading, because quite frankly one group is still significantly larger than the other.

3) Also not saying that it's only False members (of either group) that commit the acts of violence, I'm saying that typically (not always, but definitely a solid majority) the acts of violence are incited by members who do not actually believe in what they claim.

(1) fair enough

(2) regardless of size of groups, only one side has incentive to kill, incite or destroy. There are no agnostic crusades of "maybe". If you're shrugging your shoulders, or trying to get to the bottom of it, killing people that have information as to one side of the belief or the other is counter productive. And if you're trying to eliminate information or either side of the dialectic then odds are you're not a truthist.

(3) It doesn't matter what they believe as long as they believe it absolutely. Even if their actions are completely and directly contradictory to their stated beliefs, they still believe something so absolutely that they must kill anyone who disagrees. Even if the crusades were started by complete and total atheists that were just land and power hungry (which they weren't but just for fun let's suppose), the people with the swords doing the slaughtering were doing it for Jesus, even if they completely missed the point of what Jesus taught. What they believe or why is irrelevant, only that they believe it absolutely.

I think vagabond is the most dangerous.

Let's lynch him.

You've been trying to get my lynched from day 1, pig! But what you didn't count on was.....you'll have to catch me first! *jumps on unicycle and pedals furiously*

I did answer what you said, with the second sentence.  My first was merely a point about truth claimers vs. seekers, and how you cant' really be the latter without being the former.

Give me 3 reasons, and put them in pretty bullet points please.

@appolose, Nietzsch never claimed he had the truth. He was a philosophical rabble-rouser who attacked all truth claims, but never acted like he knew any better. In fact, he told people to disregard everything he ever said and deconstruct the truth on their own. Asking people to question the truth is not at all similar to asking people to kill people who claim the truth. Questions don't hurt anybody. Question everything ever. Over and over. It works for me, and I haven't killed anybody yet.

One time...I was skeptical of a truth...and set a hobo on fire....I think he probably died. But that was only once.