"How could anyone,therefore, be so wrong-headed as to argue against the selective use of violence against your own species?"

Virtually every government on Earth seems to be in agreement with that proposition, Amos! ;-) What else are they building armies, navies, and air forces for?


Quite aside from that, however, your closing statements are quite correct, and deserve to be repeated, I think:

The popularity of theism (mono-, poly- and pan-)is no argument in its favor in a tribunal of truth. Neither is the popularity of pure materialism a supportive argument for its correctness. Authority (scientist or priest) is not an argument. The thing must be decided on its (own) merits, and because of its highly phenomenological nature, probably by each individual for himself.

Ain't nobody else gonna walk it for you.
You gotta walk the lonesome valley for yourself.

****

I am in complete agreement with that. Each individual must decide for himself whether he wants to be a materialist or a person with spiritual beliefs or someone who embraces both materialism AND spiritual philosophy. He must decide for himself whether he defines himself as an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Taoist or a Jane or a Parsee or a Jew (religiously speaking) or a Wiccan or a Satanist or a free thinker or someone who believes absolutely nothing at all (strictly theoretical concept...I've never encountered anyone who believes nothing at all).

And once he does decide it, whatever it is...fine. He has decided it for himself. Not for anybody else. Not to force upon anybody else. Just for himself. Period. And that's okay.

As I've said again and again, I enjoy living in a world of many beliefs and viewpoints. I much prefer it to a world where everyone thinks in lockstep according to a single creed. Such a world would be stultifying, paralyzed in its thinking, and probably quite oppressive.