Coexistence, is it possible?

[Shu]

I've been sort of on the fence about posting this, due to I'm not into debating about religion. I am in a secular student association, that I became interested at my old University. The reason I am, is to basically undo some of the things we have going on here in the States. Aka separate religion from Government entirely.

With that said, I find there to be quite a bit of obstacles. The biggest obstacle is that there is a problem with coexistence.

As an agnostic humanitarian, I've come to acceptance there there will always be some atheists, and always be some religious people that will never see eye to eye. Though in the end, I think there is really no way for religious people and atheists/agnostics to exist.

1) Religion is about proving something based on faith and scripture
2) Atheism is merely the belief in science and the ability to prove most things in the Bible wrong, but never able to fully prove god isn't real.
3) Atheist claim if you had never known about the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah, and read them for the first time, you would expect to see them in the Fictional section.
4) Religious folks tend to cherry pick Bible verses in the Bible, in which enrages Atheists.
5) Atheists are able to cherry pick verses too and contradict the verse with another verse.

Though in the states, I know that religion is really involved in political propaganda. Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and other folks in the south. If you aren't religious it's highly likely you'll never see the light of day anymore in the presidential seat. Though I've seen evidence in other countries too. Though atheists will always try to stomp out these religious folks from making laws that indoctrinate religious views.

My vote is no. Coexistence is not possible. I would love for it to be, since I'm agnostic and could care less what folks believe. If there is a god, so be it.. but that's not my business. Just don't put it in my face (religious or non religious folks).

 

[Lirael]

This is a sensitive suject so I'd like to state that I really hope I don't offend anyone and a fair amount of what I have to say is based on what I've seen. Since I haven't seen everything or heard every opinion one can have on this, my post will no doubt be a little selective/biased. If you have any points to make in response to it, do feel free! I'm very open minded about things like this and like to expand my knowledge so that I can become more balanced and empathetic. =)

___________________________________

I'm agnostic too, but I very much respect the opinions of others. I personally believe that everyone has the right to follow a religion or to believe only in science. I will defend those who are religious when an athiest friend complains to me about them; I would also defend an athiest friend's right to lead a quiet life if a religious friend kept telling them that they should follow a certain religion. However, I don't think it's possible for the entire world to be as balanced in their approach to those whose opinions differ from their own.

Many people feel strongly about their personal choices. When opinions clash, people can get very defensive. Some may take one voicing their opinion as a personal attack. This often does happen when one person tries to persuade another that their way of life is the RIGHT way.

One may question whether we should voice our opinions.

I think it's important that everyone has a chance to share their opinions (as long as they're not trying to wreak havoc, of course). Hearing about a religion may open a new pathway for someone who doesn't know much about that religion. Hearing why others live in a certain way also promotes respect as we come to understand one another.

Voicing one's opinion becomes more controversial when someone claims they must to 'save their brothers and sisters.' One could argue that using these words is all fine and well as they mean no harm in it, but certain athiests do feel judged when they hear them.

I personally feel that whether or not a person's opinion is offensive depends on how aggressive they are. I have no problem with being informed about a religion nor with being introduced to a person's values and their reasons for believing in their god. I would have a problem with harrassment (like someone fighting to persuade me and reiterating their points), which I am lucky enough to have so far avoided. Those who use more aggressive methods don't always show the respect that they should.

This aggression makes coexistence harder. Certain people only have to encounter a couple of aggressive men/women from another belief system to form prejudices about that system. They may then choose to attack that system as a method of defence; I know one athiest who feels he has been harrassed and retaliates against all Christians by attempting to 'save the deluded people from their false religious lifestyle.' This is his method of defence, but no doubt comes across as aggressive and will lead to retaliation somewhere down the line.

 

[Donald Trump]

Religious people and non-religious people are co-existing at the moment.
Generally the trouble is between religious people and other religious people, atheists, for all their faults, don't go around killing people in the name of atheism. Well not yet anyway.
I don't think that the difference between religious people and non-religious people is as large as you make it out to be. People have and will continue to have different views, whether those views are informed by religion or not doesn't make any difference. I don't think it's much different from the difference between the Repulicans or the Democrats.
Coexistence is possible. Religion is a non-issue in New Zealand, the current Prime Minister and the previous one were both agnostic and no one cares about it at all. There are no religious lobby groups and religion has no influence on the way the country is run.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

It can be summed up in one word: competition.

On a cellular level, our bodies are constantly at war with viruses, disease and the elements. History and our existence is rife with competition. Even on a cellular level bacteria, viruses and amoeba are constantly competing with one another for living space, reproductive rights and food sources.

Competition is in our genes, its part of our DNA & our identity.

The instintive reaction is for those with differing views to compete and try to outdo one another.

If the end result of competition in the natural world is for some species to succeed and others to become endangered or go extinct, it may naturally follow that the logical progression would be for those with competing views such as religion, agnosticism and atheism to conflict with one another and vy for influence.

If we weren't in competition over religious views, we would be in competition over something else.

Its not religion or ideas which cause people to behave territorily or conflict with those who have differing views, its millions of years of evolution and competition being an integral part of who and what we are.

The way to co-exist involves people making an effort to turn back the clock on millions of years of evolution and is counter intuitive in terms of people being required to set aside their instinctive tendencies in favor of a path that is more idealistic.

 

[Shu]

It can be summed up in one word: competition.

On a cellular level, our bodies are constantly at war with viruses, disease and the elements. History and our existence is rife with competition. Even on a cellular level bacteria, viruses and amoeba are constantly competing with one another for living space, reproductive rights and food sources.

Competition is in our genes, its part of our DNA & our identity.

The instintive reaction is for those with differing views to compete and try to outdo one another.

If the end result of competition in the natural world is for some species to succeed and others to become endangered or go extinct, it may naturally follow that the logical progression would be for those with competing views such as religion, agnosticism and atheism to conflict with one another and vy for influence.

If we weren't in competition over religious views, we would be in competition over something else.

Its not religion or ideas which cause people to behave territorily or conflict with those who have differing views, its millions of years of evolution and competition being an integral part of who and what we are.

The way to co-exist involves people making an effort to turn back the clock on millions of years of evolution and is counter intuitive in terms of people being required to set aside their instinctive tendencies in favor of a path that is more idealistic.

I think either you misread what I said, or chose to interpret it in a way to argue something else.

I'm not sure anything you said, had to do with what I asked. You went from anatomy/biology to competition. Then saying something about rolling back a million years?

You totally lost me there.

My focus here is. Religion in general is indoctrinated early for most people I've met. I was lead down the path, but chose to believe something different than the other 98% of my family. Not because I wanted to be different but due to the Biblical preachings didn't make sense for the most part. There were a few good Proverbs, a few good wise tales, in order to quote to explain to a child.. though the Bible in general had way to many contradictions.

If the new testament had never been made, I think the books would have made more sense, aside from the burning bush, David and Goliath, Sampson, The Ark, Sadam and Gamora, and Saul turning to Paul.

I think some of the Books were made to actually demonstrate teachings, others were just theorists trying to make sense of it all.

So for me, I can sit there and tell you from a non religious person, the Bible is a crazy crazy lucid book. A vengeful god and the tower of Babel.. and then in the New Testament.. a Kind god. The transition didn't add up. So for me, it was just a bunch of damn confusion.

12 men who followed one man around. 1 prostitute who was always with "Jesus" but no real relationship went down? A mother who was a virgin who had a kid.

This is only one religion I'm speaking of too. Though as an agnostic, I don't sit there and rise up against Christians. My thoughts are believe in what you want unless you choose to bring religion into government where it would directly affect me.

So co-existence though for Atheists and Deists, I don't think can happen. Their views differ and no mater what Atheists will always try to stomp Deists out, and Deists will always try to preach un-intuitively to strangers.

I will say though, Atheists have more of a case, since no Atheists have ever thought of waging a war, as Hal said

 

[Squalllionheart]

Voicing one's opinion becomes more controversial when someone claims they must to 'save their brothers and sisters.' One could argue that using these words is all fine and well as they mean no harm in it, but certain atheists do feel judged when they hear them.

I agree with Lirael's entire post and it's pretty much exactly how I feel, although this point is especially true, what I personally can't stand is when you see the people standing ontop of a bench or some sort of higher ground POINTING at people saying "YOU WILL GO TO HELL IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW BLINDLY MY TEACHINGS!!" obviously it's not quite that bad but I'm trying to make a point, why would you stand there and accuse people of being sinners to try and win them over? That sort of logic is a bit like me trying to get into a girls pants but saying "come on now, you’re a bit of a slag I know you put out.."

And when people knock at your door on a weekend it's like why the hell are you telling me this? I normally show a good amount of respect and listen to them and when they finish say something along the lines of "It's too late to save me" or "Sorry I don't do religion" and then just slowly close the door but you do get some people that question why you aren't following their religion and that’s when it gets offensive.

I will gladly live with my ways eating bacon, swearing and having sex before marriage because that's what makes me happy (not just those things, I'm not that shallow these are just examples of what I do that some people wouldn't agree with).

Thankfully I don't have any friends that are overly zealous but I do have religious friends and I do get on really well with them despite the difference in lifestyle and beliefs

 

[Richard B Riddick]

My focus here is. Religion in general is indoctrinated early for most people I've met. I was lead down the path, but chose to believe something different than the other 98% of my family. Not because I wanted to be different but due to the Biblical preachings didn't make sense for the most part. There were a few good Proverbs, a few good wise tales, in order to quote to explain to a child.. though the Bible in general had way to many contradictions.

I've read through it 2-3 times in its entirety and all of it makes sense to me. Enough so, that I would say: it has no contradictions.

So for me, I can sit there and tell you from a non religious person, the Bible is a crazy crazy lucid book. A vengeful god and the tower of Babel.. and then in the New Testament.. a Kind god. The transition didn't add up. So for me, it was just a bunch of damn confusion.

The Old Testament is God doing everything possible to rid the earth of evil and suffering - even going so far as to resort to violence.

The New Testament is the aftermath where God has proven there is no way for Him to eliminate evil or suffering without negating free will.

Omniscience doesn't factor in. A benevolent deity would be obligated to do everything possible to eliminate evil & suffering. Being omniscient and knowing it would fail doesn't negate the obligation.

This is only one religion I'm speaking of too. Though as an agnostic, I don't sit there and rise up against Christians. My thoughts are believe in what you want unless you choose to bring religion into government where it would directly affect me.

So co-existence though for Atheists and Deists, I don't think can happen. Their views differ and no mater what Atheists will always try to stomp Deists out, and Deists will always try to preach un-intuitively to strangers.

I don't believe in the conditional aspect of belief.

I will say though, Atheists have more of a case, since no Atheists have ever thought of waging a war, as Hal said

Kim Jong(atheist). Stalin(atheist). Etcetera.

Anyway, I might deign to discuss the religious issue.

But, I notice mods have been deleting or editing a lot of my posts on the topic.

Which detracts from the point of it.

 

[Saints&Storms]

I'd like to believe that peaceful coexistence is possible; but I'm a realist and I know it won't be possible; especially when the thought train of "They did this" and/or "This group did that" can't be left behind, honestly until people stop blaming a world wide group of people for something one other did -- then no, a peaceful coexistence won't ever be possible =/

Saying you want peace and then playing a blame game is at the very least the opposite of the proposed idea. Nearly every group at one time or another has a single or a small multiple peoples bringing a bad name to the plate. Christians have waged war, Atheists have waged war, Muslims have waged war etc. etc.

But what does someone else waging war have to do with me? Simply because I am Italian I must be evil like Mussolini? Because I am a vegan I must be like a murderer like Hitler, because I disagree with abortion I must be like Scott Roeder? How does any of that shit add up?

Quite honestly, that's just pretty fucked up.

 

[Sepalcure]

Religion to me is a matter of complexities, it's an ideology that I have grappled with from a very young age. I'm going to be posting mostly my opinions on these notions -- on whether I believe that religious and scientific co-existence is possible; so I'll apologize in advance if my reasoning seems skewed or biased in perspective. That said, I'll get on with it ...

Primarily, one believes in a deity -- they have faith in this particular deity and humbly follow and practice these outlined teachings. They go about their lives individually choosing to either completely adhere to these indoctrinations or to partially comply with them. Others shun these teachings and cast away the religion that they may have been baptized or assimilated into one way or another. It's a matter of varying factors: individualistic preferences, moralistic attitudes, fluctuating temperaments and ideologies … people change and thus so do their personal beliefs on morals and religion.

Take myself for instance, I was baptized as a Methodist and my mother never set foot in that small Methodist church after my baptizing. I don't even know the particulars of the Methodist denomination but on paper that's what one would possibly consider me. However, I was educated partially at a Seventh-Day Adventist school, I was taught that Jesus was not born on December 25th and that I was not to celebrate Christmas and I was to read the bible extensively. When I came home, I attended an Anglican church with my grandparents every Sunday and went to Sunday school. At Sunday school I was grouped with some children, some older and some younger. We were taught biblical verses that correlated to the Father's sermon and we sung children-friendly hymns and then departed for a light brunch after the service outside. I remember the actions of doing these things: going to church, reading the Bible with my adamant and very stern grandfather – reading passages from Revelations and such were my instances of bonding with a man I regarded as a father figure.

However now my beliefs have changed. Over time I started to speculate about specific passages and their implicit meanings. I no longer saw the blackness and whiteness of passages such as, “The Lord said to Satan, “Have you[c]considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man,[d]fearing God and turning away from evil.” [9] Then Satan answered the [e]Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing? [10] Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.11But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” [12] Then the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your[f]power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.” I never understood, even in my childlike mind at the time, why the Lord who was such a merciful God would appease Satan's need to test Job. Job was exposed to some horrific experiences and the Lord … basically he allowed it. Those were just some of the many passages I questioned; however there are some passages I adore and remember fondly. The Bible did influence a lot of my moral standings but then … so did Science. So I embrace both conceptualizations.

In regards to coexistence, I don't think it's possible. I believe that many people have a problem with tolerating someone's beliefs fully. You will always have a person who will feel obligated to fervently preach and try to forcefully indoctrinate someone. I have a good friend, a Muslim, who I adore and I respect her religion. I don't believe in all of her customs but I respect that she is such a devoted practitioner and believer of her faith. Anyhow, my friend would try to tell me, “You should become a Muslim, Taylor. You have the mind for it. You could come to my mosque and you could pray,” varying statements of that nature. I never acquiesced obviously because I was going through what I would like to term a “religious” or “dogmatic turmoil” in my life, I was heavily questioning my faith and the supposed validations I was following for so long. My friend didn't have the forthcoming attitude to respect that I was a conflicted Anglican and that although our religions had a number of similarities, she still believed I would “burn in Hell” for being of a differing faith. It was one of the many factors that never settled with me well, it unnerved me, and I think that it's impossible to apply this same ideology of co-existence so far as atheists and deists are concerned. I personally accept everyone's religious beliefs: I have friends of varying denominational backgrounds and religious preferences. My first good friend was a Christian -- I forgot the specific name of her denomination, I have Muslim friends, atheists, agnostic-theists such as myself, and I've even run into Jewish friends. My ex-boyfriend's family were Catholics and I've talked to many people of differing faiths and beliefs and I have respected their opinions on the matter of religion and science. I do not however try to convert someone to my ideology; I don't go around spewing flagrant statements such as, "I'm an agnostic theist and you should totally be one too because your religion is such shit," not only is that ignorant but it is also awfully close-minded and disrespectful to the person's character and their beliefs. Tolerance can go a long way and it can open avenues and teach you many things you may not have known about one's customs and character.

There will always be an atheist or an agnostic who will challenge and harangue and belligerently refuse to listen to a deist explain their reasoning for believing in their deity. There will always be an accusatory exchange that one side committed worse atrocities than the other from a historical standpoint and there will always be this medial divisiveness that will separate church from laboratory. The notions are intertwined, yes, the concepts of religion and science have and can cross paths – it is not the origin nor the nature of the conceptualizations or ideologies that are to blame. Rather, it is, as Cali pointed out, the ignorance and intolerance of some of these people that continually widens the rift. It is when one refuses to educate themselves about the nature of someone else's differing religious practices or adamantly refuses to “hear them out” simply because they're angered by the mention of the word “God” or “Hell” or “New Testament” that will continuously hold us back. Not everyone has been taught or has conditioned themselves to practice tolerance of differing beliefs and indoctrinations – not everyone knows that being antagonistic and forcefully persistent by shoving a dogma down an unwilling atheist or agnostic theist is simply not the way to go about co-existing. Until, some of these people can learn the specifics of being tolerant, being open-minded, and willing to learn about different customs, religious and spiritual beliefs, etc. than science and religion will always have conflicting notions and that rift will continue to widen.

 

[Will Graham]

Just to clear one thing up, I think people misread what Hal said. He never said that atheists have not waged war or done unspeakable things, he just pointed out that they have never done those things in the name of or for the sake of atheism. Whereas an incredible number of wars have been waged in the name of religion.

 

[Will Graham]

There is actually quite a bit of debate over whether Hitler was or wasn't a practicing/believing catholic till the end. Also regardless of that fact the people working for him were predominantly believers, who went with his whole 'I am doing God's work' spiel.

 

[coffeecup]

It really depends on people rather than the subject matter. Naturally there are areas (e.g., religion) that have greater conflict than others, but in the end it's the question of whether people with differing views can live among each other. And due to the nature of some subjects, there will always be differing views. I'm not sure if we'll ever come to a consensus on whether there is or is not a god, but that doesn't really matter. I think, in general, Christians and atheists are coexisting just fine. It's the extremist groups that use violence mucking it all up.

But then again, my standard for coexistence is pretty low. I don't really expect much from people. I don't expect everyone to hold hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire. Nor do I even expect people with differing views to ever be on friendly terms. That's all a pipe dream imo. So long as differing views don't lead to mass violence or oppression (and I mean extreme violence/oppression, some amount of discrimination is always to be expected), then I'd call that successful coexistence for the human race. You can't stop people from having different opinions or even disparaging others who hold beliefs opposite to their own. Despite this being a pretty low standard, we're still pretty far from reaching it. But I think we'll make it there someday. We've made quite a decent amount of progress since the birth of civilization. And just to clarify, this someday is definitely not going to be in our lifetime. But someday.

 

[Ilyena]

Hey.

Have you two read my new thread? Check it out.

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/t...for-my-atheists-friends?p=1003836#post1003836

I made it specifically for you.

I hope it encourages you to question and research some of the things you say in the future and not recite urban myths as if they were scientific or historic facts.

Please stick to the actual topic in the thread. If you want to promote your threads to someone, do it via PM. Thanks.

 

[CassinoChips]

Back on topic please.

 

[seddy-0]

it sucks to say but due to so much bigotry in this country. it is gonna be very hard for there to be co-existance. as stated earlier. people in the south are far more religious and vote almost souly on religion. problem with that is: the unites states is a melting pot of all faith's wether it be christianity, islam, pagan.etc.. with the two biggest religions going head to head and also the two most violent ones historically. christianity and islam. now i really don't wanna go there and say we will never have an islamic president. but with the way all these right wing christians are these days. anyone of a faith from the mid east will often be dubbed "terrorist". athiests are always being pecked at as well. its a belief, just like all the other religions, except athiesm is not a religion.. but a belief. people need to realize this. in politics. its not whats good for your religion is good for your country.. G.W. Bush was heavy on that.. but thankfully he never pushed through with a lot of that.

could there be an athiest president? this is possible but i think we would see a muslim in the oval office before we would see that. there is still a harsh stigma unfortunately against athiests here in the states.

pagan president? again highly unlikely at this point.

hindi president? could happen.

buddist? this to me would be the most likely one to happen before any of the above. i just feel there is a low stigma against buddhists, but i could be and am probably wrong on that. its just my view at this point on that one.

it just feels to me that american politics is still living in the past as far as belief's go. it seems we can't get past the way it was founded... on blood spilling and forced religion.. which is funny because the earliest settlers escaped the very thing that we still push to this day.. pushing a faith that all others feel is right, and telling everyone their belief is wrong because its not the same as the accuser.

the question is "can church and state co-exist?" my answer is yes it can, we just need both sides to have some updated views on the world, that you cannot rule because of faith. use your faith (church) to be a good person, use your political vision (state) to be a good leader. when you get too liberal or too conservative, that's when things get distorted. and one side shifts too much.

 

[Harlequin]

So uh.. first off, humans can't co-exist mainly because of the competitive nature of life. If we could just try to look beyond what was said by what leader to which society in what era and just look at the fundamental characteristics of human behaviour since maybe... forever, we'd see that it all came down to a basic need for humans to come out on top, in this life or the next. There have been wars waged over petty insults. It's not the insults that cause or fuel these wars it's the need for a victor in a competitive environment. Were the Crusades based on religion? Certainly. But religion was a convenient excuse for peasants to go wage war in a distant land and become something perhaps greater than a peasant. War was pretty much the only pastime for these people. Sport in Medieval days was for the rich. How many peasants could joust? To this day travelling gypsies across the world engage in bare knuckle boxing to settle disputes barely any of the participants even care for.

There's a running theme here, and it's not who believes what or who said what about who, it's competition. In any shape or form people can think of competing we first look for reasons to glorify it - because competition would be pointless without the glory - and then we subsequently try and farm that glory by winning. Anyone who proclaims the Crusades were about anything more than glory to the vast majority of the people involved more than likely has a chip on their shoulder.

There's no use looking back in condescension to more 'primitive' times, the fact of the matter is people haven't changed and never will. It would be more primitive in fact to disregard what we've learned as a society in thousands of years based on a false sense of progression. We live and we die, but we never progress.

 

[Will Graham]

So uh.. first off, humans can't co-exist mainly because of the competitive nature of life. If we could just try to look beyond what was said by what leader to which society in what era and just look at the fundamental characteristics of human behaviour since maybe... forever, we'd see that it all came down to a basic need for humans to come out on top, in this life or the next. There have been wars waged over petty insults. It's not the insults that cause or fuel these wars it's the need for a victor in a competitive environment. Were the Crusades based on religion? Certainly. But religion was a convenient excuse for peasants to go wage war in a distant land and become something perhaps greater than a peasant. War was pretty much the only pastime for these people. Sport in Medieval days was for the rich. How many peasants could joust? To this day travelling gypsies across the world engage in bare knuckle boxing to settle disputes barely any of the participants even care for.

There's a running theme here, and it's not who believes what or who said what about who, it's competition. In any shape or form people can think of competing we first look for reasons to glorify it - because competition would be pointless without the glory - and then we subsequently try and farm that glory by winning. Anyone who proclaims the Crusades were about anything more than glory to the vast majority of the people involved more than likely has a chip on their shoulder.

There's no use looking back in condescension to more 'primitive' times, the fact of the matter is people haven't changed and never will. It would be more primitive in fact to disregard what we've learned as a society in thousands of years based on a false sense of progression. We live and we die, but we never progress.

Women's rights, civil rights, abolishing slavery, and homosexual rights would all disagree with the idea that we have made no progress

 

[Harlequin]

Women's rights, civil rights, abolishing slavery, and homosexual rights would all disagree with the idea that we have made no progress

People aren't equal nor are they born equal. You will live a different life and meet different prejudices and opportunities depending on your gender, race, height, nationality, sexual orientation, health, etc. People are people and will always behave like people. All these human rights, abolished slavery, women's rights and whatever other example you want to throw into the mix changes nothing. In any case, how do we even know all these pieces of legislation are better for coexistence? We don't. But feel free to explain your argument in any case.

 

[Will Graham]

People aren't equal nor are they born equal. You will live a different life and meet different prejudices and opportunities depending on your gender, race, height, nationality, sexual orientation, health, etc. People are people and will always behave like people.

I agree here, people are not born as equals or into equal opportunities. None of that means that they cannot co-exist

All these human rights, abolished slavery, women's rights and whatever other example you want to throw into the mix changes nothing. In any case, how do we even know all these pieces of legislation are better for coexistence? We don't. But feel free to explain your argument in any case.

These legislations have drastically improved the lives of African-americans and women. A world where you could be lynched without consequence or bought and bartered is in no way preferable to ours. Your only argument is 'yeah but maybe it'd be better if that legislation never passed. we can't know'. Next time you are thirsty or hungry don't eat or drink, you might live forever, you can't know 100% that you wont

 

[Harlequin]

Nice bit of condescension at the end there, always nice. My argument wasn't that we can't know of an alternative, but that historically there have been instances in which the humanity of certain actions have been blurred. There are arguably instances in which it's better for coexistence to kill or oppress than to allow people to live free. The fundamental problem with coexistence however isn't actions but attitudes. People just don't care about one another and that has nothing to do with legislation here or there, people just don't give a flying fuck about each other and it breeds a whole host of additional factors which make coexistence impossible. Greed, jealousy, inconsideration, malice, revenge, egoism, the list goes on. They all create fractures in human society. All of it is amplified by the desensitisation we all feel as part of such an enormous global society. In theory people care, in practice very few do. If you're going to respond with "well xyz laws state that we do indeed care" don't bother because I won't respond to it.