Religion: The greatest strength or greatest weakness of humanity?

[bickelz]

But religion isn't the only reason people kill, we both know that. Plus many religion simply don't condone the act yet people will still do so.

If anything Religion is being used too modify the act so that they can feel good about it, it's not giving them motivation or urge to do so.

So the question is, what causes people to kill and segregate.

We know know of the most basic reason, survival.

No, this makes no sense. Why, in a hunter-gatherer society (which we came from), where there is only 20-30 people would you kill someone to survive? They help you to survive and you help them. The violence comes from inter-tribe coflicts. They fight with "the other". It's not about survival so much as it is about fear. Name the last war that was about survival. I'll give you a hint

Spoiler

there are none

.

People segregate because they're comfortable with what they know and are afraid of "the other". People kill out of that fear.

If we didn't kill each other, we'd survive better.

 

[Jana]

For me it is strenght, but telling that to someone who does not see it in that way is useless...
Chose your own answers to that question, I did that for myself and I have no doubts.

 

[Barnabas]

No, this makes no sense. Why, in a hunter-gatherer society (which we came from), where there is only 20-30 people would you kill someone to survive? They help you to survive and you help them. The violence comes from inter-tribe coflicts. They fight with "the other". It's not about survival so much as it is about fear. Name the last war that was about survival. I'll give you a hint

Spoiler

there are none

.

People segregate because they're comfortable with what they know and are afraid of "the other". People kill out of that fear.

If we didn't kill each other, we'd survive better.

first off war is a bit higher on the scale of things then where I wanted to go but sure why not.

The U.S. civil war was about survival. Let's not get into the whole argument of whether or not the Civil war was about states rights or slavery, it was about survival, both of which were a part of that.

The U.S. was on track to abolish slavery because of it's horrible nature, but the south needed slavery to survive, it couldn't afford to pay for workers to run their fields and they to be able to keep up with supply and demand that the rest of the country called on them for.

Abolishing slavery would destroyed them financially and as a result physically. first the decided that they simply wouldn't be a part of the union that was condemning their way of life, and when the union then threatened that way of life by force that fought for it.

Am I saying they were right in what they were fighting for, no but it was their survival none the less.

History is full of people fighting over resources and things similar all because they need them to survive.


But on a much smaller scale, people kill to survive. It is by no means the only reason they kill, but is not one that can be overlooked.

 

[bickelz]

first off war is a bit higher on the scale of things then where I wanted to go but sure why not.

Well, I'd go ahead and say that more people have died due to war than out of war.

The U.S. civil war was about survival. Let's not get into the whole argument of whether or not the Civil war was about states rights or slavery, it was about survival, both of which were a part of that.

The U.S. was on track to abolish slavery because of it's horrible nature, but the south needed slavery to survive, it couldn't afford to pay for workers to run their fields and they to be able to keep up with supply and demand that the rest of the country called on them for.

Abolishing slavery would destroyed them financially and as a result physically. first the decided that they simply wouldn't be a part of the union that was condemning their way of life, and when the union then threatened that way of life by force that fought for it.

Well, the north won and the south is fine. The civil war was fought to keep the union together. Abraham Lincoln said he only cared about preserving the union, not ending slavery.

Am I saying they were right in what they were fighting for, no but it was their survival none the less.

No, it wasn't for survival. It was about making money and not wanting a big federal government.

History is full of people fighting over resources and things similar all because they need them to survive.


But on a much smaller scale, people kill to survive. It is by no means the only reason they kill, but is not one that can be overlooked.

Sure, people fight over resources. But most wars fought over land have more to do with strategic position or pure want for the land because of a lust for power, not for resources. Not for survival.

And since I'm intent on breaking your balls, what would be a realistic hypothetical situation where you would have to kill to survive for reasons other than out of fear?

 

[Jana]

Btw. anyone who make war in the name of religion only looks for excuses. Let's face it! That same person would make it in the name of anything that is good reason. Like bullies who will bully one kid because overwight, another because of lowerweight, third because of bad grades and fourth because of high intelligence.

 

[bickelz]

Btw. anyone who make war in the name of religion only looks for excuses. Let's face it! That same person would make it in the name of anything that is good reason. Like bullies who will bully one kid because overwight, another because of lowerweight, third because of bad grades and fourth because of high intelligence.

So... people want to be violent so they find excuses to kill people just because that's what they do?

 

[Barnabas]

So... people want to be violent so they find excuses to kill people just because that's what they do?

That's really as far as I can figure, but this really isn't just about violence. My original response to Satya's post had to do with his claim that religion causes violence and division.

My reply said that people also respond violent and segregate the selves for arbitrary reasons.

I then stated that from my experience there is no real reason, then I went to reply that people have done this historically for survival.

 

[bickelz]

That's really as far as I can figure, but this really isn't just about violence. My original response to Satya's post had to do with his claim that religion causes violence and division.

My reply said that people also respond violent and segregate the selves for arbitrary reasons.

I then stated that from my experience there is no real reason, then I went to reply that people have done this historically for survival.

I realize that but I stated that there are reasons for violence and war makes no sense for survival.

 

[Barnabas]

I realize that but I stated that there are reasons for violence and war makes no sense for survival.

I heard and replied to that.

 

[bickelz]

I heard and replied to that.

And then you re-posted what you said earlier instead of disproving my point. I'm still waiting on that hypothetical situation I asked for earlier but I digress.

I'm staring to get frustrated with people who can't back what they say up. It's all talking points. There's nothing under what they say, no depth. And then you push them to the point where they can't answer and they still insist you're wrong and their pov is the logical one. I'm losing faith in a lot of people for this because it's easy to see through what they say.

Then a part of me realizes that none of that really matters.

 

[Barnabas]

And then you re-posted what you said earlier instead of disproving my point. I'm still waiting on that hypothetical situation I asked for earlier but I digress.

I'm staring to get frustrated with people who can't back what they say up. It's all talking points. There's nothing under what they say, no depth. And then you push them to the point where they can't answer and they still insist you're wrong and their pov is the logical one. I'm losing faith in a lot of people for this because it's easy to see through what they say.

Then a part of me realizes that none of that really matters.

aaaannnnddddd I'm done here, ad hom is kind of deal breaker for me

 

[Satya]

Views on human nature tend to inherently be subjective. Some people, particularly those of a Judeo-Christian background, simply view humans as innately savage and brutal creatures. You are not going to get an evolutionary perspective from them as to how that savagery and brutality inherently improves fitness.

 

[Barnabas]

Views on human nature tend to inherently be subjective. Some people, particularly those of a Judeo-Christian background, simply view humans as innately savage and brutal creatures. You are not going to get an evolutionary perspective from them as to how that savagery and brutality inherently improves fitness.

false assumptions about people with Judeo-Christian backgrounds

 

[Psalm]

Views on human nature tend to inherently be subjective. Some people, particularly those of a Judeo-Christian background, simply view humans as innately savage and brutal creatures. You are not going to get an evolutionary perspective from them as to how that savagery and brutality inherently improves fitness.

I'm of a Judeo-Christian background and, while I don't know about evolution (I certainly believe it's possible and most likely happened) I think of humans as wonderful people.

How did you ever get this assumption? I've never thought of us as innately savage. I think we're innately cunning, intelligent, and strong; with a responsibility to be wardens of our Earth.

This is getting weirder by the post lol. No clue where these assumptions come from. I go against every single one I've read so far.

Edit: Also, I have never thought savagery could possibly lead to better health. Health is a balance. Savagery, innately destructive, upsets balance.

 

[Razare]

I think religions need to be taken for what they are, and not assessed based on the proponents and practitioners of the religion. Humans separate themselves over differences, even if the spirit of their religion seeks to unite. This is one of the many reasons we are imperfect. If a religion that seeks to unite is being subverted by its practitioners to divide, I wouldn't point the finger at the religion.

It's like Jesus spoke during his era, that those who followed him did not begin to comprehend what he meant. It still happens today, but I think we've largely improved.

Is it a net positive of negative? I think faith is a net positive. Religious establishments are a way of spreading faith, but in doing so they have caused problems historically. Today, I think they solve more problems than they create; at least in the USA. In regions where they are the source of conflict, their would likely be much instability with or without religious divides. In stable countries, people generally do not kill over religion, which indicates to me that there are other problems in those societies and they chose to divide themselves along religious lines as a natural human reaction to danger and instability in their region. If the religion wasn't there to divide along, then they would find another way to separate their populations, either ethnically, culturally, or idealistically.

 

[Stella]

Well, the way I define religion is putting people who believe most of the same things in a box. Spirituality, on the other hand, is putting everyone in their own box. For example, I would be considered Christian but my beliefs do not always fit in the Christian box.

Religion says you must believe X,Y, and Z and if you don't you are wrong.

From what I know about the world, people don't like to be wrong. Saying someone is wrong makes them angry. Disagreeing pulls people and groups apart. From that, you get trouble.

Based on this, religion is a big weakness.

 

[randomsomeone]

Religion says you must believe X,Y, and Z and if you don't you are wrong.

Based on this, religion is a big weakness.

I do agree with this. The problem perhaps is that there may be (at present) a proliferation of splinter religions who go down this path. This may work for some initially, but it is not a path I recommend long term.

I enjoy religion (the faith-community of which I am a part) only because of the vast diversity in contains, embraces and (in some ways) encourages. In fact, religion has expanded wildly the options I have for living my faith-life, far, far beyond what I knew or thought was possible.

The funny thing is that with all mind-numbing richness that is sitting there, some do not see it, and perceive only a limited view. This is the odd thing about religion....sometimes (even often) we put limits that aren't even there. We see things askew. I run to this all the time.

And if there are certain limits, once we understand the back-story, it's like the perceived limits that do exist help us to, holistically, live with a real degree of liberty and inner freedom. If we come to accept and understand this faith-landscape, suddenly a whole galaxy of options opens for us....we might never have known them otherwise.

 

[barbad0s]

Religion says you must believe X,Y, and Z and if you don't you are wrong.

Not all of them.

From what I know about the world, people don't like to be wrong. Saying someone is wrong makes them angry. Disagreeing pulls people and groups apart. From that, you get trouble.

Based on this, religion is a big weakness.

Why not both?

I would think if religion didn't exist in the first place, the world would be a very different place compared to what it had been in the past, and what it is now. Because something exists, we know the good and the bad. So is religion.

It shows our best and worst capacities as human beings.

I agree.